An Outsider in Saul Alinsky's World 2007

Appalachian State 34, University of Michigan 32

2007-09-02T06:55:00.000-05:00

Okay, first the disclaimers:

I'm a Michigan State Fan; this implies a healthy hate for the teams from Ann Arbor (which means I got great enjoyment from Michigan's loss, never mind the joy from a massive underdog's victory).
The Appalachian State University Mountaineers are repeat champions. I-AA champions true, but the past two years they've played a full playoff schedule and won the national I-AA championships. They're probably better than Minnesota, Michigan State and a couple other B10 also-rans. Many other teams have backed out on playing them, so give Michigan props for sticking with their scheduled game.
Lloyd Carr is not worthy of his present post (assuming he still has the post when you read this). 1997 no longer exists, as it's 2007, not 1998.
The Big Ten is no longer an elite college football conference (and is probably fading in other sports). The Big Ten is based in a group of states which have stagnated population-wise since the seventies (if not earlier), the bowls are in places that give the other conferences what amounts to a regional advantage, and Big Ten teams have generally not done as well in bowls as the other three conferences.

But still....hunh?

Appalachian State is an excellent team in their league, but they're still I-AA (or whatever they call it now), a second-rate team. Michigan had the talent, the name, the wherewithal and the home field advantage.

This hurts the Big Ten deeply. More than the bowl losses (to good teams). More than losses to MAC teams and other lesser teams (lesser yeah, but one can say they're playing over themselves).

After all, we're talking about Michigan, a flagship team in the conference. The team everyone knows, for good or ill. The team that's used as the measuring stick. THE brand.

How big is Michigan? Here's a joke I've heard and said myself:

Q: Do Michigan and Ohio have pro football teams?
A: Yes, they're based in Ann Arbor and Columbus.

And they were consensus #5, at least. Some places had them ranked #1 or 1A with Ohio State (again!).

And #5 just shouldn't lose to a Division 1-AA team.

This bodes ill for all B10 teams. From Minnesota to Ohio State, the conference is by definition ranked lower. Any team's victory is reduced, all losses more expected. And since image counts for a lot in College Football (and all college sports), Michigan's loss spreads to the rest of the Big Ten.

This defeat also harms the Mid-American Conference. Being the second conference (below the Big Ten) in the midwest, it pretty much takes whomever doesn't make it in the Big Ten. Ergo, their fortunes have dropped by extension. They may be able to avoid much of the harm, as they've become as much a national conference (thanks to their willingness to do whatever it takes to get on TV and their reputation as a giant-killer), but some will still be transfered to them.

Benefitting directly are The Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference. The Sun Belt Conference and Conference USA also benefit by extension. And the Southern Conference (probably the most important conference historically, given the list of its former members) got yet another notch in its belt.

Congratulations to Apallachian State. As I've said before (and it bears repeating), this is a good team. They've won the 1-AA championship twice in a row, are favorites to win their third championship, and would probably beat some of the lesser B10 teams (like Michigan State...).

But still....hunh?

Thoughts On The Michigan State Spartan Sports Team in the Beginning of the Football Season

2007-08-31T21:08:00.000-05:00

After the multiplied disasters that have been the past three seasons, the Michigan State University Spartans start their Football Season this Saturday at home against the University of Alabama Birmingham Blazers, a good school which is unfortunately best known for its football program's extracurricular activities.

Now, I'm not about to predict a UAB victory over Michigan State (the Gambling Lines are predicting an MSU slaughter; I'd bet on UAB with the points myself), but the Spartans are not anywhere near where they were in the eighties, or during much of the nineties. Indeed, the Spartans are but a shell of what they have been for a while and things may have changed.

The fact is, Michigan State has always been the second university in Michigan. It was established second, it was planned as a specialized place (versus the generalized mission of Michigan since its founding) and has never gotten "the respect it deserves" (in quotes because that CAN be debated. Some cases the respect is deserved, but too often not). And when it takes its lack of respect seriously, it has earned its respect.

This is especially true in Football. Outside of the 1950s and 1960s (and this is not continuous, MSU was known for its rising and falling during that time), MSU was always at a disadvantage against Michigan, and for good reason. Michigan was one of the Pioneer teams in College Football, and State was more a regional school with a head full of ambitions than an actual nationally known school. Michigan was usually able to hold MSU at bay, and only once did a class of Wolverines go through without a win against MSU.

However, during much of the eighties and nineties, Wolverine Football Teams had to deal with Spartan Football Teams seriously, as MSU could always defeat UofM and did often enough. Between 1980 and 2005, every player who played four-plus years for the Michigan Wolverines had to deal with losing at least once to the Spartans.

Right now, nobody on the Wolverine team has had to deal with losing to MSU, and it hardly looks like they will have to this year. Indeed, over the past five years there has developed a sea-change in the MSU psyche. They no longer feel they belong with the Michigans, Ohio States and Wisconsins of the league. They feel they're second-league. Not only that, but they've developed the habit of playing three quarters of a four-quarter game.

What that means: Michigan State has become a third-tier team. Meaning they're fighting not so much against Michigan and Notre Dame for their recruits, but against Eastern Michigan (the Eagles) and Central Michigan (the Chippewas). And while Mid-American Conference teams have enough of a chip on their shoulder to make them dangerous (Ask Michigan State, they almost started their "rivalry" against Central Michigan 0-3), they're hardly top-ranked. They get attention only because they're willing to change their schedule willy-nilly for television coverage and are willing to break schedules their teams make.

How bad has it gotten? Well, there's always noise on how Michigan was cheated out of 1990 and 2001. While the UofM fans have their points (especially 2001, which I believe the Wolverines had won and gave away), there's always been enough people to argue and enough points to make to defend the MSU wins. Well, it becomes harder and harder to debate those games, not because the points become harder, but because it becomes harder to believe MSU could ever defeat Michigan in football. And since winners tend to make AND REMAKE history (note the emphasis; history is more fluid than people care to believe), the idea of State Cheating to Win has gained traction by the absence of credibility, thanks by the collapse of the MSU football team.

In short, the recent past of MSU's Football team has cast a bleak eye on its past.

It's going to take a few years for MSU to get back. They'll have to rebuild their psyche and their team. All it takes is going that extra mile, something Spartans have done historically when they've felt the need.

I know, for I've seen it both in books and in front of my own eyes.

Meditation on Warhol's 15 minutes of fame

2007-05-29T20:28:00.000-05:00

First, the actual quote by Andy Warhol:In the future everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.
Now, me:

I've been thinking about the comment by Andy Warhol's comment about everyone being famous for fifteen minutes. I think I understand it (though not the way he does).

The thing is, most people are more rabidly private than we'd like to admit to the world. We don't mind being well-known to our friends and family and will tolerate goodwill (both taking and giving) from the neighborhood and our selected stages; but we'd rather have the gaze of the world diverted from ourselves as much as possible. Indeed, we don't mind when certain stars get famous for odd actions (Britney Spears cutting her hair, Paris without underpants, etc.) as it makes it less likely that we'll get the spotlight shown on us.

But we'll deal with a certain amount of fame, if need be.

The question is, how much fame is too much fame?

More to the point, how much fame can be dealt with by people who have a life and aren't ready to give up everything in order to seek Fame's favor?

Think of it for a minute: Most people we see who are famous spend most of their time seeking out the fame, whether by making it come to them or by keeping its gaze on them. They'll divorce and/or marry so that they (singly or doubly) can work towards fame, set aside other interests so that fame comes to them, and work their schedule so that most (if not all) their efforts are aimed at fame.

Think: How many people do you know who have divorced someone they were stuck with during their "salad days" when they got to eat at the steak bar of fame? Marilyn Monroe, Johnny Cash, John Lennon and Garth Brooks are three people who come to mind immediately in my head. Others didn't marry until they were secure enough in their success. Bill Gates and Tiger Woods come to mind here.

Many of the rest of us have wives/husbands/significant others who demand our time and attentions and have expectations of regularity of us. We also have friends who we're not ready to toss aside for the sake of someone who might be able to push us to the next level. There's also things we like to do and habits we like (or not) which take up time and attention that could be pushed for the purpose of fame.

And finally, we have to want it enough to deny ourselves something. One of my favorite quotes is from a book on Malcolm McLaren says that famous people aren't famous because of something they have that we lack, they're famous because of something they lack that we have. In short, they're compensating for some inner shortcoming by exhibitionism.

So now the question: What does Warhol's quote mean?

I take it to mean that people will have just a bit more fame than they can handle. We get known by more and more people, until we get to a point where we suddenly need to have our own space. The rabble who have come to know us because of the fame we've cultivated stick around a bit too long, then learn to leave us alone with our private lives.

People either overdose on fame, or stick around too long and seem a bit too needy. Either way, they've reached a point where they can't handle the expectations of their fame, and people start turning towards other people.

Notice that I don't state what the expectations of Fame are. Sometimes the expectations change, sometimes the person changes, sometimes the world changes independent of the two. Either way, the fame seeker can't handle the changes to Fame's demands and falls off the radar.

Just a thought...

Crisis on the Horizon 5: McGovernment Arising

2007-04-24T13:40:00.000-05:00

I remember a time when people actually expected stuff to be done by the government.

I remember the trash being picked up weekly and nobody commenting on it.
I remember when, after snowstorms, the streets were pretty much plowed immediately. No word on "roads of importance," arteries to be focused on or weeks before roads were to be plowed.
I remember a time when they fixed roads and fixed them good. None of this "one year and already the crap is falling apart (I-94, northwest Indiana)."
I remember when they didn't fiddle about with the indexes. When the inflation index was posted, everything was counted, including gas (up 100%+ in 7 years), food and housing. Unemployment was people unemployed, not people holding up hopes for a job, any job.
Schools were funded well enough, and people expected good things from them.

So what happened? Since when did we get to expect our government to suck, and suck bad?

I'm thinking it started with the tax cut movement in the seventies. Proposition 13 in California put limits on tax increases which weren't linked to inflation, but instead were voted upon. This became a nationwide phenomenon. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it changed how people viewed taxes and government.

Amongst other things, the rational went from "everyone sharing the load" to "whom can we tax that can't fight back." Suddenly "sin taxes" became big (cigarette taxes, lottery) and the idea of taxing "out-of staters and tourists" grew big. Suddenly everyone wanted to create destinations for visitors to spend their money (casino boats, complete with everything you might want so who'd want to come out and visit the neighborhood?), "bring in jobs" (a few low-wage, short-term jobs for college-age kids to work at) and fill the coffers. Convention centers became more important than infrastructure, and attractions became more important than industry.

Needless to say, government (and everything connected to it) becomes the enemy. Sin Taxes curse everything they touch (why else do you think smoking is increasing in the young?), casino money is used to fill in gaps in State Spending, Convention Centers (and other attractions for Corporations and their "associates") bloat and necessary investments fall off. There's a few places where people still view government as useful (and taxes as a price paid for a useful, social society) but they're endangered islands, already known as more evil than Al Quida.

And government falls apart, aided and abetted by the enemies of the government. Supreme Court rulings place cities and states at the mercy of its workers as it frees corporations to destroy and gut the guarantees they once gave their workers. Roads slowly grow worse as we grow used to the worse roads. Cops become the enemy, and "snitching" becomes a worse crime than murder or raping children.

Of course, the question becomes "for whom does the McGovernment suck?"

If I were a corporation or in the top 10% of earnings, I'd say the government does well by me. Everything I want gets built, the tax burden slowly but surely gets shifted over to the poorer Americans, and I can do what I pretty much need to do to insure my wealth -- even shift it overseas. And there's lawyers, courts, lawmakers and other peoples able, willing and desperate to do my bidding.

So, in short the Government still works for the rich and for corporations.

As for the rest of us, the government grows worse and worse. Roads and other services become privatized (meaning they become subjected to the profiteering classes) and tolled. Affordable housing gets torn down and replaced by tract-mansions, leaving the poor to go to the motels and apartments, since many of these poor have never learned (and were never taught) about civilized society but instead of the rough, vicious rules of gang life and poverty they're bringing down the apartment complexes who'll take them in (probably thanks to some arm-twisting from these same governments in an attempt to force an increase in home ownership).

And we grow to hate the governing classes, ascribing them the same insanity and evil selfishness we still ascribe to Teamsters and Auto Workers. We pray for their come-uppance and hold tight to our guns in preparation for the day when God tells us to shoot them (For His Sake, of course)

And we grow poorer and meaner.

And those who wonder why...we shoot.

Crisis On the Horizon 4: Infrastructure Collapse

2007-03-24T22:36:00.000-05:00

The past couple of summers have been interesting in Northwest Indiana. The Borman has been getting rebuilt, Calumet Avenue has finally been completed all the way to US 30 (eighty years in the making), and the Dan Ryan if finally getting is total makeover. Meanwhile the Indiana Harbor Channel inches its way towards a dredging and cleaning (hah) and the Cline Avenue interchange is beginning to fall apart a mere few years after it was finished. Some parts seemed to be falling apart even before it was finished. And people are belly-aching over what happens when a stretch of CTA rail gets a needed rebuild.

Meanwhile there's reports that the pipes underneath the cities are falling apart. I know that one pipe going down Manor Street has opened up at two different places within a block, and while a water company's truck being swallowed up by a sinkhole in Portland Oregon may be funny, the loss of a billion gallons of water a day underneath New York isn't (especially since fixing that leak might be able to stop the damming of a river in upstate New York). And they're not the only tunnels worried about: Many of the passenger train tunnels on the Northeast Corridor are well on their way to falling apart, and would probably be closed down by now if it weren't for the fact that the trains are electric.

Meanwhile, the electric seems to be getting worse and worse. Mind you, part of that is the peak oil about to hit us full in the face, but ever since the idea of enlightened regulation was replaced by "markets, markets and more markets" (and you thought Libertarians were noiseboxes with no effect on American Politics) service has become worse and worse. It used to take an act of God to cause a blackout, now one tree limb touching the right spot causes whole states to black out. Thing is, we didn't used to have these limbs hanging out -- the companies would trim the trees back in the day. Now they cut corners, and millions lose power.

And let's not talk about New Orleans, either. I've done enough of that.

Mind you, I tend to go for the most expensive stuff, and that includes building and fixing things. While I can understand why one would want to do things a little less well than one would like (two rail lines instead of three, planning 75 years instead of 100 years), there's something absolutely wrong when we keep building to a thirty year lifespan for stuff that should be made to stand for centuries.

This problem will only become greater as oil and liquid energy becomes scarcer. After all, society is based on an allocation of energy. In the United States, we allow the energy to be distributed via private channels, with some used by public agencies to fix and build what's supposed to benefit the public. (Yes, the private sector is supposed to benefit the public, but that benefit is mainly to the investors and the companies, with society-wide benefits a side-benefit).

Presently we're pulling in enough energy of all types to do everything we seem to want, even at a price that's double of what it was less than seven years ago (and putting a lie to the idea that inflation has been controlled during the Bush Jr. Era, as fuel is an important part of the American lifestyle). What happens, though, once the amount of energy starts dropping? Sticking in Flourescent Lights in every lamp possible would only lead to a limited impact, and the amount of energy will keep dropping.

What will be kept up?

Will anything be kept up?

Surely the cities will find themselves falling apart, if they're not doing so already. Much of the rise of the American City has been less a return to the vitality of the fifties and before, and more a recreation of the city as a playground for empty-nesters and the Young and Childless. When society decides they can't keep up this fantasy, we're going to see things REALLY fall apart.

Whether this will lead to benefits for the rural areas is also iffy. After all, we're talking about city folk. Problem is, the people who make it to the city are less likely to survive in a rural setting. They tend to not have any of the skills that rural places need, and those who can make lots of money in an urban setting have skills that work ONLY in an urban setting. Poor, unskilled people can live in a city, place them in the hinterlands and they'll either run back to the city or they'll die.

And what happens when there's no city for them to escape to?

Crisis on the Horizon 3: Global Warming/Climate Change

2007-03-18T18:34:00.000-05:00

Okay, some might say this is number one while others think I'm making mountains our of molehills that exist only in my mind; I figure I'm placing this after some more acute problems because if we solve problem one and muddle through problem two, this will still exist.

In short, the industrial revolution has created an engine of change that, while small and local in isolation, adds up to worldwide changes when many are working at the same time. It's called the machine.

Think of it: You got millions of power generators burning up fuel, heating up the area around them and throwing heat-trapping gasses into the air. Add in millions of factories and millions of cars which, while they don't produce 24/7, add in their share of heat and gasses when operating. Also include air conditioners (which move heat outside and blow "cool air" inside"), heaters, refrigerators, computers, incadescent lights and other small items which throw up small amounts of heat themselves, and one shouldn't wonder why we're warming up but instead why things aren't yet over the edge.

Compare this with your average volcano: It spews forth tonnes and tonnes of gasses and dust for great effect, but the effect stops. There's no constant spewing, as is the case with the millions of factories, cars and houses. And when the volcanos are quiet for years, their effects tend to fade out. It takes a Krakatoa to affect weather for hundreds of years, and you get that rarely.

So we're in agreement that humans can affect weather. The question, of course, is which way.

There's two theories (three, really) for how we could affect the environment:

Heat up the world until it turns into Venus
Overload the system, freeze the world into an icicle
Speed up the cycle of freeze/warm

All three of these scenarios has made it into the public mind at one point or another. Right now, of course, the first alternative is considered the most obvious, although I've always found it interesting that books, radio and movies always seem to evoke the freeze-over scenario readily (The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind). Michael Crichton believes that, ha in the third theory, in which we speed up what's alread happening.

Of course, it's not just warming. Recently we've felt a cooling, thanks to China going whole-hog into coal plants and lack of pollution controls. Indeed, many places along the Pacific Coast have found themselves in violation of The Clean Air Act through nothing of their own actions. That has been affecting Thailand and Bangladesh, because the dust spreads out and blocks the surround areas. We may even see a drop of average temperatures over the next few years as China's industrialization matures.

And, fo course, there's the question of whether this is such a bad thing. One thin line of thought involves the possibility of a coming Ice Age and that only Man's industrial activity keeps the earth from becoming an icebox. Not really much out there, but this interesting essay goes into some intriguing points, based oddly enough from a Gaian viewpoint. I don't necessarily believe in it lock, stock and barrell, but I find it entertaining and intriguing for what it suggests.

Three down, at least one more to go...then I'll probably go into detail some of the point of my second crisis (the debt stuff)

Crisis on the Horizon 2: Hyper-indebtedness

2007-03-09T22:27:00.000-06:00

Read past the appearent health of the economy (as shaky as it is in March of 2007) and you find debt everywhere:

Federal Debt: The general fund is over 8 3/4 TRILLION dollars in the red and rising recklessly. We've got two entitlement programs which are actually running surpluses, but the main fund is so deeply in debt that it swamps them over.

What's interesting is that when you control for inflation the debt of the United States Government has actually held stable between World War 2 and Reaganomics. That was through the Eisenhower Expressway Building, Vietnam, Watergate, OPEC's quadrupling of prices in 1973, and Iran in 1978.

Not only that, but since then the only time the debt stablized or fell (yes, fell) was during Clinton's administration. Remember that? And once you forget the blue dress, you'll understand just how good we had it then.

So...for the past twenty-six years or so, we've been spending ourselves into a feel-good emotion with no relation to reality. Deficit Spending, thanks to Reagan and Bush (with the surrender of the Congress to be sure, but they took their cue from the Presidents) and the Fundamentalist in love with Reagan/Bush/Bush and the Military Brass and the Super-Rich (who have benefited handsomely) and the Corporations.

And what did we get for this spending? The belief that Government can only f*ck things up, safety nets wrecked and torn almost beyond saving, Corporate Welfare for companies willing to export their production to China, the Wal-Martization of Rural America, "public-private" as an adjective, the utter destruction of the public sphere in American Life and worship of the rich as our new "state" religion.

Consumer (Credit Card) Debt: Would you believe that for the past twenty months we (as American Consumers) owe more than we have saved?

The last time that happened was in the Great Depression, when we had OFFICIAL unemployment rates of up to 25%. I'd be curious as to whether the measurements we used back then would give us the same level of unemployment as before.

I remember this wonderful thing known as layaway. You'd make payments on an item you wanted to buy, and when you paid it off it was yours. No immediate gratification, no usurous levels of interest, no threats from lawers when you fell back on your payments. But hey...why worry about waiting when you can worry about making payments?
Housing Bubble (and Housing-based Debt): So now people have come to believe that buying a house is the same as gaining money for retirement. Never mind that wages have stayed steady or fallen for the lower 4/5ths of the population; housing prices have risen radically over the past ten years.

What's really overheated the housing portion of this mix is that much of the loading was based on "adjustible rate mortgages" and "interest only mortgages" loans. It really appears that people were expecting the economy to go into overdrive and take them literally over the top within a few years. When that didn't happen (or they lost their jobs -- a increasingly frequent happening in this post-911 economy), the arms ratcheted upwards...and people are losing their homes.

It's actually getting so bad that many mortgaging companies are beginning to die off in one way or another. One wonders what will happen when the government decides to re-regulate this. I know there's been a bunch of ugly loans, but can you imagine the problem when the government starts putting requirements on reporting earnings in the form of "you must report only money recieved, NOT FULL PAYMENTS REPORTED.

You know how this housing bubble started, do you? It started when they started tearing down those oversized buildings known as "the projects" in the inner cities. With nothing being added to replace the towers (outside of hyperexpensive rat-traps for the rich and decadent), the former residents of these ghettos (poor, usually black (yes, it's fact), used to violence as a way of life, death and getting things, and deeply into the drug culture) scattered into other poorer neighborhoods, where they immediately raised the violence ante in what were once poor but relatively peaceful inner suburbs. That, of course, put pressure on all suburbs, leading to the housing bubble in the Suburbs and the new Downtowns.
Student Loans: Since when did we come to believe that an educated populace was a luxury that had to be paid for by those seeking that education?

For the past forty years, state and federal funding for colleges and universities has dropped, both in relation to inflation and often in relation to the year before. To fill in the blanks, tuition prices have risen at rates well above inflation. Add into that the spiraling inflation of textbooks (with the practice of a "new edition" ever three years despite nothing being added on) and the now ever-shaky job market, and you have a situation where the less-than-heavily-endowed student (whether through sports or a fat trust fund) must take out loans and gamble on making a success of him/herself.

Consider what you get nowadays when you take out a "student loan:" a loan which you will have to repay, whether you're able to or not. While you can get some very good rates (I have one at 3.26%) and "liberal" payment postponement plans, there will be no way for you to cancel it. If you get sick, the principle increases. If you're unemployed for a long time, the principle increases. If you lose your house due to a disaster, you'll have to put your student loan ahead of your house and car. You owe and retire, your student loan gets to raid your retirement and Social Security.

I understand why they did this in the first place -- student loans used to be done only to people trying to be doctors, lawyers or something else that would earn them millions; all the while attending Ivy League schools. But now, with many people taking out the loans because they feel they have to (especially the poor), lots of people are making school into a high-stakes gamble hoping they'll strike it rich enough to pay back what they owe in a job market which has pretty much turned on anything not sporting a CXO title.
Retirement Indebtedness: While much of this is a Governmental problem (thanks to Supreme Court judgements that tied Governments' hands while freeing Corporations to act as they please in this issue), this reaches to many companies and corporations who once gave their retirees promises of a good retirement and are coming to regret this decision.

And this has nothing to do with underfunding, at least on the governmental level: many cities, townships, school districts, counties and states are now staring at retirement responsibilities which threaten to eat up the whole of their budgets in the future. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities can't really do much to reduce their upcoming responsibilities, many of these places (especially cities which have historically had wealthy workers but have since lost the industries that made these workers wealthy) will find their residents ready to kill because they're stuck with roads that need fixing, pipes that need relaying, buildings that need fixing and staffs that need filling; but their budgets will be forced to go wholly towards former workers who retired years before.

Corporations have done stuff to protect themselves from the above threat; but whether it will be enough is another question. Health outlays threaten to throw all calculations out the window, making even the healthiest corporation with a pension responsibility in threat of bankruptcy.

Not a pretty story, is it?

Now admittedly this debt would make sense if it were investments; say like the spending for the Interstate System. Indeed, if one were to look at an inflation-corrected graph of the National Debt, you'd find that the debt stayed steady during much of that time. That was because much of the debt was investment that was returned over the years, with the Inflation working as wealth redistribution (during low-inflation times the money went to the poor, with high-inflation times it went to the rich). So how does this debt measure up?

Too many governments have recently been gutted of all but the basic forms of taxation power. While a little fiscal responsibility never hurt anyone, there's something wrong with a government that creates lotteries so that they can steal money from the schools in order to fund tax write-off and boat docks for the rich.

Consumer Credit works best in limited areas. Housing (see below), Automobiles and certain items need credit, other areas can be done through layaway (you pick something, you pay it off, the store keeps it for you, when you're paid off you get it. Requires discipline to pay off for stuff you don't have yet). They can help during emergencies (injury, broken refridgerator, death of grampa) and credit cards can be used to reduce your need of on-hand cash. However, credit cards are almost always used for purchases, so rarely can they be called investments in the future (and if anyone tells you to charge like crazy for this reason, RUN!)
The housing bubble, while an investment in buildings, depends too much on people earning money. Not only that, but at some point people won't bite at the excessively expensive houses built or existing, no matter how many ghetto refugees you throw at them.
Student Loans would make sense if there were the possibility for steady employment that paid well and allowed the student loanees to pay it back (assuming reasonable decisions; one cannot expect a philosophy major to get a PhD on Student Loans as there would be an extremely low chance for payback). However the job market and job environments make this almost a crap-shoot.
Retirement Indebtedness has no relation to future investments, and whomever owes it has to fund it from their income.

Again, not a nice picture. Like we're paying for the past instead of investing for the future (even with student loans; when there are no jobs or you spend buckets of time looking, you're not reaping the benefits). And paying off the past is always harder than investing for the future, as catchup is harder than moving forward.

Crisis on the Horizon 1: Peak Oil

2007-02-26T23:15:00.000-06:00

Here's my first posting on what I see are the coming problems we'll have to deal with in the coming years. It involves Oil.

Or, more to the point, the fact that soon we'll start truly running out of the liquid stuff.

Now, the fact is that Oil isn't the only energy source we have. After all, nuclear gives us (in the US) an average of 20% of our electricity needs. Coal gives another sizeable hunk, and can be rejiggered into gas or diesel to use in are vehicles. We have enough Dams in this nation to give certain areas in the United States plenty of energy (and it's not the United States who have this wealth, as well -- Egypt exports energy to much of Africa thanks to the Aswan High Dam). And there's an active alternative energies support system that is presently giving many people most, if not all, their present energy needs.

So we're not going to lose all our energy yet.

However, Oil has many advantages that the above sources don't have:

Oil is liquid, which makes it easier to transport.
Oil is relatively clean. No need to worry about poisons, pollution or Plutonium damaging the planet for millions of years.
Oil can be carried along cheaply, and the technology has developed over the years for distance, power or torque.
No need for a grid to use it.

And consider that (outside of the Northeastern Megalopolis) we exclusively use liquid petroleum products for transport (and even in the Megalopolis petrol is the energy used by the majority of vehicles in use at any one time); and you can see a problem is coming up.

And the thing is, even with the gasification of coal, the amount of energy gotten cannot be matched by Oil or Natural Gas today. And there isn't really enough Gasification plants out there to cover what will be needed in the future.

And the four biggest fields out there have either proven to be in decline or are suspected to be in decline. The East Texas fields are already exhausted (as are the Oklahoma and on-shore Louisiana fields).

As an example of this, I remember visiting the Oklahoma capitol buildilng on two occasions: in 1976 and 1996. The first time the oilwell had a massive sign talking about how the oil is taken from directly underneath the Capitol building, and had graphic depictions of the logos of the oil companies that bought the crude (in full color, let me add). In 1996, the sign was reduced to a small board referring to where the oil came from and the depletion date (1996, oddly enough, I believe) and a single company listed (Phillips 66, in an old-style orange-and-white format).

They keep finding Oil, but rarely is it in big pools that are easily exploited and ready to use. Nowadays they're buried under tons of salt water or in dangerous areas or are overloaded with Sulfer or are locked in shale. It's getting to where you'll use more energy to get at the stuff then you'll get from the oil (at which point you might as well leave it alone).

So what will happen?

First off, we won't run out of oil itself. We will, however, get to the point where what we get, however easy it is to get, will remain unused because our refining methods require larger crude inputs than can be supplied.
Second, before all this happens we'll go crazy trying to make cars that only run on electricity (with or without gas or diesel). This can already be seen with the Chevy Volt and with Wal-Mart's hybrid truck project. More will follow, such as UPS and the continued efforts with the hybrid car concept in other companies. Whether they'll be affordable (especially when the other debt bubbles collapse and prices for gas-only trade-ins fall through the basement) is another question.
Third, eventually there will have to be rationing. My guess is that suddenly there will be a massive order of busses, and that GM and Ford will be magically saved with such an order. There will also be a sudden requisitioning of tour busses to use for commuting, as a stop-gap. Travel to and from church will, of course, be allowed (although how many people will remain believers when their favored beliefs require heavy costs to support is questionable), as will certain other, more local trips (shopping, medical visits, mall visit) -- at least for a while.
Fourth, watch out as people struggle to deal with the new realities. Divorces will be delayed (or put aside), people will struggle with learning how to be friendly with their neighbors, lots of formerly precious baubles will be tossed aside as useless junk, people will learn to retrofit their homes with other sources for heating fuel.
Trucks and certain mass-transit vehicles (busses, vans) will be made, built and used and given preference over automobiles.

The above, of course, assumes a slower change with a leadership ready and able to force the adjustments. Anything sudden and irreversable (or a leadership so chickenshit that they'll rape ANWAR), and all bets are off (and, indeed, unpayable).

Something Strange is Afoot in the News

2007-02-20T20:26:00.000-06:00

Think of it.

First, we get some Astronaut wearing a diaper for 900 miles (a special diaper, made to NASA specifications) to that she could thump on someone she perceived as a romantic rival. That eats up the front pages for a few days.

Then we get Anna Nicole Smith's death. And the circus that surrounds it. Amazing what a woman whose sole purpose in life was to get noticed can do when she dies young enough to have a kid in her care.

And when this circus begins to die down, Britney Spears takes clippers to her hair in a lame attempt to look like Sinaed O'Conner. Eighteen million newspaper articles, television show bulletins and radio reports later, she's seen wearing a wig. (to be fair, I would have done the Bald Britney, but that's another story).

What I'm waiting for is the other shoe to drop.

I get the feeling that the press has on its hands a story so big and so earth-shattering that it can barely sit on its hands. So it's been coming up with these bizarre "news" items and playing them for all it's worth in an effort to distract people.

So what is it? War in Iran? Nukes blasting at various places? A dropping of the dollar way below where it is now? Maybe a 9-11 type of action, this time on March 11th (on a half-year anniversary of the infamous 9-11 "bombings").

No matter what, every day watching what now passes as "news" and listening to what people are talking about is getting creepier and creepier. I don't like what I see, and I'm afraid I'll like less what I'll see when the time comes.

The News Now Officially Sucks!

2007-02-09T22:17:00.000-06:00

I have a friend who was once in the newspaper business for years, slogging in the minor leagues of small towns and county seats where the newspapers mainly wrote to the elders who still read them. He got out because he saw the news industry start focusing on stars, to the news industry's growing shame and collapse.

Now as it's happened, one can say things have been on a downward curve. But still, people could find "real news" in the American press and media, if they knew how to find it.

No longer.

Ever since the Super Bowl, I've had to deal with fluff, fluff and more fluff. Not only that, but bizarre fluff.

First, it was astronauts in diapars. Jokes and other stuff, plus the consistent fixation on those diapers that allowed 900 miles of driving without a potty break.

Now, Anna Nicole Smith's death has become a circus. AT LEAST three men claiming to be the father of his surviving child, biops hogging all the time on the newsmagazine shows, and more and more jokes.

And meanwhile we have the Democratic party becoming the rump party the Neocons and Republicans have always wanted them to be, with their majority meaning less than nothing in the House and Senate (that's right, folks; the minority party is running things and they're haughtier than ever!). Meanwhile we're setting up a war with Iran and Russia is looking with baited breath.

The cold weather has us further in a vise, yet oil and gas prices seem to be dropping in anticipation of Spring. How this is happening I have no idea.

For all we know, we may have finally turned an ugly corner with the start of declining oil yeilds. The draft may have been implimented already, or the rednecks, NRA types and other conservatives have been given a "order 66" to clear out all groups within reach not considered "loyal" to the conservative order. Or Bush may have been shot.

But we won't know, because the news focused on a diapered astronaut and some third-rate bimbo's death from diet pills.

Remembering the Flint Buick Plant

2007-02-08T21:42:00.000-06:00

There's a big blank spot in the north side of Flint.

It used to be a factory. Once the largest Automobile factory in the world.

Between North Street and the Flint River (actually Industrial Street, but Industrial Street had long been taken over and obliterated by some 1980's updating) stood a three-story blond brick building that had housed the production lines of various Buick automobiles since 1904, before the formation of General Motors. Indeed, Buick was the engine that built General Motors.

My father worked there for thirty-two years. When he started working there, a GM employee was one the best things you could have been. People loved our cars (or at least bought them), and the union was strong. Now, of course, nobody wants to buy our cars and the only thing the UAW union can do now is insure its workers get good retirement packages (and how long that can happen is now up in the air).

I first remembered the building when my mother would drive up to pick up my father there. At the time it was dark, so there was this dark hulk brooding over the street with the windows shining bright in the night. Dad would come out of a square hole in the building (it was long and tall, that's all I knew then). The city was closed, not even the donut shop was open then.

Later on, mom would pick dad up during the day. By day the building actually looked a bit friendly, with its blond brick and greenish windows. The hole in the building had become a garage-like door through which people came in and out.

I actually took a tour in time for the 19th million Buick to be built. It was interesting to see the assembly line go as the car went from frame to automobile. I even saw where my dad worked (his area was fenders at the time). The cars themselves were not memorable for good reason, as this was the nadir of quality control at GM. Japanese cars were just then beginning to overtake Volkswagon (then under pressures from a massive exchange rate change that made their budget cars extremely expensive), not yet in a position to hit at GM. GM was also using aluminum (aluminium for our European readers) in the cars, making for complaints from my dad.

Then came the 1980's. Never mind Reagan, america was discovering Japanese cars at the time. Sick and tired with what the concept of "panned obsolescence" had become (by the late seventies, cars were being built with a six-year, 90,000 mile lifespan in mind) and gagging at Union opulence (since when did birthdays become a paid holiday?) and worker reaction against imports (that the cars were crap wasn't their fault, that they had a hand in forcing the reaction was reasonable, if not obvious) didn't help. GM tried out their "Buick City" concept (just-in-time production and heavy robot investment), but the immediate automobile quality doomed the plant UNTIL Michael Moore reported that GM was about to close Buick City. GM responded as they felt they had to (Michael Moore had become a famous leftist gadfly by then, and he would have had the ultimate scoop for Flint - something to be avoided at all costs at the time), and by 1987 Buick City was building the first american car to make it onto the JD Powers lists (the Le Sabre).

So things went until the late 1990s. GM was still wanting to keep Buick City open and had gone through with contract negotions when a wildcat strike hit part of the plant. Things had changed by then, and while the threat of such a strike in the seventies would have caused the company to give in (My dad had his birthday off as a paid holiday in the mid seventies. Any wonder there was no sympathy for Unions then, or now?) now GM had another alternative: Closure.

So Buick City was closed. So was the Chevy Engine plant that was instrumental in the Sit-Down strikes of 1937.

The building was closed in 1999, and torn down in 2002.

Understand the sea change that happened during this time:

In 1976 (when I did the tour of the Buick plant) it was expected that for Flintoids you get a job, you worked it for thirty-plus years, and you retired. You got married, raised children, and hoped they did better than you during that time; but there was always the factory (and others) to come in if your son didn't do what you expected. Now, good luck if you're working class and can find steady work.
In 1976, the biggest employers were General Motors and Ford. Now the biggest employers are Manpower and Wal-Mart. From honored jobs with the wages and benefits to match (if a bit much, alas) to institutionalized part-time or temporary status.
In 1976, education was easily afforded by those who qualified, and (outside of Liberal Arts) there were jobs ready for when you graduated. Now college students are expected to mortgage their future for the education, and the jobs aren't necessarily there if (not the difference now) you're able to finish.
In 1976 we were willing to try to save gas, save money and stop inflation. Now we want to drive boats, spend like tomorrow has specifically been canceled (by Jesus, let me add) and would cheer an expansion in prices if it meant the poor could no longer eat.
In 1976 we were aware of our "infrastructure" and tried to keep it up, even if we didn't have a word for it. Now, we just bemoan the fact that we're falling further and further behind and have embraced the concept of "benign neglect" (after all, you'd have to be taxed to keep it up properly; AND WHO WANTS TO PAY? SURELY NOT YOU.).

Yes, things have changed, and for the worse. And all the "copied" music on all the iPods in America do nothing but allow the iPod users to exule in and embrace the decay.

Anyone remember the Roman Empire? or at least read about it?

Super Bowl Posting 2007 (vol 2)

2007-02-04T21:28:00.000-06:00

Having just watched the Super Bowl, I can say a couple of things:

Payton Manning had Chicago's number all through the game. Had Indianapolis been able to replace a couple of their field goals with touchdowns, the game would have been over long before it actually way (well into the fourth quarter, with the second interception).
"Bad Rex" only came out during the fourth quarter. While it is true that Rex had to step up and didn't, you can't blame him for losing the game (as he did drive the team for its second (and last) touchdown).
If not for Devin Hester's touchdown return of the kickoff, the game would have been over long before it actually was.

To be honest, Chicago didn't play much of a game. The offense did too many "three-and-outs," the defense did nothing to stop Payton over much of the field, and every takeaway was quickly matched by a turnover.

And while I say that "Bad Rex" (the one throwing interceptions and trying to do too much) only showed up during the fourth quarter, there were problems over much of the game. Two messed-up snaps is not a sign of a quality quarterback, even with it raining during the whole game.

Overall, Indianapolis was the superior team in every aspect and this game showed it. Right down to the mood shot of Rex Grossman with a couple minutes left in the fourth quarter. The ONE thing I didn't want (the mood shot, that it was of a Bear was an extra pain).

Billy Joel did a good Star Spangled Banner. Much better than the "can't mail it in if he tried/trying to show off and failing badly" Star Spangled Banner that happened last year.

Prince did good, though I kept hoping he was acting to a background track simply because of the rain.

As for the commercials, they were commercials. The days when people were truely surprised by the commercials has come and gone, killed off by expectations and constant attempts to better last year. I do think things have leveled off, although there's always some good and bad.

And in the end, congratulations Indianapolis Colts. You dominated the whole game and countered everything Chicago did.

Super Bowl Posting 2007 (vol. 1)

2007-01-25T21:57:00.000-06:00

First, here's the official NFL Super Bowl Standings. It's skewered by its being ranked by winning percentage, which places such flashes in the pan as the Jets and the Ravens above the storied and once-storied Steelers, Raiders and Cowboys. I'd prefer a ranking system based on appearances. That way you'd see a clearer picture, even with its distortions (Denver has a 2-4 record in Super Bowls, even with the Broncos having won their last two).

This year, both teams have shown up to a grand total of three Super Bowls. The Colts actually showed up twice, in 1969 and 1971 (equaling Green Bay in appearances, if not wins, at that time). The Bears have only been to the 1986 Super Bowl before this one. This makes a return for a couple of teams after some extended absences.

While a large number of fans will be watching the game as spectators (or just as Fans of the Commercials), the people in Northern Indiana will have a special interest. This is probably the closest two teams in the Super Bowl have been to each other, at least up there with XXV (Giants hold on against the Bills) and XXIX (San Francisco vs San Diego).

And while it is a bit sad that New Orleans didn't break away from the class of teams that have yet to make it to the Super Bowl, it's nice to see that franchise finally get good. I still believe that in a few years we'll see them either in Los Angeles or San Antonio (or Sacramento; and don't discount Oklahoma City).

I know I'll find it interesting. Hopefully it will be a close game with good plays throughout and the game decided near the end, but if both teams have to play sixty minutes I'll be happy. The last thing I want to see is mood shots of the losing team members moping with most of the 4th quarter yet to be played.

Remembering Downtown Flint

2007-01-19T23:45:00.000-06:00

I was only three years old when "Genesee Towers" was completed, so that building has been a part of Flint as long as I can remember. I can also remember when there were a lot more buildings up and down Saginaw Street and the streets alongside it, and when the buildings up and down it were busy with shoppers and other activities. I also remember when the I.M.A. (Stands for Industrial Mutual Association, too many of us Flintoids only knew the initials) had a 6,000 seat auditorium amongst its large number of activities. There was also an intercity bus station on North Saginaw Street and plenty of busses.

No matter where you were, you knew where the tallest building was. Even if it was only ten stories of offices and stuff placed over a seven-story parking ramp, it was still THE! TALLEST! BUILDING! IN! FLINT!

Through the late seventies and early eighties, as Flint tried everything to revive itself or make itself healthy in its smaller format, Genesee Towers still stood tall. I remember going to it frequently in the eighties and early nineties with my student loans through Genesee Bank (back when Sallie Mae merely guaranteed the loans); it seemed that Downtown Flint was able to stablize itself and even give a bit more services through busses and such.

My next visit to the North Flint was in 1994. U of M-Flint had expanded a bit, but for me the surprise came when I went up North Saginaw Street -- instead of the run-down buildings I had long seen and looked at and could tell what they had been by their design, I saw a lot of grass. Genesee Towers was still standing, although Genesee Bank had become a branch of The National Bank of Detroit by then.

Evidently by then NBD had decided that they didn't need so all that space for a shrinking part of their market, so they moved out of Genesee Towers in 1999. I had moved out of Michigan by that time, so I can't say I was up on what had happened.

So now the building stands. The City of Flint wants to take over the land and tear the building down. The owner wants to hold onto the building, but won't do anything to it until they're allowed to. Meanwhile the building stands empty, windows fading in different colors, the lower parking ramp easily accessed (and probably used by some serial killer knocking off the prostitutes in the city).

What would the city use the land for? Probably a parking lot. After all, with half the downtown empty and nothing daring to move in, why have a hazard stading at the corner? As it is, the sidewalks are closed off and parts of the facade still fall down (after the so-called fix). And while they're trying to create a "new downtown" that's a playplace for empty nesters and the young and childless, I doubt there's a critical mass for it to take off. Even with the college downtown.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Alas, I don't expect it to happen.

A Few Months After the Election: Now What?

2007-01-14T11:47:00.000-06:00

Okay, so now the 2006 elections have passed by and the Democratic Party has razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate. So now what?

Okay, we're about to get something of an increase in the Minimum Wage (I can hear the blowholes on the right wing crying out: They're forcing companies to pay the poor more so they can get their income taxes. TAX INCREASE! TAX INCREASE!) We'll probably get some attempts to get some token "accountability" from the president.

However, the majority is so slim that the only way the Democrats could try to actually come close to balancing the budget would be to increase the minimum wage. Plus that will probably come with a subsidy to Wal-Mart for hiring so many minimum wage workers (part-time, let me add). While they obviously want to reintroduce some taxes that would affect mainly the rich, their razer-thin margins make it almost impossible to do so. Other things become troublesome as well; while a Minimum Wage raise would probably make it (with Wal-Mart's blessing -- how else would you have gotten so many Republicans to vote along with the minimum wage increase in the House?) little else would likely make it out of committe with the newly-defanged majority.

So, should we trust the electronic voting machines? No, I know I still don't. If you can fix a Republican victory complete with the press caught with its guard down, you can fix a Democratic victory when you need it. You can even fix an election to the degree that you want -- small to keep the Dems in line (barely able to act), or large when you want them to be on stage and unable to act ("proven as impotent"). And the fact is, as long as our voting machines are kept under control of corporations there's no real reason to trust the results (whether right-wing or not -- while some nutcase radio host who believes that waitresses deserve to be stiffed by doctors and lawyers likes to joke that Hugo Chavez (the leader of Venezuela) owns the companies that make voting machines, he's right in that it doesn't matter which way the owner's views go; just that they have the power to skew the election whichever way they choose). No matter WHICH party wins the elections.

So is there a way to insure that votes are counted properly, and we can trust the outcome?

Yes. There is an answer here, and it lies with Vegas.

Ever wonder how trustworthy the single-armed bandets are in Vegas? Nevada regulates slot machines, and tightly:

They require that they have the software on file,
They do random unnanounced checks on the machines (and when variations are noted "guilty until proven innocent" is what's assumed),
Slot Machine Manufacturers are looked over for trustworthiness,
Certification is done by an independent public agency (which is funded well enough to insure its independence),
Complaints are handled immediately.

I want similar requirements for voting machines:

I want the software on file and in the open so that hackers can work the code over and perfect it.
I want the hardware on file, as well, and publicly available.
I want regular inspections, even (and especially) during election day.
I want the manufacturers transparent and accountable. I could care less if they profited obscenely, as long as we know they count our votes accurately (whatever way that vote goes).
I want oversight to be strong, independent and public.
I can wait a few weeks to make sure the votes were counted.

Of course, there's other things. One thing I learned about the 2000 vote is that Gore should have won Florida, but instead of making sure that EVERYONE could vote (or going after the obvious cases of disenfranchisement in the Black Communities all over northern Florida), he chose to try to squeeze votes from the four large, heavily hispaic counties in the south. Guess the racist would rather lose an election than admit he needed the black vote (and thus blacks).

(Gore should have won Tennessee, Arkansas and/or West Virginia, but he had his head firmly planted up his ass too deeply to deal with Clinton. Win any one of these states, and Florida stay a joke but has its power to turn the rest of the USA into a joke removed. Maybe the fundies WERE right in using Ms. Lewinsky to attack Clinton; while their immediate goal was easily frustrated they poisoned the well enough to insure the future was theirs...but that's a possible future posting.)

In Memorium to Wazoo Records

2007-01-09T21:09:00.000-06:00

This last summer (August 30, 2006 to be exact) Wazoo Records closed in East Lansing.

It could have been worse. Out of two used record stores in East Lansing, Wazoo was the lamer one (sorry, had to put it that way). The selection leaned more towards the popular and the "adult" (meaning calmer, quieter and Middle-of-the-road) whereas the other store (Flat, Black and Circular) had the more alternative and college-oriented stuff. Admittedly I'd go into the Wazoo on occasion, and on rarer occasion purchase stuff there that couldn't be found anywhere else.

It also has been worse. I remember WhereHouse Records from back when I first went to Michigan State University in 1983-4, and Tower Records was a favorite stop for me in the nineties. Both are gone, having fully dropped off the face of the planet (WhereHouse a long time ago, Tower Records in December of '05). There were other records stores that came and went (or stopped selling records) but WhereHouse and Tower were the stores to go to if you wanted something new (or unplayed, in its wrapper still).

Of course, Wazoo served its market nitch well. While it didn't go out of its way to be hip, you could always find something here. Not only that, but the owner (and his main employee) had taste intriguing enough that those who knew what they wanted could find it.

So, in a way, I found it sad that Wazoo finally had to close its doors.

Of course, it's not the only record store that's worth mourning the loss of. The aforementioned WhereHouse and Tower are also losses to mourn, as these are national losses (along with the unmourned Record Town, Muzakland and other mall abominations). There was also the loss of Vinyl Solution and I Believe In Music in Grand Rapids and Rock-a-Rolla Records in Flint. Vinyl Solution is especially mourned by me, as I found a lot of stuff there that I neither knew existed or was unable to find elsewhere (this was before Amazon, friends).

There has also been a major loss of Record stores in Chicago and Northwest Indiana. Hegwisch Records closed down in 2002 (It was once a major player in the Northwest Indiana area, although by the time I made it to one of the (by then two) remaining stores I was very negatively impressed, as it seemed to be a record store not long in the world), a music store that opened in Lansing, Illinois in 2000 closed back down in 2003 (although he made a good run at it), a Munster record store closed down the year I moved in, and a couple other record stores whose names I forgot closed down during my eight years in the area. Add to that all the record stores in Chicago proper that closed down (a couple I actually miss dearly), and you're talking about the death of a culture.

Okay, I hear the peanut gallery laughing at that. After all,

"with Amazon.com to find your oddities and Limewire to download the songs everyone knows about there's no reason to go to some dank building in the snow or rain or steaming heat and hunt around a messy, germ-infested building looking for a case of plastic with a plastic coaster inside which may or may not have enough stuff for you to like and overpay for the priviledge?"

Well, there's something about being able to enter into a record store, look through row after row after row of albums/cases, seeing if anything new has made it into the store, and decide to buy something -- or not. I'm sure that for every time I entered a record store and bought something there were five to ten times I entered that same store and came out empty handed.

There's also something about being able to find something new, buy it, take it home, play it and like the new discovery. Sometimes you actually get the ability to judge a new album BY THE COVER (it can be done, and while I can't state how it works I can say you can almost tell what's going on with a group or singer just by looking at the cover if you look at enough covers and buy enough good or bad ones).

Then there's something about getting an album by a group you've known a long time, looking a bit longer, finding some artist you've never heard of before in your life, judging between the two, picking the unknown artist (you can always get the known quantity later), and finding the newly discovered group as worth getting. Moving on, there's also finding the old release you wanted later, knowing it would be around later while the newer one may not.

Then there's the people in the store. People who know what they like and are willing to share with you their likes. An LP gets suggested by some stranger, and even if you're not the one being suggested to, you've got another LP in your mind for future purchase.

While Amazon.com may give you the world's largest selection of CDs, it's not going to place a couple of CDs close to each other in such a way that you'll look past one you've already got and find something that looks interesting on the cover -- something you'll pick up and buy and listen to and like despite the tastes in music determined over years of selection. Amazon.com does its best (as do the other music sites), but they can only figure out what you already like, not what you may run into by accident.

This means that Amazon.com will list a Metal CD and have three lists to go along with it. One of the lists will be of releases by the band and two others with a selection of Metal CDs. One may have a "more varied selection" of metal CDs, but you won't be able to find Norah Jones or Tangerine Dream or Patrick Fitzgerald in any of these lists. The item would just disqualify the list from being viewed, as it would be too wide a variation from the main CD.

I won't spend more time than necessary discussing the whys and hows. Anyone who's followed the woes of the Music Industry over the past ten years knows the refrain:

Anti-Trust ruling against the Music Industry and the Record Stores they tried to protect against the big boxes and their use of CDs as loss leaders
Napster siphoning off the College market that used to nurture the future of music
Amazon.com allowing for gratification of all but the most obscure of desires
Crappy Selection in the music stores from the shrinking of demand and need to get "what sells"
and
The development of a vicious circle between the various happenings above (outside of the "anti-trust" ruling).

So what does this closing of various stand-alone Record stores mean? Quite a bit:

A narrowing of selection: While Wal-Mart, Circuit City and Borders may send music where it may not have gone before, these places have a need to bring in people willing to spend money on other things. This means they can't really gamble on some music that may or may not be bought, they have to depend on stuff they know has been bought.
A shrinking of offerings, period: A friend says that Napster has made people not care about music period. Maybe we'll see it in the shrinkage of illegal downloads as people get bored and stop downloading; now we can see it as groups no longer can get traction to go national (or world-wide), stopping at regional (if not local)
Narrower fan bases: With fewer people getting into music (at the time the ability to branch out has increased exponentially), the era of the Supergroup or Superartist (the group or artist that everyone knows about, whether they like, hate or couldn't care less about said group or artist) fades even deeper into the past. While this has been a fait accompli since the mid-eighties with the development of the Hispanic market, the creation of the Underground and the separation of Country into its own world, it can only continue in a shrinking market
Collapse of Music Economy: If there's not enough demand to keep things going at a certain level, things don't just drop down to a lower level, they collapse. Think of it: if all our cars and busses were to stop working tomorrow, how would we get around? There ain't nearly as many horses as would be needed, and the railroad infrastructure has shrunken down (in the US and Canada) to such a degree that they couldn't even begin to haul people around. Translated to Music, we get this: once we go below a certain level of purchases, we don't stabilize at the levels of 1980, or 1963 (when Sugar Shack ruled the land). We'll probably stabilize to 1945 or 1948, when music purchases were special purchases, made with the idea of buying something you'd play once or twice a year, every year.

And Wazoo Records?

The same thing that allowed the existence of MuzakLand in the Mall and SchoolKidzRecords (still in existence, though subletting a downstairs space now) allowed for the existence of Wazoo alongside Flat Black and Circular. Now that the mall stores have disappeared (along with most College-area Stores), the space for Wazoo has disappeared.

Flat Black and Circular will now have to work that much harder to attract buyers. While the selection is good, the larger market that Wazoo allowed and thrived in (remember: buying at one Record store never meant you kept yourself away from others; indeed I would look through the Mall stores just in case there was an odd disk that somehow slipped through their marketing limitations and into my arms) has shrunken even further with the death of Wazoo records. People who mainly used their store to satisfy their cravings for music aren't as likely to make FB&C their main store; if they live far enough away they'll stop showing up altogether, huddling up to Amazon.com.

And another voice in the once varied galaxy of Music Fans has been stilled.

Gifts for Bosses? What Happened?

2007-01-04T22:19:00.000-06:00

It was a news item I heard on the radio about the number of companies giving Xmas bonuses to their employees going down drastically, talking about how many companies were getting away from "a Gift for everyone" and going towards "performance-based bonuses" (read: away from the proles and towards upper management, because everyone knows they didn't get enough $$ during the year). In it, there came up this odd statistic: only 21% of employees gave their bosses gifts for Xmas.

Okay, what's wrong with that? Bosses are people too and there's nothing wrong with giving him/her a gift. Usually it's the smaller companies where the gifts go both ways (to both employees and bosses).

But there was something about the news item that still disturbs me. Like the movement away from holday bonuses, and the gentle chiding towards those of us who "forget to give our boss a gift."

And a musical I saw years before re-lodged itself in my mind.

It was done at some small theatre in Flint, Michigan. I remember traveling from Lansing to see it, mainly at the suggestion of a one-time churchmate whom I had met a few weeks before. The musical was a romantic comedy, with three female co-workers, two men made out to portray the usual male stereotypes (a geek who has his job solely on technical know-how and general harmlessness, and a Don Juan wannabee tolerated because his pose is so haphazardly transparent), a stripper (a bit part), the lead female and the boss of the whole operation. (And yes, everyone is paired off in the end, even the lesbianesque coworker - with the stripper.)

The plot: lead female (a secretary) falls for boss, works to make boss fall for her.

The play was okay, but nothing earth-shattering; the stereotypes were pretty much stock by the time the play was done (especially the Don Juan wannabee) and the songs were packed a bit thickly in the third act for pacing. The fact that I can't remember the name of the play shows how forgettable it was.

So why am I remembering the play now? Probably because the play suggested that boss-worker dating, something long viewed as taboo (or taboo enough for jokes and cartoons to be done about it almost constantly for years) was now acceptable enough for a musical to be made about it, betting the audience would be comfortable with the situation.

Sort of like the idea that the boss should be given gifts from the workers.

Interesting that the news item would come out at a time when corporations are cutting out workers from holiday (or end-of-year) gifts.

Very much like Robin Hood in Reverse: from the poor to the rich, all forms of tribute; only now we're supposed to give willingly, out of a sense of true understanding of our place and what we owe them.

I'm back...

2007-01-03T20:41:00.000-06:00

That's right, I'm back on the blog.

I'm going to try out something a little different this time. I'm going to try longer postings, less frequently. I'll try to pick out a subject, think a little bit on it, maybe do some research (more often than not, likely), and post when I feel ready.

Or, as I have it on the masthead: Fewer postings. Longer postings. More sense.

Also: Less knee-jerk reaction. More thought-out reaction. Less emotion, more thought. Better backing for my arguments. Less timeliness, more timelessness. Longer fuse, longer view, shorter shrift for stupidity (from my end, as well as from others).

Anyway, here goes nothing. Again.

Adieu, For Now

2006-06-15T23:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm cutting off the blog. On my first year anniversary.

It's not so much that I'm tired of blogging, nor is it that my numbers have dropped (although to be honest it did play a part). Nor is it running out of topics (you do enough reading anywhere, you can continue running into topics to talk about).

More to the point: I feel I have some other things I need to do more important than blogging. One of these things includes organizing some things, which have sort of fallen behind for the past couple of years (beyond the time of this blog). And I don't have any other time I can take.

As it is, It's a good time to rethink the blog thing. After all, in the past year I've learned a few things:

One easy way to get people to read you is to piss on a sacred cow of theirs .
You can also play to various choirs, giving them what they want to hear.
Probably the best way to blog is to pick a topic and work your way through it.

As it happened, I did things mightily slap-dash. I'd hit up a topic for maybe four or five blogging posts, then jump off onto something wildly disconnected. One month's blogging (November 2005, to pick a month) hit upon the following topics:

How long it was since I last went to Chicago
The differences between men and women, and how odd they actually are (two posts, separated)
Words of gloom and doom about intercity transit, and a comparison between toy depictions of busses and how they were viewed by the public
A jab at a conservative think tank for forgetting their champion (Shrub Jr) was disliked for reasons of actual competence
Whether the Republicans (more to the point: The Corporatista overlords) WANTED Roe v Wade overturned
What I disliked about Wal-Mart
Why doesn't Pat Robertson ask for Healing, instead of his constant litany for the damnation of what he hates
The seeming return of Anti-Semitism to the airwaves, with thoughts on whether the Xian right wanted Isreal established so Christ could return and they could watch the world fall apart for their entertainment
Bemoaning America's joyous underfunding of mass transit, and how we suffer when we need it
Two postings related to college football, one referring to the past, the other to then current outcomes
Trying to explain (to myself, mainly) why Prayer In School was so important to Fundamentalist Christians
Why women who seduced teenaged boys were usually treated differently than men who seduced teenaged girls (usually in favor of the women seducers)
Three postings stating the problem of Metra Electric service, positing a solution of mine, and listing the problems with such an answer
Ripping into 60 Minutes for a badly biased, badly done report on why "Plan B" isn't yet legal
A final posting in the month, stating why I consider myself a Democrat

In other words, a wildly varied set of postings, nothing uniting the whole. A few tendencies (and a definite leftward tilt) but a definite scattershot. Other months include postings on soda pop, home schooling (not all negative), intellectual property (usually wrapped up with music issues), Madalyn Murray O'Hair, my Toe, The Super Bowl (five postings!), book reviews on occasion, and New Orleans; among other things.

When I restart this blog (IF i restart this blog, lest we forget -- I plan on returning, but plans can change) I will do things a bit different. While trying to keep (make?) things eclectic, I might plan on setting up a topic for each month. That way, I have a focus that will keep me from scattershotting around. And the changes will allow me to change when things start getting boring (or at least institute enough change).

Anyway...adieu for now. Maybe we'll meet again.

Peanuts Releases In The Future:

2006-06-13T21:16:00.000-05:00

This is the order of the books in The Complete Peanuts series (at least if the rumors pan out):

1950-52. CHARLIE BROWN
1953-54. LUCY
1955-56. PIG-PEN
1957-58. SNOOPY
1959-60. PATTY
1961-62. SCHROEDER
1963-64. LINUS
1965-66. CHARLIE BROWN
1967-68. VIOLET
1969-70. SNOOPY (FLYING ACE)
1971-72. SALLY
1973-74. WOODSTOCK
1975-76. PEPPERMINT PATTY
1977-78. CHARLIE BROWN
1979-80. FRIEDA
1981-82. SPIKE
1983-84. LINUS
1985-86. FRANKLIN
1987-88. LUCY
1989-90. CHARLIE BROWN
1991-92. MARCIE
1993-94. SNOOPY (PERHAPS LAWYER)
1995-96. RERUN
1997-98. PEPPERMINT PATTY
1999-2000. CHARLIE BROWN.

So CB gets 5 covers, snoopy gets 3, Lucy, Linus, Pepperment Patty get 2 and 16 other characters get one cover.

In a way, their pictures show them when they're big parts of the strip. While other characters came and went, these characters (and the way they're listed) is a good way of measuring where the strip was and how it went.

And if I live to 2016 (not necessarily a likelihood, considering how things are going) I'm sure I'll have a whole set.

2nd Avenue Subway: Shrunken Dreams, Dying City?

2006-06-11T11:45:00.000-05:00

So now it looks like the Second Avenue Subway (SAS for short) is finally going to be built.

And the present plan sucks.

When the IND Second System was originally put forth (probably with the idea of forcing the IRT and BMT to sell itself to the City), the SAS was planned to be four to six lines wide and went from the Bronx to Queens. Right now the SAS is planned to be just two lines wide (except for a crossing point with the 63rd Street subway section) and stay fully within Manhattan.

Maybe it's too much today for a transit system to dream of anything more than a subpar system, but where are the dreamers who can plan for something better? I cannot believe that the last person who could think big thoughts in New York was Mr. Moses with his expressways that threaten to choke the city into a smog-accelerated demise.

Anyway, here's my thoughts as to how the SAS should be built:

One or Two Express Lines in addition to the two local lines planned. Preferrably two.
Direct Connection to the Bronx, refitting Line 4 or 6 for use by the SAS. I'd prefer Line 4 so you could have transfer points (and possibly connect with the D train), but Line 6 will work out well enough (Line 5 is used by Line 2 as well, so there'd be a conflict there).
More Stops on the main line. Add one at 6th Street north of Houston, one between Seaport and Hanover Square, one near 60th Street (connect with the Roosevelt Island Tramway; would involve shifting the 55th street stop to 52nd street), and a stop at 78th Street (with the 72nd street stop shifted to 70th or 69th).
A link from near the Seaport stop to the Hoyt Street-Schermerhorn Street stop via Court Street, linking the SAS with lines in Brooklyn and Queens and integrating the Court Street stub (now inactive) into the system.
Build a 7 line station at 2nd and 42nd. With the SAS working as an intermediate point between the 7 and the surface, there's no longer a reason to not place a station at that point.
If you're going to put in an endpoint at 125th and Lexington, why not do the obvious: create a 125th line across to Broadway. With connections to the Broadway, Eigth Avenue and Lenox/Malcolm X Lines, it would allow for extra interconnectability plus a possible place for redevelopment further north in Manhattan.
You could even make build the tunnels in such a way that you could build an extension across to Broadway in Queens (I'd say La Guardia, but I'm guessing they'll want any route going in that direction to go to Uptown and Downtown Manhattan for that)

Maybe the last item was a pipe dreams (five miles without any point to drop off anyone, no real access to the centers of NYC), but everything else can be implimented with benefit to the system. While there would be some cost to all of these items, I believe it would all be worth it, especially the four-line idea and the extra stations.

A few thoughts. Likely just an unfulfillable wish list, but something I want anyway.

Something Distrubing Happened To Me:

2006-06-09T21:32:00.000-05:00

No, it wasn't that I was kicked out of where I live.

No, it wasn't that the lady who cried "Rape" at Duke has been proven an all-around liar. (Complete with the damning of anyone who criticizes college sports thanks to this stupid bitch)

And no, I still have my job.

Actually, I found myself with nothing in my head for an extended period of time.

I was driving around, nothing out of the ordinary, then I found my mood dropping. Nothing unusual (it happens enough times), but this time I found myself with an absolute blank mind.

Which disturbed me.

After all, there should be something going on in one's mind. I understand the idea of "still mind," but there are times I want my mind stilled and times I want my mind to be active.

And when I'm feeling down, I want my mind active and fighting. Stillness is for when I'm in a position to let my mind go blank, and I don't like my mind blanking out on me when I'm fighting to keep myself out of the pit.

I just hope this isn't the start of Alzheimer's. This is just too early to suffer from that.

An Interesting Look At The Past of Public Transit

2006-06-08T04:09:00.000-05:00

So I'm looking through a Southern California Transit Coalition website when I run across a listing of historical maps. So I looked up the 1910, 1920 and 1949 route maps.

You would be amazed what the maps tell:

The 1910 and 1920 maps show only rail lines; the 1949 map shows roads and rail.
The earlier maps show how many tracks are on each route; the 1949 map only shows the routes.
The 1949 map shows which rail lines are transit routes and which are used only for freight. If I read the legend right, the area served by the trollies had retreated back to its 1910 range, only without the density.
The 1949 map shows what many people viewed a the benefits of busses over trollies. Where one line did all the business between Covina and San Bernadino in 1920, you had three bus lines covering the whole of the corridor in 1949 with convenience added in the mix. Busses also gave a direct transit connection between San Bernadino and Orange County -- a routing which would have been costly and bled red ink as a trolly line. Also note the area to the east of the Watts/Compton/Dominguez mainline
As interesting as the expansion of service via busses is, it's also interesting to see where the service was cut back. Redlands was now only an end stop (instead of a local transfer point), everything south of Inglewood had been abandoned (no buses, even) and Pasadina had become merely part of a loop (instead of a center of its own area and gateway to Mount Lowe and a view of the basin).

As one could see clearly with the 1949 map, the automobile was already affecting how people viewed the area and the options given. Transit officials were looking towards busses to expand and fine-tune service, allowing for a greater spreading out where needed.

The automobile would cause greater changes from here, however. The expansion of the Suburbs into and beyond the settled areas served by the rails and busses would cause traffic jams, and the busses would be subjected to traffic jams that even the trams wouldn't suffer from. Further, a grid of Expressways would develop, obviating the futility of bus usage for all but the poor and stubborn.

Eventually the need for a rail option on its own right-of-way would become known, and (only in America) would the idea of "the cheaper it is, the better quality it is" would lead to corners cut on the light-rail.

Still, it's interesting to see what had happened, on what was one of the best urban rail transit systems in the nation (in a place one would hardly believe it could have existed, in addition).

Can You Trust Your Vote To Count?

2006-06-07T21:25:00.000-05:00

Levy: Will Your Vote Count In 2006?

The news is beginning to get into the mainstream press: Your Vote May Not Count.

I've always found paper more trustworthy than computers with my vote. You know what you vote, you can see clearly where your vote's been tampered with (at least before you cast it) and there a clear trail. Chads aside, it takes effort to fix the vote on paper.

On a computer screen, however, one can easily do things to fix the vote. The most subtle would be to shift the vote for each precinct by a specified number of votes (3 votes X 10,000 voting places = 30,000 votes shifted); one can also change the count, work by percentages, mysteriously disappear the votes, or a mix of these depending on precinct and what you want shown.

As it happned, every shift shown by these machines in 2004 seemed to magically go the way of the Republicans. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find some of the shifts in other races: I saw some really odd voting shifts in some precincts in the 3rd ward in Chicago back in 2003.

What's More Important: The Jawbone Or The Hipbone?

2006-06-03T08:51:00.000-05:00

My housemate takes Fosamax. It's supposed to strengthen the bones, and while it's a once-a-week thing, it seems to work.

But it appears that once again, every upside has its own downside. This time, it appears the jaw takes a hit to strengthen the hipbone.

Now I know everything has its downside. Even Water can kill in excess, and Oxygen was originally a toxic gas that some cell figured out how to use (and used its secret to push the rest of the cells to the margins). Indeed, the difference between benefical items and poisonous items is the lower level of tolerance we have for poisonous items.

However, there's millions of people taking these drugs (Aredia and Zometa for cancer treatments; Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva for osteoperosis) so even the smallest dosetaker is at some risk. The risk seems small (less than 1%, with cancer treatment doses, probably a smaller percentage with pill takers). Still, it's something to consider, especially when you're about to go through oral surgery -- which it turns out my housemate is about to do.

And now she's worried sick.

Forces Out Of Control in New Orleans?

2006-06-01T16:31:00.000-05:00

New Orleans Sinking Faster Than Thought

Thing is this: I wonder what the Dutch think of this?

After all, they've been fighting against the sea for four hundred plus years, adding new space wherever they can. They've even added on a large dike to reclaim large areas once underneath the harbor.

But then, the Nethernlands isn't on swamp land.

One thing that really puzzles me: Wouldn't things get really messed up when your land is changing at over an inch a year? That's nearly a foot a decade. How many of them buildings are actually built on a slab; that'd be the only thing that would keep them from really falling apart as the basement gets uncovered.

I still say "Rebuild On The Achafalaya." That land's high, whereas New Orleans should be under the Golf of Mexico by now.

One Of The Most Important Websites You'll Ever Come Across (NO KIDDING!)

2006-05-30T21:39:00.000-05:00

Seven Points of View: From Left to Right And The Muslem View, Too

Very key in comparing the points of view. While it's biased towards New York and Britain, it's still a very good view of the biases out there. Plus I like the inclusion of the Muslim view; as I believe they've taken the Russian's place as the USA's (and The West's) main enemy.

(At least I hope it's like that. I'd hate to think we've taken the soviet's place and they've taken our place. After all, you know how everything turned out...)

Overloud Blowhards Win Their Fight Against Free Speech

2006-05-29T21:11:00.000-05:00

Just heard that George W. Bush (our President, as I'm ready to state) just signed a law banning protests at "Military Funerals" in order to stop a group of lame idiots with too much money and time on their hands from doing their "Die America, Die" chants. (Actually it's more for stopping the motorcyclists protesting these idiots, but nobody want to think of that. After all, we're talking about people supporting our men in uniform; and we can't come out against THEM, can we?)

Just what I need to find out: Bury someone in a military fashion and the place becomes a speech-free zone where only those who are expected to speak can speak.

Where's the ACLU when you need them? With this precedent, the idea of free-speech free zones can expand to include every aspect of governmental action -- even when there's no sign of federal, state or local government around.

A Jolt Back Into The Past

2006-05-27T23:44:00.000-05:00

Ever listen to the radio (or to your collection of mp3s) and hear the song that jolts you back to when the song first came out?

I just turned on my iPod (while new to me, it's actually a refurbished 40 Gigabyte 4Gen iPod) and turned it to my collection of Tori Amos tunes (all legal, as I have the CDs they come from). The third song in the list was "Silent All These Years."

When "Silent..." came up, everything stopped. I remembered first driving a cab around Lansing Michigan and she would come up on the "Women's Show" on WDBM Sunday. I'd listen to that show just for her; and when the radio station stopped doing their "Women's Show" I ended up buying her CDs. Both the first two CDs of hers, plus the "Crucify" single (the one with the Garlic Necklace and her kick-ass version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit").

I lost track of her right after Boys For Pele (her third album). I actually went to a coffeehouse to listen to it on its release night; found myself turned off by the music (the repitition of the piano parts turned me off). Don't ask me about the words, all I remember is her bawking like a chicken at the end of one of the songs (Oh Yeah; and "Caught A Light Sneeze" was okay for a single)

Been a while since I kept up with her. I'm sure the library has plenty of her stuff, maybe I can catch up with her there.

No Longer The Detroit Baseball Putty-Tats

2006-05-26T00:10:00.000-05:00

I'm looking at the Major League Baseball Standings, and I notice the team atop the American Central is Detroit. Not Chicago (although they've got a better team than last year's), not Cleveland and certainly not Minnesota (the team that's bedevilled Detroit, even before they got consigned to that Dome).

I would have been happy had Detroit been doing mere .550 ball (and they may drop to that level before the year is through). As long as we have a team able to win more than lose and what looks like a strong future, I'd have took it. However, this is a definite plus.

If this keeps up through the end of the season, the Tigers will have finally gotten out of the doldrums they were stuck in since the second half of the 1988 season. While Detroit came in second that season, the team stalled to a halt over the second half, and went to fall totally apart in the nineties and the early years of this new century.

And now? At the very least, I can call them the TIGERS!!! Yes, the Tigers. No longer the "Detroit Baseball Putty-Tats" (musn't confuse them with their football bretheren, who've perfected the art of sucking in another league), but now the "Detroit Tigers!"

Yes! Finally!

(Yes, it's been that long since I could point to my baseball team with pride.)

The Day After Roe

2006-05-24T22:04:00.000-05:00

The Atlantic Article
(You'll need to subscribe to read all of it)

Interesting article. Jeffery Rosen (the author of the article) predicts that there would be a battle upon the repeal of Roe v Wade and that, should there be an end, we would settle on a middle ground that would give all early abortions a pass while putting restrictions on later abortions that grow stronger until the fetus is pushed out of the body by the mother-to-be.

I'm not sure I buy that.

First off, don't be too sure that such an outcome would occur. Remember, the anti-abortion side has been more organized and active all these years. They're not about to roll over and play dead over popular opinion; indeed they'll likely be emboldened by such a ruling, especially in states that still have abortion bans on their books (Michigan is one of them, let's remember). Don't be surprised if the Republicans, in desperate need of captive votes to continue their corporatista rampage, pass and enact national anti-abortion laws. Don't be surprised if secretly encourage Cuba to start providing abortions on its soil for Americans (why else are they offering Free Doctor Training to Americans? Ever think of that?)

Second, don't be too sure that the Supreme Court can only keep the South Dakota law legal by revoking Roe v Wade. Don't be surprised if they rule that the law fits in with the rulings of both Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. That would do more to limit abortion than a full reversal of Roe and Doe, as what South Dakota allows would work out to be a full ban (fact is, "danger to the mother" is too little to allow for abortion; at those levels it'd be easier, less costly and simpler to merely give last rites to the mother and pray the last rites were unnecessary).

Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a Supreme Court ruling was given flexibility with the okay (stated or implied) of the Court. Probably the most nortorious was Plessey v Furgeson; the phrase "Seperate But Equal" was readily redefined as "Seperate, Equality Impossible" by the states. The "Corporations Are People Under The Law" interpretation has been run with until it reads "Corporations Have Rights, People Don't (when they go against corporation rights)."

Something else to consider.

I Still Say New Orleans Was "Benign Neglect"

2006-05-22T21:20:00.000-05:00

New Study of Levees Faults Design and Construction
(must subscribe to read)

And according to this article, it looks like EVERYONE'S responsible, from the federal government to the local crews constructing the dikes. From shoddy design to stuff built in too tight a space to knowing corner cutting, New Orleans was left to hold on with too little margin for error, and the margin was quickly passed through.

Some areas are improved, of course. New locks make the smaller dikes less open to breaking; some areas are actually rebuilt to proper standards.

I still say the best thing to do would be to rebuild New Orleans elsewhere. Like on the Achafalaya, forty-fifty miles to the west. Use the present Mississippi as a spillway for excess water; something is VERY wrong with a city when the city's high point is a riverbank.

Now I Know Why The Right Hate Hillary:

2006-05-21T21:15:00.000-05:00

S 2725; The Bill, The Minimum Wage...

That's right, Hillary put up a bill to link the Minimum Wage to the Congressional Pay.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Congress will wildly inflate their pay over the first part (where the minimum wage goes up by its own) then drop it with a Congressional Pay Plummit, making the minimum wage useless (or making illegals legal wage earners). (or more to the point, they'll likely ignore it. After all, it's not just her, but too many democrats and not enough republicans sponsoring this)

But at least someone's making an attempt to make government work.

Which explains their hatred of her (after all, when government doesn't work, corporations lord it over the people).

Christianity, Celibacy and "The Ring Thing"

2006-05-19T22:14:00.000-05:00

Saving Grace (must register to read)

About time someone said sense about celibacy. And not "How Hard It Is Not To F%ck In Today's Society."

Thing is, I remember when I was a practicing Fundamentalist Christian. I was celibate. Not necessarily by choice, but I wasn't exactly hurting, either. I desired sex and connection, but I can't say that my life was missing things because I didn't get naked and swap body fluids with the girls around me. In short, I was celibate, and probably blessed by it.

Probably the one thing missing from this is the idea (pointed out by the story) that maybe Celibacy is a blessing. A blessing in that you're allowed to live a leaner life, unencumbered by spousal and parental duties, with more of your attention able to be turned to God. No distractions, no worry about whether you're about to raise children that would have been better destroyed in the womb (God Forbid(tm)!), less of a need to focus on money and things, more an ability to focus on the important things in life.

It's actually one thing I miss from those days. What with all the other stuff I pay attention to nowadays, I look towards the older days when I readily rode my bike across town to do church activities. And we're talking about across Flint, Michigan. Across the northern part, the poor black part, by the olde Buick Factory and across neighborhoods that probably don't exist (certainly a large part of the neighborhood just north of downtown doesn't exist anymore except as fields viewable from Saginaw Street).

And "The Ring Thing?" It can't work. That ring is a reminder that you're not supposed to F%CK. And guess what: enough reminders that you're not supposed to F%CK will lead to F%CKING, with lots of pre-F%cking activities beforehand. Remove the ring and instead meet once or twice a week with like-minded people and you'll find your celibacy more than a vow made in the heat of the moment (with all the arousal THAT implies).

Interesting Note: Coppertone Girl Painter Dies

2006-05-18T21:03:00.000-05:00

Joyce Ballantyne Brand, Creator of the Coppertone Girl, Dies

Remember the old Coppertone ads? Not the recent ones, the ones with more buttocks?

Yes, those ads used to run. Well into the seventies and eighties, even up to the start of the new millenium.

Thing was, back when the painting was in advertisements and on the packages people didn't think of a young girl's buttocks as sexually exciting. We were able to take the picture in context and understand what was being said.

Look at the old picture, and you'll see a girl looking at a dog who's biting her bikini bottom down. Her hand's holding onto the front of the bikini, and she's got a mortified look on her face. No sign of wanting attention of any kind, instead she'd rather disappear into the woodwork.

Not only that, but in a beach scene you'd understand that the girl was properly dressed. (Okay, she needs a top; but the bottom piece would not be out of place had it not been being pulled down by a dog.)

Admittedly, this was before the internet and the present-day hyperawareness of pedophilia. Before priests and scouting and junior high-school gymnastic coaches became objects of strong watchful surveillance. Before we understood that college wasn't the only place where teachers were bedding students (and that in college, the teachers are being logical about it).

So maybe it's better that there's less of the bottom shown, and that the image is smaller. Anything to not signal to pedophiles and their ilk that their perdillictions are gaining any acceptance.

Still, there's something to be said about a society that could accept such a picture, knowing full well what was meant (and what WASN'T).

Worries About the Macintosh Platform

2006-05-17T21:12:00.000-05:00

Ctrl+Alt+Del Parody of The Macintosh "No Viruses" Commercial

I'm not so much laughing as cringing. Not so much at the idea of "Listen to the crowd yell out 'Look At These Suckers Trying To Get Noticed, They're Too Pitiful To Even Be Pitied' then walk away" cringing, but in the way of "Listen to the hacker crowd say 'Look At These Losers Act Like They're A Real Platform, Let's Crush Them Out Of The Internet And Out Of Business Once And For All' then walk to their computers to pilfer the Operating System" cringing.

Probably one of the blessings over the past few years has been the utter absence (sp?) of virii aimed at the Macintosh. Sure there's spies and similar items, but nothing meant to take the platform down.

And, sadly, I think this is because we've been blessed with an invisibility. We're still the standard for graphics related stuff and a favorite on colleges (and there's the iPod, natch) but there's a small enough group of us for the hacker group to ignore us. Makes things much easier.

But now with the commercials, I'm sure there's enough hackers out there ready to take aim at the Macs. Worse, they now know how to make things really bad for computers, having figured out ways to make people suffer and really damage things at the same time.

And with the Macintosh so long unattacked and open, watch out...it could get as ugly as letting loose a fourteen year old redhead among a bunch of college-aged football players. (Me: I'm glad I've just read about the problem so far...)

Will The Fundamentalists ACTUALLY Stand By Their Threat?

2006-05-15T22:16:00.000-05:00

Conservative Christians Criticize Republicans

What would be interesting if these guys were to bolt the Republican Party. Either someone would get them back on, or they would be written off for a couple of years.

Thing is, they could easily cause more ruckus on the off-year elections, when people generally don't pay attention to things because there's no governor or president being elected. They wouldn't even need to support anyone for President; all they'd need to do is act when everyone else is sleeping.

And they're the type of people who'd act when people are asleep.

And it's those type of people who succeed.

You know. The sleepy left derisively refers to them as conservatives. They then fall asleep and wake up again at the mercy of the conservatives.

Seen it too many times to cry anymore.

Is This View Of the Grand Canyon REALLY Necessary?

2006-05-14T12:19:00.000-05:00

Skywalk to offer thrilling Grand Canyon view

Okay, I understand why the people (The Haulapai Indian Tribe) would want to build it, and I can see why someone would want to take the view from such a point.

However: what would be gained from such a view that wouldn't be gained from the side? Even if we're talking about a view from the bottom, I'm sure there's plenty of helicopter and airplane tours that would give you that.

2006-05-12T20:21:00.000-05:00

Love Thy PlayStation, Love Thy Self
Okay, I get it...I guess....

Thing is, there's other benefits to a wife/husband that don't come from a PlayStation (or another similar item):

Sex. And no, masturbation doesn't count -- it's not nearly as satisfying, especially when you get the other person to come. You'd be surprised at the ego boost you get from getting the other person to come, especially repeatedly.
Division of Labor. One person takes care of dinner, the other does the yard. One person holds down the fort, the other earns enough to keep it warm dry and shiny. One person rises up the corporate ladder while the other makes sure he looks the part. One person makes music (or art) while the other makes sure the art can be made and sold. Two people can live cheaper than EITHER could alone. You get the point.
Roots. From personal experience: I tended to go out every night when I was alone. Now, with someone, I go out maybe once a week (sometimes less) and am more satisfied with the nightlife I imbibe.
Balance. Simply put, two people together can balance each other out, holding back each other's excesses and weaknesses. Where one person is blind, the other can see and catch; thereby correcting possibly fatal mistakes. It's no accident that single people die sooner, single men average a decade less life than married men.
Investment Grows with Time. As your SO/spouse grows older, they grow in worth (they know you , you know them, you grow comfortable). Video games tend to grow stale as they grow older; even the long-lasting titles need revivification every so often.

I'm sure there's other ways a human beats out a PlayStation. However, when you consider that $100,000/year is more than most people earn even today, it should be obvious that a long-time love gives dividends that outpace whatever benefits a single life may give.

Before There Were Photographs, You Painted Your Family...

2006-05-10T21:52:00.000-05:00

When Portrait Was Memory
(Must Register To View)

I know, I usually do current events, or various fixations (Universities, Soda Pop). However, this story touched on a couple of interesting memories which I'd like to share with you:

In one of my last visits to a friend I happened upon a portrait I hadn't seen before. It was dark, but still viewable; I asked my friend who it was. Turned out it was his mother who was painted, and his father was able to win it at a carnival game.
When I went to a party at a friend of a friend's house during the nineties, I should have looked around at how the second floor was hanging from the ceiling; but at the entryway was a really good picture. I asked where the householder got it, he said he inherited it, and that it was unusually good quality for a portrait. I had to agree, as it literally stole the show from the house itself.

It is interesting, in this age of digital photographs taking the photo beyond disposability to almost invisible overabundance, to view hints of a time when a portrait (however sloppily done) was given a place almost alongside the Bible in importance.

Indeed, in a way I'm always interested in ways of doing stuff that predate what we have now. While it's fun typing stuff on the computer and other stuff, it's always good to see how things were done. Especially since civilization has gone backwards before, probably more times than we know about.

The Right Apple Wins!

2006-05-09T23:29:00.000-05:00

From The BBC: Beatles Lose to Apple In Court

Okay, so you'd choose to disagree if you were rooting for The Beatles. Fair enough, but even you'd have to admit that the Apple Corporation of Britain has been badly serving the Beatles, what with their unwillingness to remaster their catalog and preferrence to sue anything that uses an apple in their logo instead of breathing new life into themselves by finding and helping new talent.

But be assured, the Michael Jackson owned blokes at Apple Croporation aren't about to take their latest defeat lying down. They're getting ready to a-ppeal (and no, I'm not making this up).

Sallie Mae: Finding A Way To Make The 13th Amendment Moot

2006-05-07T20:57:00.000-05:00

Sallie Mae's Success Too Costly For Students?

Yet another problem with Universities Today: The greater dependence of students on Student Loans.

The fact is, while many students are happy to get anything to go into college, the fact that they've become dependent on loans is a crime. Most students will, when they graduate, start their adult life in deep debt, which is bad enough -- but the system is now set up so that if anything goes wrong, the debt balloons and grows larger. Worse yet, you can't get any relief from it outside of paying for it, as the debt is protected in every way, from bankrputcy protection to the ability to take money from disability and retirement (something only deadbeat parents have to worry about). Sickness is no excuse, indeed it's a reason for them to get tougher.

It doesn't help, of course, that Sallie Mae owns some massive collection companies. So all they need to do is get a Default judgement, and their potential profit explodes. They get their money from the government (all principle, interest and fees from late or nonpayments), plus they split what they can extract from collections with the government, 25% to them, 75% to the government. Imagine: Automatic collection of the full debt and interest, plus the ability to collect as much extra money as you can get (including higher levels of interest, since they're no longer protected by the contract they signed). Sallie Mae profit, the government gets back some money (if the whole thing is collected, it's more than the original loan), and as for the former students unable to pay...well, they deserve your vindictiveness anyway, since they didn't insure their future would cover their loans.

Which makes sense if you study any of the Liberal Arts as a major. However, if you happen to suffer a sudden reversal, or don't find a job immediately, or get radically ill, or are unemployed for a period of time, or find yourself in desperate need of money; you've just had your life given away to Sallie Mae -- and there's no recourse to the 13th Amendment because there was no force in your signing of the loan papers. You gambled (although few think of school as gamling), you lost (although you had no idea that losing is what it's known as) and you're going to pay for the rest of your life (and not just in cash -- crappy credit now keeps you from good jobs, cuts you off from purchases, makes you pay more for less and even threatens to deny you the basic necessities).

So what should be done?

How about a looser system. One that allows for full forgiveness for people forced onto disability, one that allows for breaks and forgiveness, one that has a limit to what the former student needs to pay (try twice the original debt), one that doesn't allow Sallie Mae to profit twice from Defaulters (once from the government, again from the collection agencies it owns). One that allows for certain Bankruptcies (I'd say ones where the student loans account for less than half the total debt. After all, hospital debt can rack up fast, and sometimes you're stuck in a position where you can't halt the debt until it's too late.).

Also, better fund the universities. We need to make it so students don't have to throw themselves into hock just to gain needed skills or documentations. Maybe some of them can learn some trades; we're in desperate need for plumbers, electricians and other skilled trades. Maybe instead of Masters for teaching, a concentration that allows the student to gain their teaching certificate without breaking themselves with two years of higher costs. Maybe some of these jobs that supposedly require degrees could do without them, giving people unable to afford school a chance to prove they deserve a better life.

Sadly, the United States is working to become the first nation where ambition is a sure path to enslavement. The above suggestions can go a long way to stop this slide.

Looks Like The Circle Line's The Favored Son Here At The CTA...

2006-05-06T09:17:00.000-05:00

Circle Line Narrowed To Three Possibilities

Looks like they're opting for a smaller circle line instead of the more logical, more egalitarian mid-city line (Jefferson Park to Ford City alongside Cicero, then Ford City to Red Line 89th street alongside abandoned and presently used rail lines). There's also a couple other lines (as well as the mid-city line) I'd like to see done before this thing gets built, but you know how things are...

Nevertheless, there's positives from what I've seen, and they come from the fact that they didn't limit themselves to using the Paulina Corridor:

One of the three accepted options goes all the way to Western Avenue, expanding service to an area with enough need that it has Express Service over much it. That could be the start of a Western Avenue El, which would benefit one of the busiest roads in Chicago.

Looking at the poll, it looks like the people are with me on the Corridor to choose. The Western Avenue routing outpolls the two others (and if stuck with an Ashland/Paulina corridor route, avoid the Odgen routing, please). But why the popularity of Light Rail, especially since they already have a strong Heavy Rail Presence, is beyond me. Heavy Rail would allow interconnections and make ordering easier (one set of railcars, not two different types).

Some of the other considered routings had positives of their own besides the circle routing itself. The Halstead and Canal/Clinton options could act as through routes connecting other routes through downtown, and the Ashland/Odgen alignment could allow for through-routing from the Howard to Douglas or Midway while bypassing downtown.

What's missing, imho, is a connection across from where this line meets the Orange Line across to Pershing Street. Since there's a connection from the Green Line to the State Street Tunnel, there's no need to jerri-rig a connection to the Dan Ryan Line. Plus, even if you use the Halstead Corridor, extending the line down to Pershing allows for expanding the el into areas it has never been before (instead of merely increasing service over two or three stations at best). You would also introduce time savings for people using the 95th Street Line going places other than downtown, something avoided by using the Orange Line.

Originally they talked about a three-part building plan for the Circle Line (one part finished, as shown by the Pink Line). Even if they end up doing the Western route, I'd allow for them to add on the Pershing Street connection after building the rest; just as long as the line is planned for and eventually built.

Vault Fully in NW Indiana

2006-05-05T23:52:00.000-05:00

Finally saw some twelve pack cans of Vault in the stores.

I hope it was just the idea of rolling things out so that people drank it first, then the demand for other sizes would follow.

How big is Vault supposed to be? Simple: they actually have 1 litre sizes for this stuff. For Coke and Pepsi/Dew, litre sizes are used for the higher-selling brands. You don't see Fanta Pineapple or Pepsi w/Lime out in litre sizes, and for good reason: it's an extra size, one you don't want to put out unless you know you can make money on it.

More to the point: I saw Surge in Litre bottles. I didn't see Citra in litre bottles. You also saw OK in litre bottles when it came out, but that was more psycho-biological programming than actual expectation; as I doubt they actually expected people to get into OK longer than was needed to create a Gen-X Republican Robot Army.

But the fact that Vault came out in Litre bottles should show what Coke expects of Vault: A challange to the Dew.

Too bad I never saw dnL out in 1 litre bottles.

What Do You Get When You Remove Neutrality From The Internet For The Sake Of SBC...

2006-05-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

(Yes, I know, it's now called ATT; SBC bought ATT and used their name.)

What should one expect when the internet in the United States is robbed of its nuetrality? What happens when SBC and Verizon and Comcast and other similar companies are allowed to gateway the internet to their fun and profit? I can imagine a few things:

A tiered Internet.
There will be two ways to access the internet; one for people paying a small amount, the other for those willing to pay "more." Those who pay more will find a wider internet and quicker access, those who pay less will find slower access and limited options.
Harder to get porn, Not necessarily harder to get kiddie porn.
Those chasing after kiddie porn know damn well how to hide; they'll hide just a little better and everyone will adjust to it. Adult porn will find things harder as those who want it will pay more and find barriers still placed (thanks to those who think everyone's business is fair game).
Death to P2P.
The RIAA will cause the internet companies to put sniffers on the routers to figure out which programs the users are using. If you're using a P2P program, the server can then disconnect, slow down the connection so that everything gets downloaded at a creep, or act in ways that mess with the software or hardware, even with firewall and anti-virus software. The server may just erase the P2P programs, leaving the Browsers and other definitely legal (read: not widely used for "intellectual property theft") programs.
Timed Internet Access.
Since it's obvious that many in the entertainment and communications areas already believe that our basic needs can be covered by a slower connection, the next step will be limited access time. An extra charge will be done for those who want more time per day.
Say Goodbye to Innocent Before Proven Guilty
Since there's going to be a major need for entertainment and communications to make sure their intellectual property rights aren't trampled by the little internet user, internet spying will not so much become legal but mandatory. And with it: the idea that something not directly allowed becomes illegal (the reverse of what we have now)
Much more restrictive file formats forced on us.
Instead of .m4a formats which allow a limited amount of copies, you'll get something that won't allow you to copy. Worse yet, don't be surprised it you're forced to pay for every listen (or every 10 listens) or every X days of ownership.

I can see other things, but they involve software makers, not the tellecommunications/entertainment industry. No matter what, I can see the day when the internet becomes as boring as Television was in the seventies.

So goes all revolutions. First comes the moment of freedom, then the restrictions come in worse than before.

Plaigarism, Intended Or Not

2006-05-03T22:33:00.000-05:00

In Internet Age, Writers Face Frontier Justice
Another Book Found Plaigarised, Maybe?
(Will need to register to read both articles)

Comment to the first link: I remember, when I was younger, I had caught the storywriting bug myself. One of the stories that I wrote involved a character named "Superbear" which was heavily influenced by an Underdog episode (let's just say there was more of that episode in the story than there was other input, including my own). When one of my classmates said he saw a VERY similar Underdog episode (something I never considered, believe it or not. I was nine at the time, so go figure), I stammered my way through, saying something along the line of "yes, I did use it as inspiration; but I added things of my own invention".

Lucky for me it was just in fourth grade. The worst I could suffer was a bit of embarassment and an "F," and have multiple chances to redeem myself (as the teacher liked to assign writing assignments on a frequent, regular basis). I wasn't eagerly waitied with a book ready to sell in a world with eight million critics, each one ready to point out where I stole stuff from.

Comment to the second link: Now this is beginning to be piling on.

There is such a thing as emulation. Indeed, it used to be that people used to say "he sounds like so-and-so" and people would have fun figuring out who influenced the artist, and where. Not it's almost like you have to be a tabula rasa to get your dues.

Here's the NYT article involving one line:

In one scene in Ms. Kinsella's book, which was published by Dial Press, the main character, Emma, comes upon two of her friends "in a full-scale argument about animal rights," and one says, "The mink like being made into coats."
In Ms. Viswanathan's book, Opal, the heroine, encounters two girls having "a full-fledged debate over animal rights."
"The foxes want to be made into scarves," one of them says.

Thing is, I remember watching a movie titled "The Opposite Sex" in which the first words in the song played over the first shot (a fur scarf, may I add) are "Why do foxes get willingly Trapped?"

Maybe I should shout about Ms. Kinsella plaigarising MSM? Or, better yet, assume that sometimes people hold interesting phrases, ideas and sentances they come across and they come out later.

Maybe because Ms. Viswanathan had already been found out as a plaigarist (as admitted by her, even if she claims it was unintentional) she gets a harder, deeper grilling that already assumes guilt where similarities pop up. An obvious move, since guilt in one area implies guilt in other areas. Otherwise, this would be treated not so much plaigarism as reuse; something every artist does.

And didn't we just see a case about someone using "similar plot points" fail; thank god?

The Worldwide Labor Day Has Passed

2006-05-01T22:21:00.000-05:00

By the time you read this, May 1st will have come and gone. And with it, the worldwide Worker's Day.

True, in the United States it has been historically linked with the mandatory marches held by the Soviet Union and the Communist World (until Communism fell from the Soviet Union, and thus from Europe). However, the rest of the world has considered this its Labor Day since from before the establishment of "Labor Day" in the United States on the First Monday in September.

The reason for the establishment of a "Labor Day" is obvious. Mayday had become symbolic of revolution, and while there were portions of the working class who wanted revolution, the main part of the working class wanted better pay, fewer hours and a weekend to relax. "Labor Day" became a way to honor workers without referring to revolution and worker's republics.

Of course, now Mayday has been forgotten in the United States. Only immigrants would remember the importance of this day -- and they do. Look at which day they picked. True, it's a Monday, but no other monday but Mayday.

Two Updates: Vault In Different Sizes and More On The LaCrosse Stuff

2006-04-28T21:28:00.000-05:00

Two Updates Today:

Vault found in different sizes at various stores.
I found cans at a nearby Meijers and some litre bottles at a Speedway gas station. So at least there's some different sizes out there; even if it's not getting the blanket coverage needed for a possible big explosion.
But like I've said before, the sodapop market is conservative. The problem here is that Coke is still making Mello Yello; the stores would rather market a slow-selling known item (however much it may suck) than try out an unknown that may jump off the shelves -- or stay stuck, unable to move either into bascarts or back to the company.
Looks like our LaCrosse "victim" had done the same thing before (charged someone with rape), when she was a YOUNG teenager.
While it shouldn't have any impression on the case, I can't just push it aside, as we're talking about the same sort of thing happening again: Three men doing nasty things to her against her will. After all, you'd think she'd have learned how to steer from similar problems from the earlier situation.
Besides, I'm curious as to whether they had tested the black LaCrosse player. Obviously the woman cried rape, she pegged three northeastern LaCrosse players in a Deep Southern Town (hence my thought that it was the locals who did it then forced her to blame the players -- the south may be hospitable, but northerners are outsiders by definition, yankees more so) and none of the LaCrosse Player's specimens matched. While the police may not have been able to test the black player (no probably cause), I am curious whether there'd be any match there.

That's it for this moment.

This Is Your University, Desperate for Bodies and The Money They Bring In

2006-04-26T23:46:00.000-05:00

Brand U
(will need registration to view)

Welcome to the new economics of Universities. Schools, desperate for warm bodies to enter their hallways, are now trying to market themselves as something other than what they're supposed to be: Places where people learn job skills that will take them further and higher than they would have gone straight from High School.

Maybe we have too many schools around. Maybe we've overestimated the importance of learning from "professors" and forgotten about the idea of learning from ourselves. Maybe we're too fixated on that sheet of paper saying the person named upon it has jumped through enough hoops to deserve a look from employers.

Or maybe we've gutted our schools so much they feel a need to get bodies in and never mind the actual education.

Remember, the schools have been losing federal and state monies since the 1970s. You can tell this by seeing how many teachers now get Tenure, and what they have to do to get it. You can tell by how many people they pile into auditoriums for classes, and how many classes are now taught by Teaching Assistants. You can tell by all the new buildings for all the schools that bring in money from outside, while the other classes end up living in buildings slowly (and not-so-slowly) falling apart. You can tell when you hear that "UVA now gets only 6% of their money from the state"

I could tell looking at my Pell Grant from the years 1983-1990. Even though it increased from $600 to $766 per term, its coverage shrank down from 14 hours (and a decent weekend's partying) to ten hours of class credit (with twelve credits needed to get that). Another way of putting it is that per-credit prices DOUBLED during that time.

And the price increases didn't end when I got out of school. Indeed, you know people are getting desperate when the University Presidents put up a promise to "Keep Increases within the rate of inflation." Thing is, the promises always included the proper increase in funding, and those never came.

Then there's the prestige chase. New buildings constantly need to be built, complete with labs, offices (for the High-flying "professors" who need to hide from their students), lecture auditoriums (so the freshmen can be introduced to your classes as cheaply as possible) and other items to show the world you're a big-time university. Throw in a few classrooms for the illusion of a college hall, and you've got yourself a modern-day (post-1960) college building.

And now they need to get as many people in their buildings, or they'll lose money. And if you're from out of state, then better (since they can charge more). Price increases keep getting passed on more and more, with students gladly filling in the rest with student loans.

How long will this de facto privatization of post-secondary education continue? Sadly, I expect it to continue to the point of universities and colleges closing down. Not the big names (which have built up endowments to protect themselves from the vagaries of public funding) nor smallish ideologically driven private schools (with their backing and what-not), but the mid-level and branch campuses will end up closing up.

In short: Say goodbye, Northern Michigan. Say Goodbye, UofM-Dearborn.

Also, don't be surprised if the schools figure a way of closing colleges that don't make money but are presently being treated as sacred cows. As tenure fully dries up and corporate types continue to take over the colleges and universities, certain colleges will be seen as expendable and WILL be expended with when the time comes.

Fact is I doubt many Arts and Letters colleges in Universities will survive, simply because Arts and Letters are nowhere near as important as people think. Every high "Art" has a low art which has fully taken its place, and the main stories that we remember are forever being rewritten and retold. That the most extreme teachers are generally found in the Arts and Letters departments will make their dissolution that much easier, once the University Presidents get enough guts together to do what they want to do.

Gas vs Water: What's Not Being Said

2006-04-26T23:13:00.000-05:00

I don't know about you, but I get sick and tired of hearing and reading "We complain about gas prices rising to $3.00 a gallon, yet pay a hundred bucks a gallon for a Starbucks coffee." or X dollars per gallon of bottled water, or something else.

The fact is, your average person can decide to go without the coffee or drink water out of the tap. Ergo, we choose to spend the money on the coffee and water. While I agree we'd be better off if we brewed our own coffee and drank out of the water fountain, the fact is the water or coffee is our choice in this manner.

But try to go without gas for a long period of time. Chances are, you'll find your car stalled on the road.

Most people don't live in a place where Public Transit is a viable option. Bus service is crappy, and limited to the poorer areas of town. Trains, where they exist, usually go to and from downtown and, if you're lucky, are able to go from there to another side of town; but there's no sane way to loop around downtown. And if you want to go somewhere for the evening, better plan a quick trip if you're using Public Transit -- usually it's done before the night life is.

And those places where there's good public transit usually end up having a bare-boned system made to maximize their market during prosperous years (when those using it either had to or made a statement by choosing it), leaving a system unable to make a suitable change for times like this (when gas doubles over a year and the need becomes obvious).

So people develop a dependence on automobiles (for obvious reasons), and economic development spurs the dependency further. Space becomes automobile-based, shoving businesses back for roads and garages to the front of houses (seen the latest developments?). Gas stations become oasis for multiple forms of refreshment, incorporating fast food joints and convenience stores in their (vastly expanding) spaces as well as ample space to drive around the feuling points and up-front parking. The idea of Sidewalks is consigned to bicycle trails that take over old rail lines, cutting off possible avenues of transit expansion while giving the illusion of expanding parkland. Wal-Mart and their Kin (Lowe's, Office Max and other similar stores, along with the ubiquitous Malls) become out downtowns, controlling how we deal with the world around us. Soccer Moms turn to Yukons and Hummers not so much as a driving statement but for the sheer comfort of being able to sit UP in an SUV instead of down in a Corolla or Probe (and not be subjected to a visual groping every so often by SUV driving men). And, since a lot of time is now spent in a car, you end up eating and drinking a lot in it.

And, of course, when Gas Prices go up, you end up with a lot of people unable to cut back on their consumption without compromising their lives. Hence their complaints.

But before you tear into them for their complaints, consider the above. And this: how many people were willing to sacrifice for "a more sustainable future?" very few, and usually they were viewed as fools by most of us who bought the cars and bought into the lifestyle implied. They sacrificed, and we got about a cent per gallon break, making it easier for us to buy the cappucinos and bottled water to fill the cupholders with. And since we're talking about few enough people, they end up being packed away in Urban Enclaves where the rest of us can ignore them in our gas-devouering Heavens. Their sacrifice, nothing gained for us.

And now, when the piper comes due, guess who gets looked at. That's right, the SUV mom whining about paying more for the gas she has (and we have) been suckled on since the birth of our consumer culture in 1956 (the year the Interstate Highway System was passed, along with the funding).

No, I'm not feeling sorry for the SUV Mom. But I'm not sitting on a high horse, either. After all, I've made a living off our gas-guzzling culture; usually at the lower realms of the pay scale. And I've seen how inadequate our mass transit systems have become. I've seen our hyper-low density developments of the past (and even lower density developments of the present) and wonder how we'll ever adjust to Europe-level prices (double what ours are now). I've seen how our lifestyles have abandoned any concept of a town center, focusing instead on corporate-made points where our behaviors all revolve around shopping instead of friendship or talking.

This has been going on for sixty years. I'm not sure we can reverse it without a collapse of our way of life -- economic, social, intellectual or religious.

Vault Still Not Fully In NW Indiana

2006-04-25T20:49:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been over two months since Vault first made it into Northwest Indiana, and so far I've only seen it in 20 ounce bottles at POS locations and convenience stores.

Problem is, I've seen Black Cherry Vanilla Coke out in cans, 20 ounce bottles and 2 liter bottles, and it came out about the same time. I've also seen Berry Vanilla Dr Pepper soda come out in cans, 20 ounce bottles and 2 liter bottles, and that's about as boutique a flaver as you'll ever see in that wide a selection. Fresca got a remake with four different flavors and a wide range of choices.

I have seen a couple of 1 liter bottles, but it's always away from the NW Indiana area.

So what's my problem? Simply put, if you've got something you believe in you don't put something out in a limited selection -- you put it out in as wide a mix of choices as you can, so that people can get what they want when they want it. You don't put out one computer, you put out a group of four (or more) different types with different specs for different users. You don't put out one car, you put out four cars, with three or four versions each and a number of choices.

But what choice does one have for Vault in NW Indiana? 20 oz, regular or diet. No other sizes.

Methinks that the Coca Cola Company felt it had to put something out to make it look like it's competing against Mountain Dew, so they came up with this and did a half-hearted job in some markets. While NW Indiana may be a weak link, it's still a sign of how much Coca-Cola supports its products.

And appearently they don't think Vault will be that much of a force. After all, Mello Yello still comes in all formats (except 1 liter) in NW Indiana, and it's a failed product with a history of image changes that makes New Coke look solid as cement.

I could be wrong...

In Time For An Earth Day Response: Wal-Mart Goes Green?

2006-04-22T08:54:00.000-05:00

Wal-Mart has a change of heart?

Yes, I know about Wal-Mart, indeed I had posted a few things I disliked abut the megachain that owns the rural half of the United States. I have a respect for the company (a respect gained when I saw how they made parking easier for handicapped people, at the cost of a few of their own parking spaces), that doesn't reduce my dislike for them one bit.

Now Wal-Mart's considering their own "Go Green" movement.

Thing is, even if this company does a half-assed job, what they will do will spread out over the whole of North America and the world. Remember, we're talking the 800 pound Gorilla effect: Even if all Wal-Mart does is dictate standards for reduced packaging, make the suppliers take the costs of the efforts and grab up the glory for itself the effects on packaging will spread out throughout the stores and into the homes.

I just hope they go as far as the press releases claim they will. I want to see self-sufficient Wal-Mart stores made from technology that spreads to self-sufficient homes. I want to see innovative packaging that's sold wherever, not just in Wal-Mart stores. I'd like to see transportation advances make their way from Wal-Mart throughout the whole system.

In short, I'd like to see a positive revolution from this company. Not just an expansion of choices to communities where jobs no longer exist, not just cheaper stuff, all imported from China; but some benefits that extend their reach even to places where Wal-Mart cannot even think of establishing itself -- and worldwide, as well.

For once, I'd like to think that that wasn't too much to ask.

Okay Now, Everybody Say "Duuuh"

2006-04-21T22:15:00.000-05:00

Sexy Women Make Men Stupid

Something which everyone knows, if only in a vague way through personal experience or personal observation.

So why do a study on "stupid stuff like this?"

Objective Knowledge. There's stuff we know, and there's stuff we both know and can back up. We're more assertive and certain about knowledge we can back up.
If it turns out what everyone knows is wrong, then it's time to change what you know, or at least adjust it.

Two good enough reasons, in my opinion. The truths get confirmed, and falsehoods get identified. Overall, everyone's knowledge is increased or firmed up; which is a good thing either way.

(although you got to admit, it's more interesting when "Everything You Know Is Wrong!")

Just Read "Everything Bad Is Good For You"

2006-04-20T23:17:00.000-05:00

Everything Bad Is Good For You: The Book

The premise of this book is that the Video Games, Television and other media that we so much fear has actually increased various components of our intelligence. This was done because the media has had to become more complex to hold people's interest, and those items that have developed in a way to be infinitely interesting and replayable/rewatchable are what's being emulated by both high and low arts.

An example: What's more interesting: All In The Family, or The Bachelor. AITF was the groundbreaking in that it dared to look at controversy, whereas Bachelor merely put twelve women and watched them catfight for a man acting like he had money (truly acting: he hadn't earned more than 30K per year). According to the book, if you said All In The Family, you hadn't watched The Bachelor, as The Bachelor led to talk about who was going to get picked, why a certain woman was (or wasn't) picked, and how stupid the women were since the Bachelor was becoming obvious in his poorness. AITF merely fed you stuff, The Bachelor gave you stuff to think about. (The author calls this the Sleeper Curve, after the Woody Allen movie where Junk Food was considered more nutritious than "health food" due to scientific findings in the next two hundred years.)

Furthermore, while the various versions of Grand Theft Auto may glorify Violence and sociopathic behavior, it also causes players to think and explore, thereby getting their brains in gear. Whether they'll turn out to be better rapists and carjackers is up for debate, but that thier minds are being lit up is nothing to argue against.

It's an interesting thesis, although it seems he talks more about mental fitness instead of actual intelligence. He does hit on the idea in his comments on book reading, but to truely figure out things, one needs a sizeable bank of knowledge gathered. It's not enough to be able to figure out everything from a simple set of instructions, you need to develop that knowledge over a period of time, preferrably years if not decades. And while working out various games and TV shows may be good mental exercise, you may be missing out on the sheer knowledge and value judgements that real life offers (or learning to dismiss them as you find multiple setups in various worlds).

Still, it's an interesting read, for the points he brings up. Especially about the rising intelligence of certain forms of media (TV, Video Games).

Duke Lacrosee: Walks and Talks Like a Duck, But It's Not A Duck

2006-04-18T21:57:00.000-05:00

Charges Finally Given In Duke LaCrosse Rape Case

I remember my original reaction, how this case was in many ways a significator of how sports has ruined the university today. That was, of course, before the DNA tests showed that whatever sperm was inside her was from none of the Lacrosse players, and the prosecuter saying he'd prosecute someone anyway.

This has officially gone from story to circus.

Sad thing is that I had riffed on what I saw was a problem with Colleges in the US from the article, based on what looked like truth (College Players Gone Too Wild For Their Britches). Problem is, while my complaints about the College situation still stands, what has happened with this story has sullied my point. Any College apologist could say "They weren't even guilty, and they were being nice," and I couldn't argue with that point.

A bad example doesn't support a good point, no matter how much it sounds like everything you've heard before. That's why I titled this posting "WALKS AND TALKS LIKE A DUCK, BUT IT'S NOT A DUCK." replace the words "a duck" with "the truth" and you get the idea.

Anyway, I have a few guesses about what has and will happen:

I believe the woman was raped. The rapists were local boys, sons of heavy-duty Duke Lacrosse Boosters, who were probably invited to the party and took advantage of the place. She, of course, thought they were LaCrosse players, so she acted "logically" and charged the team with rape.
It will turn out that the prosecuter went ahead with the case because he felt he had to. There was proof of rape; some genetic material which wasn't hers. He also knew whatever was out there would exhonerate the Lacrosse players, and thus felt the case had to go to trial in order to get the players (and, by extension, the team) exhonerated.
The Lacrosse players will be judged "Not Guilty" in the trial that follows. Some sections of the society will make it a point not to exhonerate the boys, and many who do exhonerate the boys would have done so ANYWAY, whether they had done so or not.
The real rapists will get away scot-free because of their local connections and the fact that the Lacrosse players were YANKEES and therefore Outsiders despite their sports affiliation. Duke Lacrosse will take the fall for local actions.

And remember, you read them here first (that's if I'm right. If I'm wrong, remember: I called them guesses; although I believe them pretty accurate).

Is That Stuff Diluted, or Full Strength?

2006-04-16T21:29:00.000-05:00

BasketBawful brings you...The Gatorade Conspiracy
...and...
BasketBawful brings you...The Gatorade Conspiracy, Part 2

So what did I do? I looked at the bottle and my penis.

And guess what: the bottle of Gatorade looked exactly like my penis. Even down to that slight shift in the top.

Actually, let me correct myself: It looks like a circumcised penis. I haven't seen that many penises (being straight and not very athletic, after all) but I'm aware that what most men from the US have is not what they were born with. With most of us, doctors were allowed to cut off a small flap of skin that covered the head.

And you need the 32 ounce bottle for the best comparison. Other bottles sizes, while they're similar, actually follow general "rules" which all bottles share. No, we're talking about something specifically designed with repeat consumption by men and boys in mind. Something made to attract without being obvious. Something we'd like without making the obvious connection that would raise our hackles.

But...the similarity is obvious and there.

And when you consider that the bottle has a very dilute salt mixture in it...

Just saying.

Rush Limbaugh And The Birth of Participatory Radio

2006-04-15T00:04:00.000-05:00

Watching a WTTW show on Eric and Cathy, it hit me just what the real change in Radio has been.

Think of it this way: In the seventies and eighties, would you have heard music on the radio, maybe some wild stuff on the morning shows, but little in audience response, and almost nothing in appearances from the musical stars. Think of it: Would Bad Company (never mind Led Zeppelin) have shown up at the Rock Station you listened to? Highly Unlikely, that was the level of separation between star musician and DJ. DJs communicated with their fans through requests and contests, but the fans rarely talked outside of that. WTRX had a talk-show in the evening (back when it was Adult Contemporary) in the seventies and early eighties, but that ended when the station went all Heavy-Metal in the mid-eighties.

That change started with Rush Limbaugh. Never mind that you had a conservative voice broadcasting nationwide in the middle of the day (after all, Sunday Mornings had Christian Church shows all over it); what made the show big was the fact that he took (well-screened) calls from a nationwide peanut gallery (aka Dittoheads). Thus, not only did you have a leading conservative voice on the radio talking about his beliefs, but you had thousands of conservative voices making cameos on that show, adding their assent, developing points, making distinctions and generally adding to the shared beliefs of the movement.

Participatory radio, in other words.

Sports radio would take that concept further, allowing for discussions that ranged from blindingly local (Junior High gymnastics sex scandals in the making) to national (Steroids and the Home Run Chase of 1998). Eventually, music radio (in part thanks to one of the few positive effects of Napster and P2P) started bringing in bands to play in the studio, hosting bands in intimate settings (complete with DJs working overtime) and even having working vacations where DJs mixed it up (pun not intended) with a group of fans who came for the priviledge.

None of this was seen in 1985. Back then, you listened to radio either for news or for music, and that was it. Minnesota Public Radio had a variety show that was beginning to go national, but that was as much a throwback as anything else. Otherwise, chances to talk on the radio were small and limited, and no one saw the need for change, outside of a few AM stations noticing their audience growing smaller and older.

Now there's a national dialog going on at various levels, over numerous subjects, over the airwaves. Plus the fans are actually closer to their stars than before, talking with them and spending real time in intimate settings. And guess what: these are the stations which are big, or getting big.

Things have changed.

If You Pay Off Your Credit Card Debts, You're Paying Off The Debts of Osama Ben Ladin

2006-04-13T22:25:00.000-05:00

Pay too much and you could raise the alarm

I'm not sure what's more worrysome about this: That this happened in a blue state (Rhode Island), or that one could see the Government (in the form of Homeland Security, or the War On Blacks -- er, I mean Drugs) confiscate the money for their sake, making sure the payers stay deeply in debt?

I suppose I could see why the government would do this: If someone were to spend lots of money then suddenly pay them all off, someone would want to make sure it's all your money and you got it legally. Still, it looks like the Government has sold itself out to the Creditor companies.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. If you can stay away from the credit cards DO SO; otherwise every attempt to pay off your debt will be rebuffed and possibly lead to felony charges!

(No I don't like this. At All.)

Three Deaths This Past Year...

2006-04-11T19:54:00.000-05:00

First a friend of mine, unexpectedly but from a known cause.
Second, someone from the past, from a long-term debilitative disease.
And now, someone with a cancer that spread too far to be fought.

A thought that comes into my mind:

Is the brain the last thing needed to hold onto life? Does being bright indeed hurry death when it appears near?

I'm sure you've heard about the apocryphal story about the Russian trapped inside a freezer car for the night, writing letters to mark the hours before he died. When he was found in the morning, he body was found stiff -- and the freezer care was 55 degrees farenheight, slightly WARMER than the surrounding air. Turned out the motor was broken and the comrade inside was warming things up, only he thought he was freezing to death so he did.

Now, consider this contrast:

Terry Schivo, with a shrunken brain, probably blind and unable to recover from what happened, lives fifteen years with the only addendum being a feeding tube.
The lady with cancer goes through one bout of chemo, decides to accept her death, AND DIES THE NEXT DAY!

Maybe the religious radical right understands something: Don't Think, Just Live and you'll live a full life, loaded with love and heart. Think too much, and you'll kill yourself before you can even raise your hand to do the actual deed.

A bit much, I admit, and adding in the Terri Schivo angle unhinges things a bit more. However, I do remember reading this person's entries in a journal that she was already ready to die and wanted it to be peaceful.

Everyone else figured she had six months to a year before she died. Even I, ever the pessimist, figured two weeks to two months (with the latter more likely). Who would have thought that two DAYS would have been wildly optimistic?

And outside of the idea of an assisted suicide (always possible but not likely, especially since she was still in the hospital), I can't help but think that she died because she was ready for it and probably set her mind to it. In short, she created her own death.

New Age bullshit? Maybe, but then our minds have been shown to control our bodies even down to a molecular level. So maybe we're not talking bullshit, but truth here.

Megabus Starts Serving Chicago

2006-04-09T22:19:00.000-05:00

The Megabus USA Site

Today Megabus added in their two cents to the competition between Amtrak and Greyhound, adding eight runs between Chicago and Milwaukee and three runs between Chicago and its other destinations (Saint Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland and Indianapolis, with Indy buses going further to Columbus (2) and Cincinnatti (1).).

What ought to be interesting is to see how much of their schedule Megabus is able to keep. The Greyhound schedule has varying times for their trip between Chicago and Milwaukee, based (I'm guessing) from eighty years of experience and a keen eye as to how the day's traffic affects bus service. Megabus is expecting a strict 1:45 for each of its trips; we'll see how long that lasts.

Devils, No Matter The Color -- Alas...

2006-04-09T09:26:00.000-05:00

Blue Devils Made Them Do It
(you will need to register to read)

Probably one of the better items I've read of what's been happening to the universities over the past twenty years, at the very least, and probably for much longer.

It starts off with a look at the rape charges aimed at Duke LaCrosse Atheletes and the aftermath. The, the surprise that the players came from the northeast, followed by a look at the development of the university, the image and how it's kept up, and the costs of such an image. Next comes words on how the Universities in the United States, once places where the elite, the elite-wannabees and those who wished to know more than their immediate life (remember, Michigan State University was established to educate FARMERS, many other universities were established to educate teachers) could share a higher culture with each other and bring it to the surrounding peoples, are now massive boarding houses for our excess unemployed youth, with sports the symbol of its existence.

Naturally the conservatives (of all stripes) latch onto Charlotte Simmons and its mix of pseudo-intellectual gay-write (yes!), but more to the point, we make the men act up and the girls won't need to worry about unremitting debauchering. But then, that wouldn't be interesting, would it? No need for an unrepentable devil (someone that can be gleefully consigned to hell), no need to do anything about the culture around you (other than withdraw) and no need to worry about how you'll be impacted. Besides, ask many conservatives (again, of all stripes) the right questions and you'll uncover that they believe your average Chinese is more truely American than your average American -- they just disagree on which Americans need to have their rights revoked.

And the universities become more and more cesspools.

Again, wonderful Benign Neglect in action. And this time, I'm talking about present tense.

Da Vinci Code Not Guilty of Infringement!

2006-04-07T22:21:00.001-05:00

"Da Vinci Code Declared Not Guilty of Copyright Infringement"

Thank God!

I could understand if "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" were advertised as a fictional book. But even then, I'd be leary of the lawsuit brought up, as there are very few "new" plot twists, plots or ideas. Much of creativity isn't "what's new" but "how do you tell it?"

But here's a guy who tried to state that "nonfiction" was stolen for fiction. Never mind whether "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" if fact or (as I believe) fiction, the idea of nonfiction barring itself from fiction is criminal in and of itself. Imagine writing total fiction without any ripple of fact to base itself on.

Oh yeah, it's already happened...

CBS News Starts Official Meltdown

2006-04-05T20:11:00.000-05:00

A Katie Couric Fansite, hopefully updated by the time YOU read it.

So now it's Katie Couric as anchorwoman of CBS news evening edition. Katie Couric, hostess of the Today Show.

Not saying she's a fluff person (she does deal with some heavy subjects), but what the heck is she doing going to anchor CBS News? I understand her angle (wanting to earn more, get higher visibility, etc.), but CBS News? The newscast of Walter Cronkite? The news that singlehandedly stopped both Joseph McCarthy and the Vietnam War, let me remind you.

Sadly, that CBS News had died. What was an independent 60 Minutes willing to take on advertisers has essentially become a shill for disconnected, half-baked stories with no understanding of what's going on and puff pieces that gloss over anything with a hint of controversy. The Main news show, once home to "Uncle Walter," became the focus of a bizarre story involving faked papers and a news story that wasn't listened to when it aired four years before. And now, with no one to adequately fill in the footsteps of Dan Rather (although, to be honest, anyone would have been an IMPROVEMENT) CBS turns and poaches someone from NBC.

Neocons, rejoice: CBS News, long the flagship liberal of the Big 3 Networks, is beginning its final collapse. FAUX NEWS: Prepare to attack your next target.

Polygamy vs Moderation

2006-04-05T00:13:00.000-05:00

Truth Bearer dot org -- Polygamy as "Biblical"

So this is where "Freedom defined is freedom Denied" is leading us? As the corporatistas strive to divest themselves of any and all responsibilities towards keeping society running (removal of laws that require corporations to act responsibly), their individualist tools (too often liberals who wish for individual freedom from any and all responsibility for one's actions, less often conservatives warping their understading so as to grant themselves surreptitious forgiveness for their sins) seek out ways to expand personal actions permitted.

So now, having opened (and tolerated) divorce for thirty years and helped foster (some willingly, some not) the ability of women to earn their own keep without a wedding ring to identify them as accepted by society, we now have the development of a s0-called polygamy movement. One that's obvious for the rich, but with its Religious Arms, both Xian and not.

Sure, monogamy is the newer historical reality. However, the wisdom of the people usually leads to monogamy at least for the majority of the population. Those people who think themselves rich and powerful enough to have multiple wives are few and far between, and more often than not have brought trouble and strife to their surroundings by their selfishness.

Reason Magazine makes a congent arguement on why polygamy is frowned upon today based on simple social dynamics. In it, they focus on the men who would be left behind by the polygamy movement in their rush to satisfy rich (and powerful) men's wish for more than one wife. What's really intriguing is how a small proportion of men (10%, according to the article) could mess up a bunch of lives, all the while living WELL within the dictates of Muslim law (four wives, max, and only a very few of those doing the polygamy thing).

Of course, what they don't get into is why the women would put up with sharing a man.

Simply put, when you see a taken man, you see a man who has something. That guy has proven himself, the evidence of which is the woman on his arm (or nearby, who comes when he calls her name). If she could remove the other woman with said man, a smart woman would choose the taken man over the untaken man.

Now, presently there'd be few women willing to share the man, and any woman willing to share a man will likely figure a way to milk said man for as much as possible. But...if it turns out the wife of said man were willing to share him with the other woman, how many would join in the agreement?

Now, few would and they would probably be Fundamentalist Mormon Women (yes, they exist. Polygamy separates them from their mainline, monogamist bretheren) unable to see a world outside their villages. But imagine if, in twenty years, the idea of every third night with a man who'd be able to spoil you materially and let you work (or not) according to your wishes or whims was a better choice than all the attentions of a man who had to yet to be able to earn his full keep and whose future earnings didn't look that good. Would your average woman be willing to put her support behind such a lesser man, knowing that that lesser man may be a failure and that a man with two wives and enough to spend spoiling a third is hitting on her? And those who take the lesser man, would they wonder about life with the other guy?

That's the thing: Once Polygamy gets legalized and slides past that "Ewww, who'd want to share?" reaction, you're going to get female selection towards those men with a wife (or even more). And that means more men stuck without wives. Not the abusive, of course -- they'd probably be among those with multiple wives -- but the more conscientious men trying to make it, who need a helpmeet to make it and won't be able to do so.

And that's where patriarchy becomes, instead, gang rule. Few polygamous societies are democracies, for the wealth descrepancies that allow for one man to have multiple wives either call for constant war (to cull the excess men) or a police state (to criminalize and separate the unworthy men from the rest of society). Either way, any form of "equal rights" or "social contract" (I'll talk more about the latter concept at some point) would go by the wayside as those with multiple wives take measures to protect their investment from the men looking to prove themselves by whatever way they can.

Maybe this is where things stop going further to the extreme and start moderating. After all, there's only so far things can go before the social fabric starts falling apart.

And maybe from here, they moderate on all fronts. After all, you can't have high morals with dropping wages and the accompanying hopelessness in the poorer areas.

Congratulations Florida On Your NCAA Basketball Championship

2006-04-03T23:48:00.000-05:00

Florida Defeats UCLA, 73-57

After a near-miss six years ago against Michigan State, Florida finally reaches the peak of the NCAA basketball world, to give its football championships some other-sports companions.

I just ask one thing: act like you've been there before. Leave your campus and neighborhood neat. Let at least ONE *$^%^%* university have enough pride in itself to keep things neat.

The Dan Ryan Reconstruction Project Begins...

2006-04-01T04:11:00.000-06:00

And so today the Dan Ryan has half the lanes it usually has had.

Reconstruction is supposed to make better pavement for the next 40 or so years, and an extra lane besides. However, over the next two summers, we're going to have to deal with overcrowded streets that are able to handle all the local traffic but now have to handle hundreds of thousands of extra vehicles.

You think the Dan Ryan was bad during rush hour, wait until you deal with Stoney Island with its lights and sections that go under railroads that shrink from four to two lanes each way. They should have invested in some reconstruction of those instead of trying to "refit" lights to work better. Plus those projects would improve things when the Dan Ryan is again finished.

It's gonna be an other six months before things are anywhere near normal, then we're going to get back to the troubles again. At least they're trying to do something.

And trying to do things as adults (but then we're talking about roads here. Something the powers that be in the United States considers important -- unlike mass transit...).

Genetic Knowledge Grows Yet Again...

2006-03-29T23:44:00.000-06:00

A Hunt for Genes That Betrayed a Desert People

I remember talking with a woman who was very interested in Genetics, and she asked me what groups I would think would have genes worth studying. My answers were the usual ones:

Iceland, where the people can be traced to a specific group of people
The Amish, whose separation has led to them escaping certain diseases around them and having diseases no one has, and
The Mormons, another small group with Polygamy included.

She took me to task with the last answer, stating that the genetic group has been expanding over the past fifty years. I reminded her that the original group itself was smallish, plus their history includes lots of polygamy, leading to a narrower genetic base than would be normal.

Turns out my thoughts were a bit limited. Now I'd include a few other groups:

The Australian Aboriginies, as they've lived separated from the rest of humanity long enough to show up genetically
The European Jewish populations, who like the Amish have been separated long enough to avoid the usual diseases and suffer from others.
The Negev Bedouins (see link above), whose inbreeding is causing problems.

I'm sure there's many others. After all, things keep being learned.

Programmable Soda Pop???

2006-03-28T02:32:00.000-06:00

Ipifini's Programmable Liquid Container Technology

Hunh?

Okay, maybe it's a decent idea. But I'm not sure the customer would want something that they'd have to make choices on. That's why there's a large choice in Sodas right now: You want what you want, not necessarily a choice once you have it.

Besides, I get the feeling the taste of the included flavors would suffer. Think of it: you get your choice of four different flavors, instead of a good flavor you get sixteen mediocre flavor possibilities. The formulation for a straight Cola soda will be different from lime-flavored cola flavor will be different from cherry-flavored cola, while something made to cross-flavor will end up either uninspired or unbalanced.

Not only that, but imagine if you could pop the caffeine button separately. I could see someone saving eight or ten of these, then popping the caffeine buttons and pouring the liquid into another beverage for a super-caffeine buzz.

Like I said, a decent idea. Now work on it and make it better. Or better yet, let it be -- usually we KNOW what we want.

My Beefs With Greyhound

2006-03-26T22:20:00.000-06:00

OK, what do I NOT like about Greyhound?

To start with, their busses are small, dingy and generic. Even their new busses.
They try to get away with as few busses as possible. That means: instead of adding a bus when it's needed, a bunch of people run late as the company hopes things settle down a bit.
Their new terminals suck. They're too small, their roofs are too low, and every time there's more than two busses waiting to get filled the lines bisect the stations. The old stations may never have been the cleanest buildings in town, but their high roofs and softer lines made them welcoming; the new statins focus more on making the passenger want to get out of their buildings as soon as possible
If you're going to cut back on your services (which I understand is necessary), when why not add flexibility to your schedule. Not everyone wants to go from Chicago to New York, why not allow for busses to go through but allow for the occasional stop with a call from the intermediate terminals/businesses? That way the bus can go straight through when it can, will pull aside to stop when there's the need.

And they wonder why no one wants to ride their busses anymore.

Amerindians Again Take The Hit...

2006-03-25T19:25:00.000-06:00

...For Yet Another Euro-American Grasp At Pseudo-Holiness

But then, what do you expect from a people pushed to the sidelines and made to profit off our vices and troubles?

I'm serious. I'd like to see some industries developed that allow a blue-collar working class to develop amongst the American Indians, or at least drive them to become more like the rest, but instead we seem quite content (okay, distrubed in this case, although for the wrong reason) that the group of americans has again found itself taking the detrius of American life and forced to make a living from it.

I wonder what will happen elsewhere as other states become "abortion free" only to find the Amerindians filling the gap their vindictive laws open up. First it's them allowing gambling, now this.

I'd say "get a life, fundies" but people tend to get high off the fumes of their self-righteousness. Blinded to other's sufferings by their victories, their navels become the limits of their gaze. Others suffer, yet they celebrate, willfully unaware of the carnage they cause.

(You want me to say they're celebrating BECAUSE OF the carnage? I'm not THAT mean.)

Megabus Challenges Greyhound

2006-03-23T22:57:00.000-06:00

Megabus Dot Com Website: Open April 10th

For years after Greyhound bought out Trailways of Oklahoma City, bus service was like Bill Maher's view of airflight: You didn't choose the carrier, the carrier chose you. Most of your riding was done via Greyhound and its helper services, unless you lived on the East Coast and wanted to go up and down the Megalopolis.

Now, finally; some competition where it belongs. Granted, it's limited service to eight large cities with Chicago as its center (and it seems more focused on competing against Amtrak), but it's a start. I could forsee a system of such connections all over the midwest, from Minneapolis to Cincinnati and Saint Louis to Pittsburgh with every semi-major city served (even if once a day each way). I could see four different routes of service from Detroit to Chicago:

Detroit-Chicago nonstop
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo-Saint Joe-Highland-Chicago
Detroit-Flint-Lansing-Battle Creek-Chicago
Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland-Saint Joe-Chicago
Detroit-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Highland-Chicago

If you're wondering, Highland isn't a major city, it's a place where Coach USA has a stop. I figure might as well have a couple stops serving Northwest Indiana.

Anyway, food for thought. Welcome food for thought, considering that Greyhound's been disassembling its network.

Old Projects Done; On To The Next Projects

2006-03-22T21:59:00.000-06:00

Metra Connects: The Proposed New Starts

With three projects done and out of the way, they're now planning for four newer projects. Two of them are new rail lines (STAR Line and the South East Service) and two of them are upgrades of presently-running lines (UP-Northwest and UP-West).

I'm not sure about the STAR Line. While we're dealing with a couple of good ideas, right now it's just two lines looking each other as their excuse to be built. While it's supposed to be a bypass line, it only connects directly with three other rail lines (and a forth via an odd offset), and the connection to the airport doesn't look like it really serves anything other than the expressway. Maybe if they extended the southern branch to Joliet proper (instead of leaving a forlorn tail just off I-55 north of Joliet) would the line start to make sense as a bypass. Further expansion (which was built into the planning process) also adds to the line and will probably insure that at least the EJE bypass section will be built. I could also see the I-90/O'Hare branch as a hookover towards the UP-Northwest's McHenry branch, turning that into a full line instead of the stump it presently is.

The South East Service is interesting (especially as a relief valve for the Metra Electric), but I doubt it will be built. Proffered as a peace offering to the southern suburbs for the strangely mutated STAR Line and kept from going as far south as it should have (Beecher should have been included in the line), it's too much a stump for Metra to be serious about. If this line gets built, I'll be surprised.

The UP-Northwest is the busiest line in Metra. Even now, Metra wants to expand service on the line. They also want to build new train yards to replace some of the older stuff, and expand the line slightly to the north on the McHenry branch (while adding a rail yard and making the branch a full sister in the line).

The UP-West is interesting in that, even if not everything is done on this line, there's stuff that can be done to improve service both on this line and on some others. The A2 crossing is slow, instable and needs plenty of effort during severe weather to keep working; moving the crossing to a closer spot (the new A1 crossing) would make for a more stable crossing, giving other northern lines better service as well and making space for other improvements. Indeed, were it not for the STAR Line (and credulous Southern Republicans wondering what happened to all that money they spent on the line already), I'm sure this line would get its whole needs funded for the upgrades.

My guess as to what Metra really wants to see happen:

STAR Line "as is"
Replace A2 crossing with A1 crossing on UP-West line, related improvements
Other UP-West improvements
UP-Northwest's structure and line improvements
The South East Service stub line

And what would I like to see happen?

Work on the UP-West, with replacing the A2 as Job #1, other stuff should be done as they're also worthy of doing.
The South East Service given full service, along with other items along the Metra Electric to shift traffic over and make room for South Shore expansion.
A modified STAR Line going from Joliet to the UP-Northwest line. Leave the O'Hare/I-90 stuff to the CTA (or figure a way of linking that section to the McHenry branch of the UP-Northwest line.
UP-Northwest's structure and line improvements; moving of and combining of rail yards is key here.

And that's my two cents on Metra's future plans.

Would I REALLY Want To Be "Wanted" If I Were A Child?

2006-03-21T21:24:00.000-06:00

Probably one of the biggest cries in the "pro-choice" crowd (the idea being that the people having the children should CHOOSE to have the children, not so much that they should enjoy their butchering from within their bodies) is "Every Child a Wanted Child"

You sure you want that? Not so much because supposedly children have been getting more and more abused (There's other reasons for that -- divorce, constant moving, class and other things), but because of who's wanting the kids and who's not wanting them.

First, let's look at the statistics. In "Freakonomics" it is noticed that since abortion became bulletproof the number of conceptions grew 30%, but births only fell 6%. In other words, the action itself tended to inflate its own importance. Granted, there were people born who probably shouldn't have been, but one would think that, with one out of four babies/fetuses forced out of the womb before they could survive on their own, you'd see more than a 6% drop-off in births.

Second, let's consider who'd be likely to want a kid, and why. Not a complete list, mind you, but a parcel of people who you might not want to have children but will have them anyway:

Teenaged girls looking for a way out of the home, knowing they'll get a place and enough $$$ to live independently
Teenaged girls rebelling against their mothers
Women looking for someone to love, who won't leave them (because they can't)
Women (or Girls) who, having lived a few years of a self-centered relationship, find themselves suddenly with a purpose and reason in life because of an accident (the "Pappa Don't Preach" effect)
Girls who've become so ensconced in a relationship with their father or uncle that they couldn't think of saying "no" if they wanted to (every so often there's a story about a woman having borne 22 children (10 who've survived with genetic damage intact) and it turns out the children's father is also their grandfather)

And what about those who wouldn't want a kid? Those who you'd want to breed, but choose not to:

Smart women after a career more than a family
Women who should be able to find a man except they want something more than a man's going to give them.
Rich woman more into buying stuff than raising children

Or, as a song pointed out, "looked around and noticed only stupid people were breeding." (or words to that effect)

It is a concern. While I'm not worried about replacing myself in the future (THAT'S been taken care of already, by proxy if not directly), there is something to be said about the quality of the replacements. Since the same book notes that oftentimes how one's life turns out is based on the conditions one was born into, the fact that the wombs of the well-to-do and well-done are being kept barren while the troubled and struggling are fruitful is troubling on its own level.

The Missouri Valley Conference Cries To The Big Ten and Big Twelve:

2006-03-20T21:35:00.000-06:00

Overated (clap clap clapclapclap)
Overated (clap clap clapclapclap)

Look at the brackets for the NCAAs Sweet 16 and you will find:

Teams from the Missouri Confrence: 3
Teams from the Big Twelve: 1
Teams from the Big Ten: 0

Now as it happens, the two Missouri Conference teams will have to face each other for their chance to make it to the Elite Eight, but that means the Missouri Conference will have at least one team in the Elite Eight, at least equal to the Big Twelve and more than the Big Ten can muster.

While not necessarily indicative of the talent historically (Big Ten teams have regularly made it to the final four, sometimes two at a time), it is definitely indicative of how things went this year. Not Big Ten team was able to win on the road -- usually a sign of a team able to handle the pressure of win-or-die games which is the hallmark of the NCAA basketball tourney.

Maybe next year will see the Big Ten teams return to their usual form. Or maybe not -- depending on which team you're talking about. While many of the other teams will probably continue with their intra-conference strength, MSU has a threat coming from Ann Arbor.

That's right: The ever present Wolverines.

One of the reasons Spartan fans try to minimize the school to the southeast is simply because whenever that school has decided to pay attention to something, it has effortlessly bypassed MSU. It happened with football in 1968, it happened with Hockey in the late eighties, and it looks like it might happen with basketball, with UofM getting more mentions on the radio as being on (or near the) top of the Big Ten conference. While I hope it doesn't mean the end of Tom Izzo's tenure at MSU, it would appear he may have to work harder to keep the team competitive.

MSU Basketball Team Loses, Local Police Relieved.

2006-03-18T09:39:00.000-06:00

George Mason Butchers Michigan State University

At least there won't be any riots at East Lansing this year.

But seriously, it's sad that one can see a silver lining in something as disasterious as a first-round loss to some third-level basketball team playing badly.

Having attended Michigan State University and lived in and around East Lansing for a few years after that, I would love to be able to consider their winning a good thing, but there's been this undercurrent of riots during March Madness for the past seven years.

I could give you a history of the MSU "riots" from the 1983 "Sorry Cops, You're Not allowed" bottling to the 1986 Cedarmess (where they listened to the city and cops saying "you're going to shameful" and took the words to heart) to the events leading to the 1999 Final 4 loss riot (from a spontanious block party and its aftermath to a protest gone wild from lack of an allowed venue). All those I understood.

But the shit that started happening after the final four loss in 1999...sickens me to no end.

To the people at Michigan State University: You're under a stronger microscope than that other college to the south and east of you. Always have been, always will. That means you have a higher set of standards to live up to, not the freedom to crap yourself in the pants when you get the chance.

I should be proud every time the MSU football and basketball teams do good. I shouldn't have to sigh with relief when MSU loses to Northwestern or George Mason, nor should I be ashamed by the actions of its students when the teams do well.

Understand this: most people in the United States base their opinion of colleges on how sports teams do and how their students express their school spirit. Potential students may make an effort to look at what a school can get them, but most of the decision has already been made thanks to the sports teams and ran reaction.

And in the last seven years, MSU students have made a case that they deserve second-class status for themselves. And guess what -- the teams have responded in kind. The football team has entered the lower half of the Big Ten standings, and the basketball team has started to get bad. Coincidence? I think not.

Thus ends my (what would probably be annual, had this thing been out for a few years) end-of-the-basketball-season rant on MSU fans' behavior. I would love to have been able to sing the praises of a happy celebration after a championship (or a semifinal loss), but at this point I'll have to settle for sarcasm over a quasi-dissapointing ending.

Edited post, original (much smaller) posting done 10pm March 17th, full posting 10am March 18th.

Abortion Supported By 70% In The U.S.? Not So Fast...

2006-03-15T23:00:00.000-06:00

One statistic I keep running into that desperately needs looking at is the stat used by pro-abortionists that 70% of the people in the United States strongly support the right to abortion. Not so much because, given the right massaging of words and an unknowing audience of questionees you can create a 90-100% support or opposition rate, but because of how people believe and why.

More to the point: when I read a book on alternative history ("Lies They Taught Me"), they talked about the Bombing in North Vietnam. Interesting, the majority of Americans (US) supported the bombing UNTIL the bombing stopped, at which point the majority opposed the bombings.

Now, this was not due to some great awakening. More to the point, it's because a sizeable portion of people have little opinion (outside of the idea that whatever's now popular is okay by them) on any subject. It's not necessarily the same people, but any question will have that portion of respondents who go the way the wind's blowing.

How does that impact on the Abortion issue?

Right now, about seventy percent agree with or accept the present situation -- abortion being legal with some limitations. Now the question that comes to my mind is: How much of that is bedrock support, and how much of it is support for whatever is legal at the time.

A Prediction: If the anti-abortionists get most or all of their wish -- Roe v Wade adjusted or inverted to the point where the courts use it to ban abortion -- there will be a sizeable amount of newfound support coming from those who show up on the 70% pro-abortion rights side because right now the laws are pro-abortion (with limits). In short, the anti-abortionists will get their majority thanks to people who, upon seeing the abortion laws change, justify the changes to themselves.

The question, of course, is how many stand in support of abortion rights no matter what. If that number is in the forties a year after the change, there's a chance for a loosening of the anti-abortion laws. If the number drops into the mid-twenties or below the radical right may want to think about pushing through an amendment defining life as starting upon ejaculation of the male (can't risk condom use now can you -- oh, wait, that's pre-emptory abortions...), as the core support for an anti-conception amendment would prove bigger and stronger than the core opposition against such an amendment.

[And as for my use of terms: "life" and "choice" are but mis-defining euphamisms for what's being discussed here. A fetus can't survive outside the womb unhurt for most of its developmental period, but the act itself seeks to stop what would normally develop. I'm just talking about abortion and my surmise of those who support it; nothing else, nothing more.]

Faces Of Meth

2006-03-13T23:47:00.000-06:00

Faces of Meth, from Partnership For a Drug Free America

Seriously, follow the link above. Click on the left, look at the pictures on the right.

Probably the most intriguing part of this for me is looking at the girl's hair color. Seems it gets wilder the longer they're on Meth. Brunettes and platinum blondes go redhead, and redheads go multi-colored. Sure, they mugs are uglier on the after side (and no, I wouldn't hit on them either before or (DEFINITELY) after), but the hair says more to me than most anything else.

And so what if the link site is a bit lame -- this page itself is worth seeing, if nothing else to see what you're about to get into if you actually decide to continue with the noxious habit. I don't think that even crack was as bad -- and it bitch-slapped the poorer urban neighborhoods like you wouldn't believe.

On Saint Etienne (In Lieu Of Their Rumored Retirement)

2006-03-11T21:06:00.000-06:00

There are different forms of music for different locations and viewpoints, and the moods they nurture. For the rebellious there's punk and ska, for the more laid back there's reggae. Rap, blues and R&B work well for those who identify with urban lifestyles, and there's country for those who identify more with farms, towns and the rural lifestyle.

And for Suburbia, there's pop.

Granted, much of that pop area has since been taken over by a country music industry hungry to own the nation's taste in music, but pop is still the proper sound for the miles and miles of lawns, shopping centers and parks that have developed around the city as the answer to the crowded, decrepit (or sanitized) business of too many people jostling in too little space. While many artistes freely depict the suburbs as soulless, lifeless wastelands of culture and humanity (to put it mildly), for more than half the United States they are the promised land to run to and/or live in.

And the music for such a space must be light, bouncy and pretty. Light because one runs here to escape the cares of the world, bouncy to keep you going (even in the depths of dispair) and pretty because good art is in some way agreeable. And (here's something most people never consider) you can pack in a lot of sadness in a space of a few happy minutes; watch It's A Wonderful Life for a good example.

And Saint Etienne? They've been doing pop since the early nineties. Sadly they've been a cult group of sorts, one which one has to know about stuff to find out about; but once you find out about them you fall for them.

I've read in the paper that Turnpike House may be their last release. If so, I wish the group well.

Although I will be much the sadder for it.

Define "Dumb Punks." Define "Anything."

2006-03-10T02:12:00.000-06:00

Okay, Jello Biafra.

I can understand you being pissed off over your band being taken away from you. I can understand you being pissed over their gleeful tone with every rebuffing of your actions. I can even understand your being pissed over the tour.

But let's face it: when you had the catalog all you did was let the same old five CDs all the time, it gets a bit tiresome. Maybe if you'd put out a live LP (Like Live At The Deaf Club), maybe you wouldn't have been in a position to LOSE the distribution rights to the music. Not only that, but maybe if you weren't as snide as usual. It's fun to hear you rip into every right-wing sacred cow, but it's a bit of a pain in the ass when you don't know when you're going too far.

I mean, here's these songs your average punker has only heard on CD (or cassette, or even vinyl) for years, finally being performed by most of the band. Okay, so the lead singer is different, but it's three quarters of the band and it's songs they've loved for many years. You expect them to say "Sorry, but Jello Biafra doesn't want me to see you guys, so I'll skip over the band's appearance?" Not the easiest thing to do. I'm old enough to know better (and don't get me started at that), but what about your average punker who got to know the DKs in 1995, or better yet, 2003?

Of course, it's not like you DON'T have a leg to stand on. While it's true that the other three guys have tried to do stuff, their reunion indeed smells of a selling out and cashing in on what was. While "Live At the Deaf Club" was a wonderful breath of fresh air (showcasing the early DKs live), THAT OTHER LIVE ALBUM WHICH I WON'T DIGNIFY BY NAMING was a crass collection of lame songs from the latter days. Lots of repackagings, lots of retrospectives, and nothing new has given the latest pseudo-incarnation of the band a stench that makes "Bedtime for Quality/DKs/Democracy" smell sweet, flowery and musky (that LP was rushed, but at least there was some good stuff on it. Now if it had been an EP, it would have been a great exit CD). In short, the other three seem content to be lame, generic cartoons of their younger selves.

But at the very least, make an effort to understand what's going on. And you have to admit: The DKs with Kenneth Lay would be VERY interesting, if nothing else for the sheer surrealism factor (on both sides: the "3/4 of the DKs" side is easy to understand, but what would Kenneth Lay be doing in a dive near a hundred violently moshing maniac, singing songs skewering himself and his friends/allies/family members?). I'd go see it for the surrealism alone.

Garfield Without the Cat's Thought Balloons:

2006-03-07T20:55:00.000-06:00

Garfield without the cat's thoughts: random cartoons

Garfield without the cat's thoughts: Jon goes into Madness

Here's a couple of links which takes a look at that most generic of all comics: Garfield. Thing is, they take away Garfield's thought balloons and leave Jon talking to himself.

Very existential, and sometimes morbid. Can also be funny, with the right cartoons.

There's also been some odd items where Garfield was totally removed, and also a Garfield randomizer which was removed when Mr. Davis (owner of Garfield) realized it was funnier than he'd ever be and "Intellectual Property'd" it out of existence.

Do I hate Garfield? Nah. Could care less about it, as it's probably the blandest thing out there. I've seen much better, smarter, and more sensual comics die untimely deaths while stuff that makes pablum look tasty, juicy and colorful lives on and on.

Just my two cents worth.

2004: The year the moral shoe dropped

2006-03-07T20:46:00.000-06:00

Ronald Reagan was elected to office thanks so some dodgy activities by Iran and the good luck of running against a president who was both unlucky and bad. After getting shot by some lovesick dweeb (It makes total sense to me that Jodie Foster's queer. Thank you, Hinkley.), he was able to crush the PATCO union, setting off the persecution of workers that marked the Reagan Administration. The Minimum Wage becoming useless.

Thus the economic shoe was dropped. This is why CEOs get millions of dollars specifically for disinvesting in America and looting worker's retirement funds. This is why unemployment is now considered God's Justice. That's why Bankrupcy law now only exists for corporations (the bankruptcy law needed adjusting, not gutting and ruining).

A president who got in thanks to his brother's fixing the vote in Florida (and a Democratic Candidate who chose to lose instead of admit the party's need for Black voters) gets a(n appearant) majority of the popular vote the second time. As such, it counts as a mandate (twice: first for gaining in percentage of votes, second because before he had the minority of votes and now he got the majority of votes) not just for him, but for the Xians who supported him at the pulpits and ballots.

Thus we see the moral shoe drop. How far this will go is not yet known, but already there've been changes: A historically conservative justice nominee was tossed aside for a known moral conservative. One state (admittedly the least important state in the union) has taken the two rulings (Roe v Wade: No Bans on Abortion; Doe v Bolton: Must Allow for Life and/or Health of Mother) to its most restrictive interpretation: Abortion allowed ONLY in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Other states are jumping at the bit to take that step, and should the Supreme Court accept it (No need for reshaping precident -- as I stated above, it can be read as fitting in the Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton mix) be assured that you'll be able to count the states with "liberal" abortion laws (allows for incest and rape, also some overly busy clinics for other cases) on two hands (although not with all fingers and thumbs).

And no, this isn't paranoia talking: Voting Christians are the most active group in politics (outside of the corporatistas, of course) in the United States. And while it's supposed to be majority rule (or consideration), usually it's those who shout the loudest that get what's theirs. And who was the largest group of voters in 2004? Voting Christians, with 22% of voters, 40+% of Bush's support. Needless to say, the loudest voice gets heard and listened to and obeyed; just watch the laws passed.

Just read "Why America Stopped Voting"

2006-03-05T18:58:00.000-06:00

Okay, so I'm a bit late on this, but I finished reading the above listed book recently and found it a good, interesting read.

The gist of the book goes like this:

In the last two decades of the 19th century almost everyone who could vote, voted. While this excluded most of the women, it included every man -- even those who had not yet become US Citizens. And they voted often, as votes were planned monthly and many seats were up for election every year.

The two parties were a part of everyday life. Everything was done to whip up support for the party, every day. This, of course, included every tactic under the sun, from those supporting their people to those ripping at the other to activities now deemed illegal and immoral (many votes were paid for back in these days).
The benefits of winning elections were enormous for the party faithful. The parties had control of where the money went, so many benefits that came from the Government (mail, roads, infrastructure, help) went to those who supported the winning side. This also led to a corruption society in government that led to instability at various points.
The parties were wide-ranging collections of groups. Some groups were steadfast with one party, other groups went with parties depending on what was going on around them, still others could shift around at will. Many kept a watchful eye at what was going on, and were bound to jump if they didn't see enough benefit from their support.
The result was a very instable government, in which seats weren't held for long and the balance of power could shift wildly every two or four years. Indeed, actions meant to extend the power of the party in power would often backfire, leading to an amazing amount of instability.

Due to various forces (some not talked about in the book, as his focus are elections activites and their effects), voting begins to go down amongst the young.

Reforms done in the early part of the 20th century add to the dropping rates of participation by making active participation harder and harder for many. From anti-immigrant activites to centralized (government-paid) ballots to measures meant to exclude blacks from voting (and reaching onto poorer, less literate whites) in the South to the expansion of an independent civil service, the reforms make it harder and harder for people to vote.

As a result, the parties retreat to their spheres of influence: The North goes Republican and the South goes Democrat.

(Note that we're talking old Democrat vs old Republican. Changes have happened since then that have flipped the parties around, a change which has actually been reflected in the map colorations -- the party colors have been changed but the coloration based on regions has stayed consistent.)

It's interesting to hear the press complain about people not voting; while I'd like to see more Democratic voters (and maybe more reason to vote Democratic without holding one's nose), I wonder if anyone REALLY wants to see what it would take to get 80% or more of the voting public to actually vote.

Also leads to an understanding of how the Republicans see themselves (more on that later...).

Side Benefit to Pregnancy??

2006-03-03T19:28:00.000-06:00

Babies' Cells Linger, May Protect Mothers

Interesting thought, that through childbirth a woman can gain protection and healing. Does sound too good to be true, but it would be an intriguing partial explanation as to married (i.e. with children) women living longer than single (i.e. childless) women.

(If you're talking men, that has a more straightforward answer: Married men eat better, sleep better, and are watched over more by their wives than single men are. The discipline from marriage also helps out. That's why most men joke about marriage but seek it out: we men know the benefits and want them for ourselves.)

Also leads me to some thoughts on another "Too Good To Be True" idea: Abortion Leads to Breast Cancer (Too Good To Be True means it's believed because it fits your beliefs, not because of any truth behind the claim.). If both end up proven to act in real life, I could see a link in the two: Breast cells that have changed partway to produce milk may be receptive to "foreign" stem cells which cause them to mutate.

But let's remember: we're talking possibilities, nothing even tested out. The Abortion/Breast Cancer link has been pretty much shown as almost nonexistent in studies (look at the link above; there's a hint at mid-term and late-term, but nothing solid yet), while the post-childbearing healing powers of pregnancy are merely (widely) whispered about. Still, they're ideas worth looking at, but only ideas. Nothing to base life choices around, yet.

God Help Writers, Artists and Us All if Leigh and Baigent Win Their Court Case

2006-02-28T21:21:00.000-06:00

Da Vinci Code sued for Plaigarism

I hope to God that the plaintiffs don't win this case.

Here's the implication if the plaintiffs win: Knowledge is now copyrighted. Copyrighted in that you have to pay the owner of the piece of knowledge for knowing it. For ninety years.

I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are following this avidly. After all, we're talking about the ownership of songs. With the right technology, we could see constant reenactments of Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind in record stores and courts for a long time.

Why am i worried about corporations erasing people's memories? Simple: Ownership not only implies the right of use, but the right to dictate non-use. In short, if Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent win the court case, they can actually dictate that authors and others are barred from reading their book and gleaning the (questionable, in my opinion) knowledge within. And, theoretically, if they can bar knowledge, they could remove this knowledge.

Now, what would it take to remove knowledge from the mind?

Consider this: Once you stick something in your mind, it may die out or it may connect to other items in your memory. If you embrace it, the connections grow deep. Try to erase the original item without erasing these side items. If the item becomes a matter of faith with a multitude of connections to other items, can we expect a major change in personality?

And what happens when that piece of knowledge has a strong connection with the society that individual runs around with? Imagine someone losing friends, work, knowledge of his surroundings, habits -- and unable to have any sort of regular life because of the inability to learn that piece of knowledge that would link you to all these things.

And if that knowledge in intimately related to your family -- say goodbye to your identity.

THAT'S what we're going to deal with if Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent win their case. And not just for some book loaded with enough falsehoods to sink a ship.

What Rocked about the Eighties

2006-02-27T22:57:00.000-06:00

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=13612391Okay, as I promised: What was good about the eighties. A smaller list, imho, but equally important.

The Underground
As Radio became blander and more backwards looking with both "New Hits WVIC" on top of the Lansing Radio heap and "Classic Rock WMMQ" inventing the format that would take over FM radio (where Country wasn't involved), there was always the local scene. You could go to your locally owned record store (new or used), and if the owner went about his business right you could find out what was going on locally, regionally or nationally. You could find stuff that the mall chains had no idea existed, plus magazines and other bits of info that would make the world outside of the mainstream tolerable.

Alas, this resource has shrunk down in recent years. Between video games, the internet and mp3 trading via P2P networks, the record store has become pretty much obsolete. There's still some around, but not nearly as many; and the college market, once the best place to find the odd, unique and underground items, has been decimated.

College Radio Format
Okay, so many reference may be skewered by the fact that Michigan State got their college format radio station in 1989. But consider this: College radio became a way for many bands now barred from popular radio's narrowing formats.

While not spread out across the nation (let's just say one would be hard-pressed to find alternative music in the middle of Missouri or northern Georgia), it definitely opened the ears of a truely appreciative audience. And it was these people who would take their tastes into the rest of the nation in the nineties, and why many groups from the early eighties went from college darlings to mainstays of radio.

This list isn't as big as the "What Sucks" list, but is important because sometimes one piece of good is better than ten items that suck.

Because good DOES have a power that evil doesn't.

Ten Things That Sucked About Music in the 80's

2006-02-26T03:54:00.000-06:00

Okay, so I'm being a bit long-winded here, but probably the biggest thing about music today is that it seems to have inhereted the worst aspects of the eighties without welcoming any of the good things I remember about that time. Kinda sad that every time I listen to the radio for music I find myself wishing for the days when the idea of "sucking" was that the radio could have used more of my music, not that it didn't like music.

Anyway, here's my list: Top Ten Things That Sucked About Music In The 1980's (and that suck more today)

Is It Live, or Is It Memorex?
In 1976, ELO got in trouble because they used some tape here and there in their concerts (or they lip-sync'd the whole thing -- depends on who you talk to). In 1985, much of the Duran Duran show used taped sequences, and a few years later Milli Vanilli would use frontmen as lipsynking props, much to everyone's seeming shock and dismay.

Nowadays there are acts whom it's known lipsinks through their concert (indeed, their acts dictate that they must); indeed the present crime seems to be bad lipsynking or not knowing what to do when the background isn't what you want it to be.

The Development of the Megahit LP/CD
In the 1970's you had billion-selling albums because the album was both artistically original and touched the soul of millions. "Tapestry" told of losing and gaining love, "Rumors" was about holding onto the good of a bad relationship. Accidental megahits, both; and proof that mass appeal didn't have to mean a pile of shit was sold to the masses.

Then came "Thriller," and the game was changed. While it had something for everyone, there was nothing in it that reached into the heart.

Michael Jackson never recovered. Neither has the music industry. And artists suffer: where once you had abiding loyalties you now have one-album wonders who put out five albums to diminishing returns and fanbases.

The Rise of Pseudo-Country music.
Country becomes lame enough for mass-consumption. America gloms on lame country stereotypes, revels in a past they spent running away from the past two centuries.

Hair-Metal.
Now admittedly this wasn't what they called themselves. I can't blame them for this, as I wouldn't want to be known as a group that spent more time in front of a mirror than practicing for the next gig, either.

In many ways, this was the final, fatal outcome of trends within music during the eighties. Bands that once had to spend years practicing their chops found themselves bestowed with multi-million dollar contracts for the sole reason of being in the right place at the right time with the right look. Looks became more important than sound. And once you had your big hit, good luck hitting the charts after that.

"Positive Mental Attitude" Music.
Do I honestly need to hear eighteen thousand songs telling me to chase my dreams and believe in myself? Especially when nobody else wants to believe in me or find out about my dreams, and the system is setting itself up to oppose such actions? And why does the edification get measured purely in terms of money and things? Since when did the word "We" become criminal?

The Isolation of Tastes via Formats
Used to be you listened to a pop station, you got to hear a little of everything: some country, some rock, some pop, some R&B, even the occasional novelty song. Now each of these formats has thier own station, and only in lame format ideas that view variety as an aspect of the past to be invoked when playing "older songs" only (like the JACK(off) format) are they allowed to mix with any sort of freedom.

The CD Format.
With LPs, you had two sides with up to 20 minutes (25 if you wanted to really squeeze things in), which gave a limit to work with, so you had to choose and edit what you chose. Double LPs were signs of bravado and confidence in your spurt of creativity, they're usually revered because such confidence was usually justified -- to put out a release with two slabs of vinyl instead of one, you'd better be sure your stuff was good enough to be worth both slabs.

Then came the CD with its single 74 (now 80) minute platter. Now you could throw everything onto that disk, including the nineteen minute epic (that would rock out at a six minutes, or better yet be a hit at four), and justify it as "giving your customers thier full money's worth."

Too many did just that. From Robert Palmer to Tori Amos and many more, uncooler artists to boot.

A now-dead friend of mine had his own comment to this: "Triple Albums should have been Double Albums, Double Albums should have been Single Albums, and Single Albums should have been EPs (twenty minutes, faster play time, lower cost)." Add to this the idea that Doubled CD Releases (Springsteen, Guns 'n' Roses) should have been shrunk down to a single disk.

Reissues.
Didn't matter if it was put out on cassette or CD, the reissues were almost always crappy, half-baked affairs complete with blank insides and cookie-cutter formats. The only thought put into them was to see how small they could make the front cover of the LP look on a cassette cover.

MTV bought by Warner Brothers.
When it was first out, it brought interesting music by bands willing to try out a mix of visuals and music, the pox of Rod Stewart's sellout period to the contrary. However, once Warner Brothers got into the Video Showing business, art became covered up by commerce. Thousand-dollar video budgets were replaced by million dollar video budgets, and outsider groups were replaced by the old guard. Worse yet, the video became the center of the song, not tunes, the singer or the song.

The New Fame Cycle.
Used to be bands would slog years and create a sound that both was true to themselves and connected with the audience. Bob Segar comes to mind in this instance -- an artist who spent ten, twelve years making music, then figuring out a way of staying true to himself while appealing to an audience large enough to fill stadiums. And it wasn't just Segar himself, many artists of the seventies worked their wares to the point where it was both good and popular, and the fans were rewarded.

Then, in the eighties we started learning of a new fame curve: Sign, write immature songs, make hits, move on to more mature stuff, watch your audience leave you for newer bands.

Now, you're given two CDs to make your case. And if that first one doesn't sell millions of platters, don't expect any support for the second CD.

You don't get that in Country. Country may suck, but the format still makes you prove yourself before working you through their machine. And guess what: Country thrives. Coincidence? I think not.

Next posting (if I don't get one of the items I presently have in the editing queue polished enough to post): What was good in the eighties (and still survives in some form).

Dissolve The Democratic Party?

2006-02-23T23:04:00.000-06:00

Time For a New Party(?)

Interesting topic, interesting viewpoint, good tack. I agree with the idea that the Dems have gone from being the party in power to the opposition party to what I call the "Straw Party" used to identify enemies to abuse and neglect.

Problem is, I'm not sure I want the Democratic Party to dissolve.

Not because I suddenly believe that Abortion should become a rite of passage for our girls to enter into adulthood with. Not because I've learned that the Democratic party has suddenly become the party of stand-ups and that the rest of non-corporatista America is about to learn that truth and line up to join. Not because the democrats suddenly realized that they could make the Republicans a moot party by changing their mind on Abortion.

But because I don't think that a second party could now legally arise in this nation.

Seriously: the way the laws are set up presently make it almost impossible for a third party to make it to the ballot at many places, and unless they receive a certain amount of votes in an election they have to go through the same thing again next time. Makes things hard for a new party to make it, and imagine some single-party state using the rules to make it impossible for an opposition party to even exist.

Anyway, here's a list of possible happenings, as my limited viewpoint lets me see:

The Democratic Party dissolves, the Republicans Split into Two

Hoped For: The Christian Right remembers Jesus's teachings, takes on the Democrat's pre-1972 idea of standing up for the little man. While abortion may become illegal, it actually becomes folded in with the idea of caring for everyone -- and the corporatistas become the minority.

Feared: Corporatistas rule both parties, the question becomes who'll be your God: Jehovah, or Wal-Mart (and be sure you give what both group considers their due, or suffer the consequences).

The Democratic Party Dissolves, Republicans stay as one party

Hoped For: New party (somehow) arises, takes on almost all the Democrats and the Republicans who fear the Democrats but not a new party, makes the Corporatistas again the minority force.

Most Feared: Republicans able to hold down outside dissent, give enough to the Christian right to keep them under control, create a Dictatorship of the Corporate elite

Democrats able to hold together

Hoped For: Democrats start standing up, able to grab another group of voters on board.

Feared: Democrats stay a straw party, eventually votes are faked so that certain areas are marked for attack and looting by the ruling party.

Finally: while it may be easier to enter into the Democratic Party and save it from the inside, there may not be enough time. I don't like the idea of destroying the Democratic Party (why risk letting the Republicans have a chance at creating one-party rule and recreating slavery while they're at it?) but it may need to be done.

News: Online Shopping More Satisfying Than B&M Shopping

2006-02-21T19:58:00.000-06:00

Consumers Take to Online Buying

I remember that the skuttlebutt on Amway/Quixtar discussions was that Online Retailing was today what Catalogs were before the internet: Something for people who know what they want, what they want to give, or know they can't find what's in the store. If you can get it immediately, there's no reason to wait. Chances are, you could get it cheaper in the stores as well.

So went net wisdom. I, however, always added the caveat that the one thing Brick and Mortar stores had to concern themselves with was sales. Therefore, it was possible that Brick and Mortar stores could reduce their stock, forcing those of us who didn't fit their profile into looking onto the internet. (And something I didn't think up at the time: If they could make us buy at their e-store instead of their storefront, so much the better for them as they didn't have to stock as much to serve the same market).

Looks like that caveat may prove itself useful. As the linked story above notes, people get a better experience from shopping online than in the stores themselves. Aggregate satisfaction has improved three points over five years for online shopping, while Bricks and Mortar stores have dropped a half-point.

Brick and Mortar stores still hold a 97.5%/2.5% advantage over online stores, but the online place is growing MUCH faster.

A simple equation, really. When you buy online, you know that when you can't find something, it's not there. With Bricks-and-Mortar shopping, whehttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=13612391n you can't find an item it means the store chose not to stock it, which means it don't want to serve you.

Case in point: a recent visit to a store in Michigan City. I tried out some stuff, but what I was able to find that approximated me didn't quite fit, and little else was there for me to find. I left the place disappointed.

Of course, here's where the place will end up very happy: what I had wasn't cash, but a refund slip. I'll have to spend the money at their company anyway, so I'm going to go online to try to find what I want or need. If I don't find anything, I may end up having to buy gifts for people with it. :(

So what happens? The company gets to ship stuff instead of having to have its stock in various stores. I have to spend money getting the stuff shipped to me -- or, worse yet, maybe making a gift of something that was meant to be MY gift.

Not a happy prospect, and something I'd like to avoid in the future, if possible.

Insomnia, Or An Older Pattern Reasserting Itself?

2006-02-19T11:54:00.000-06:00

Dreams Deferred -- New York Times Article

And for those who don't like the NYTimes, or think it's too liberal (trans: not yet to the right of Mr. Arthur Coltrane/Mrs. Ann Coulter) (or are too lazy to look it up), here's a distillation:

Americans have worried themselves into a tizzy over the lack of sleep they're getting -- so much so that they're doping themselves to sleep.

So much the pity.

First off, it's not like they have to worry about bedbugs, coldness, wild weather or pollution from trying to heat the house. We're also healthier than ever, meaning not only do we sleep well but so do those around us; and the poor have benefitted mightily, allowing them to do a full day's work.

Second, it's not as if the folks back then slept all night, even when they were able to do so comfortably. Their sleep was broken up into two parts, with a late night wakefulness to take care of business, or meditation or prayer...or pleasure, if both people were in the mood (and not necessarily the husband and wife, methinks...).

So what causes our present version of sleep, its one-segment throughout the night? Late night lighting. Remove late-night lighting from the night, and after a few weeks we shift to the historical version of sleep: sleep early, awake a little time at night, then sleep into the morning.

And that night wakefulness is different than the regular wakefullness we know and loathe. It's a calm version of wakefullness; an almost-welcome moment of peace which allows us to view the world in a more benign light. A period of time when you can be busy with your thoughts without the cares of the day invading -- is it any wonder the night has been praised throughout history?

It's also possible that our modern problem of Insomnia may be nothing more than the attempt of the body to return to its former pattern of sleep. Our attempts to impress on it the modern version of sleep (one long lock) may cause us more grief than relief.

I remember when I was going to college that I would nap whenever I got the chance. It was always during the later part of the afternoon, between the business of the day and the activities of the night; and almost always for an hour or two. I always liked it, as it allowed me an early-ish morning and a late night.

Now maybe it turns out that if I had gone to bed a bit earlier in the evening, I could have had a more enjoyable few hours late at night, with the poets and other nightlife, with a more peaceful mind and calmer presence.

The Problem With Present Day Copyright Laws

2006-02-18T20:54:00.000-06:00

So I'm listening to Sound Opinions and Lawrence Lessig was talking about how Present-day Copyright law is being used to control and limit creativity. This led me to this thought, which I had thought before but hadn't expressed yet (I believe):

At present, Copyright Law views each work as a sacred whole, complete and indestructable by itself. While one can make live version or a cover, it is almost impossible to use a piece or two of said work to make a new work.

In other words, if someone can declare that you used something of theirs in your work and can prove it (in however tenuous ways), they own you.

Another way to look at it: George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" was judged to be a copy of "He's So Fine." While the judge agreed that Harrison had no intention of copying the work, the fact that there were enough aspects of "My Sweet Lord" similar to "He's So Fine" that the Chiffons could use Harrison's words to their music meant that Harrison ripped off their song without intending it.

Of course, why the hacks who wrote the song to "Gilligan's Island" didn't sue Led Zeppelin for making "Stairway to Heaven" I'll never know. Probably because they were 2-bit writers and the Zep was a band known for Multi-media bullying (lawsuit plus actual fisticuffs (by paid goons, natch) plus bad words all around). At least now one of the surviving band members likes the song enough to welcome its release.

But anyway, this viewing of each work as an organic whole that can't be touched or used (even if accidentally) except as a complete piece of work is very much limiting as a whole. You use even an identifiable note of the other work, you're stuck with paying for the whole work -- and it's usually very pricy.

Is it any wonder rap went from a wonderfully dense soundscape to what now passes as simple noodling over a keyboard? Is it any wonder The Wind Done Gone had to be passed off as a parody when it was a serious work of alternative history (and let's not forget: Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson's progeny was long considered a bit of alternative history folklore -- possibly believable, but not provable).

Copyright laws at present threaten to freeze people's creative juices at a time when more people are able to create art than before. What was once considered an act of ownership over a piece of art -- memorizing it -- now threatens to enslave the memorizer. There's now less and less a possibility of multiple interpretations of a piece, as more and more the "original work" (read: the work released by a multinational with millions of dollars to waste on SLAPP lawsuits) becomes the only possible version of the work, slavishly copied when allowed and otherwise left prestine.

I believe the Creative Commons idea is many steps in the right direction. It allows for ideas to become warped and expanded in a way that keeps the rights to the whole work intact. I don't think that Sony, the MPAA or The Margaret Mitchell Society will abide by it, but they're dinosaurs who're waiting for their time to die.

Copyright Law needs changes. Maybe this time change will come on its own, despite the laws.

Understanding The Recent Press Drift

2006-02-15T23:14:00.000-06:00

Is it me, or has the New York Times drifted to the Right.

When I first subscribed to the New York Times, it was definitely a liberal paper, complete with a token conservative. Now it has a number of conservatives on the staff, and much of the opinion pieces have drifted over to the (classic, not neo-) conservative viewpoint.

While admitting that some of these items have merit (I'm a moderate, if my aim is at the right it's because that's where the threat is), it's still rather disturbing. It's as if the bullies who've castignated everybody not marching lock-step to their dictates have seen victory after victory. It's like they're not even opposed.

Of course, there is an unique possibility which I've thought over the past few weeks. In NPR's On The Media, when they were talking about the new phenomena known as meta-journalism (watching over the reporters and how they report), the person talking about how this stuff started referred to the Clinton/Lewinsky affiar, and said the gulf started when the press waxed righteously angry while the public cared less about what happened.

Which leads me to the possibility of thinking "What if the press listened?"

Consider this: The press shouts righteously in anger over Clinton/Lewinski, the majority of the public cares less, and the Religious Right reacted by forcing the impeachment hearings?

Maybe those impeachment hearings were the thing that won them the nation.

Consider: People listen to them that listen back. And when the Press talked about Clinton/Lewinsky, the only people who would appear to say "You're right, and that matters" were the religious right.

Now, these people who were reporting on Clinton-Lewinsky are now likely in positions of some power and authority. And when the people who listened to them before start shouting about "The unfairly liberal press," the reporters are bound to listen -- and change in an attempt to placate them. After all, you don't piss off the people who liked you before, unless you can do better by doing so -- or are sure you're so right you don't need or want them.

Thing is, how would your average liberal have reacted at that time? After all, it's not like Clinton was trying to bring down the government -- the once agreed-upon definition of an impeachable offense. Who would have thought this would have been seen as a betrayal by those who would gain power in the Journalistic world?

As it happened, this may have been a watershed event in what has become the great distrust in Journalists by the American Public. While one can point to such items as the cowing of the press in the face of Reagan VS Patco, the birth of Fox News and the Washington Times (thus sparking the era of "News Is What I Want To Hear About, How I Want To Hear About It, And Without Any Disagreement Whatsoever"), the development of News Departments as profit centers for corporations and even theories held by dissenting professors in college (one professor I knew said there was no such thing as neutrality, saying that every word held hints of bias and that one couldn't remove these "connotations" from words); the Clinton/Lewinsky story seemed to point in stark contrast the appearant nontrustworthiness of the press:

First the way it ended up becoming a big item (exposed by a blog predacessor after refusal by a major magazine)
Clinton's infamous "I did not have sex with That Woman" speech. I could tell the millisecond I heard that sound-bite that he'd have to violently change the English Language to keep that statement true (and he was successful -- world to the nation's young: when a mouth touches the genital area (or buttocks), it is indeed SEX. It's an intimacy you SHOULDN'T throw around as casually as you try to.)
A large group of people tuned out the press at that point, realizing they knew it all.

That last point is important. After all, who of us cares much about our paper anymore?

Just the radical right. And that gives them power -- just the fact that, as a group, they care.

And that's why, despite the obvious butchering of the news by Fox News, Ed Stassel, et. al; it's only the left-leaning press's problems that get noted. And why the press is moving to the right.

(or at least one specific reason. There's others, none of which I care to touch upon here tonight.)

Vault Hits The Nowthwest Indiana Area/Comment and Response

2006-02-14T19:20:00.000-06:00

First, the comment by Grimace and my response:

look dude, surge isn't an energy drink and never was. as far as i can tell, vault will never last! MDX may fail as well cause it's too expensive for such a small amount.

Fair enough, the market has seen and rejected many other sodas before. Crystal Pepsi, Like Cola and Faygo Candy Apple are flavors that come to mind (although I loved the Candy Apple, it seemed like too much a specialty flavor to be out for long). However, I don't think Surge WAS ever marketed as an energy drink. Obviously it was meant to be a competitor to Mountain Dew, but failed at that.

As for Vault, it has made it into the Northwest Indiana area. Saw signs up for it already at the Speedway stores, being sold for an introductory price of 79 cents. It's already affected the Mountain Dew pricing, as that's now at a reduced price of 99 cents (compared to the normal price of 1.29).

I will give Grimace a bit of leeway here, as sodapop markets tend to be very conservative. Once you have a market, it's impossible for another similar brand to break in and take it. Pop makers know this, and while they work like crazy to overcome it, they also work to make sure the markets stay firm. The last time a company successfully invaded another's locked market was when Pepsi did their "Pepsi Challenge" (and I suggest looking up this link to find out HOW it actually works), and that ended pretty much with the "New Coke" pseudo-fiasco. So while I hope Vault succeeds, at the very least I'd like to see it replace Mello Yello (no link, no link deserved) in the store shelves.

The Democratic Party?

2006-02-11T09:57:00.000-06:00

Kinda sad, actually.

Here's a president doing really bad, stuck in a war that has no way out or up and swimming in the middle of a massive scandal in his party. And nothing's going on.

The press has been shifted further and further to the Neocon/Big Business/Believer right. While one can't judge what will happen with the new Supreme Court Members, things are likely to shift further to the pro-rich and pro-corporation side of the ledger. More people are falling to the wayside, and all you hear are celebrations along the lines of "things are getting better."

And what happens? We get a bunch of bullies in congress, and they bluster their way to victory after victory. And what do the Democrats do? Talk about bipartisanship, spout the occasional "they lied" (which is quickly shouted down, in lockstep fashion, by the organized right) then run like hell to make out like they're still buddy-buddy with those bullies beating them up.

What I fear now is that the Democratic Party has become a Straw Party -- something used when either agreeable patsies are needed for some henious actions or an enemy is needed to beat up on, then set in the corner and left alone.

Notice that the places now allowed to vote "Democrat" in the presidential electoral college are those places which the factions of the Republican party view as the home bases of their enemy:

Neocons: The Northeastern Seaboard
Evangelicals: The Left Coast (Hollywood and San Francisco)
Big Business: Unionized Midwest (or what they can get away with: I'd be afraid if I were Ohio and I keep shrinking like they have)

And naturally, this "enemy" is kept marginalized and separated so that the "Real America" knows their unitedness.

Also note how badly New Orleans has been treated since the Hurricane conveniently opened the (conveniently located) not-quite-quality leevees and flooded out the poorer, blacker (and conveniently Democratic voting) parts of the city. They knew how weak the leevees were, and that they broke immediatly (if not sooner).

But yes, I'm now worried. We may now have one-party rule with a mechanism to identify that party's enemies for exploitation. And they may be able to do it down to the individual -- bad enough that these computer programs actively massage the vote, but I'll bet the other side of the coin has yet to be revealed -- that these voting machines take fingerprints and match them up to the FBI files, giving a name and face to the vote. Say goodbye to the secret ballot, hello to the Nationwide Tammany system (though now for the rich).

"Slut" VS "Freak" -- Thoughts And An Appraisal

2006-02-10T19:40:00.000-06:00

Okay, it's an odd subject. However, it's been on my mind.

We're talking about two words used to describe women who are a bit more accepting of sex than the average woman should be. The idea being, of course, that women should only accept sex under conditions of long-term commitment or (more to the point) marriage.

The question is: Which one would you want, a slut or a freak?

One reason sluts are given a bad rap is because a slut can actually say "No." Once you've become identified as a slut, it's almost a no-win situation, in a way: If you say "yes" you've debased yourself, if not to the man you've given yourself to, then to the people he talks to or their friends; if you say "no" the man's pissed off because he didn't get what he expected was his for the asking.

No such thing with the Freak. Once you get her alone she becomes a purely sexual being. No possibility of refusal here, indeed she'll do anything for the sex.

If I may, I would like to add in a few other thought into this.

First off, the fact that the slut can say "no" is the source of the disdain which such a girl is viewed. Woe unto the girl who can say "no" and decides instead to say "yes." And in the minds of many boys and men, it appears that once you say "yes," the "no" answer is disallowed. Freaks, by their appearant inability to say "no" are exempt from this disdain.

This would explain why the word "slut" is used on rape and incest victims. The idea of placing a choice onto something forced works to remove blame by shifting it onto the victim.

Then there's the idea of how the other person lives their life. Sluts have a degree of control over thier life. Freaks, it turns out, may not.

Think of it: if she can't control her desires, what else can't she control? And do you want to deal with an out-of-control woman when you're not naked in bed with her?

Let's just say I've been with both types. I know what I like, and I know what I prefer.

And they aren't necessarily the same thing.

Super Bowl Stuff V: SB XL Roundup

2006-02-08T23:12:00.000-06:00

Okay, so I'm a bit late here: My Super Bowl Comments:

The Star Spangled Banner: sucked, swallowed, and begged to suck again. Mr. Neville looked like he was failing at mailing it in, and Aretha Franklin looked like an amateur trying to act like she was adding her own thing. I hope that was taped; don't ask me why for I can't exactly explain it.
Four commercials worth remembering:
- The Bud Light (?) commercial where the guy tackles the woman and disses on her. So over the top and unexpected you have to laugh (nervously, but laugh nevertheless).
- The Ameriserve Commercial where the guys finally kill the bug, say "we finally did him in" and turn to see the wife and kids, stunned.
- The Ameriserve commercial where the woman tries to get to her seat only to be bumped onto another guy's seat in time for the lights to go on and him to bite off her bra. Definitely looks racy, and gets the point across (we won't judge).
- The Budweiser commercial where the juvenile clysedale pushes the Bud cart...with the help of two adult clysedales and an old man telling the dog "I won't tell if you won't tell."
The halftime show was better than many I've seen (and some I haven't. Any halftime show that needs controversy to be remembered is better off forgotten -- hear me, Janet?). I would have liked a fourth song and gotten more SATISFACTION from a shorter version of a certain song, but it could have also been worse -- Mick Jagger could have been mailing it in and he still would have put on a show, at least he has kept that knowledge up over forty years of performing.
The game itself was acceptable. While I want great plays and a cliffhanging finale (or for the Detroit Football Puddy-Tats to show up and butcher the opposition in a Superbowl SOME TIME in my lifetime), the least I can ask for is for both teams to play all sixty minutes of football, and this game gave me that. While Seattle may have suffered from a bad penalty call and some bad clock management towards the end, they played the whole game and forced Pittsburgh to do so. I got a full game's action and no mood shots of the losing team's moping sideline halfway through the third quarter; and for that I'm happy.
And finally, remember, it's just a game. One that sets up bragging rights for the next year, but just a game nevertheless. Too many have forgotten that point and given it more importance than it deserves.

Changed Web Browsers to A Better One.

2006-02-06T22:29:00.000-06:00

Recently I was trying to do something with Safari but found it wasn't letting me do anything. So I tried doing the same thing with Opera, but it only got slightly further before stopping and keeping me from doing anything. Then I tried out Internet Explorer on a Windows machine, but IT did nothing.

Was about to give up, then decided to try out Firefox. Was willing to try it out, and as it turned out it worked. Got the item I was doing done (no, I'm not telling you what it was. Enough to say it's something done annually).

I suggest you try it. Firefox Browser, the latest one.

(Yes, I know this sounds like some advert. However, it DID do something other browsers did not do.)

Super Bowl Stuff 4: Personal Thoughts on the Super Bowl

2006-02-03T23:00:00.000-06:00

Probably the first thing that bugs me is that it seems the Super Bowl has gotten about as big as possible. And it's not just the XL designation:

Last year's attendance at a bar was a bit less than three years ago. Now it may be because more places are hosting Super Bowl Parties complete with free food and such, but I noticed a bit of a decline in attendance.
Commercials aren't as good as they used to be. I think it's because everyone's trying too hard.
Does anyone really believe the "Any Given Sunday" myth? After all, while any given Sunday may turn out any way, there's
sixteen weeks so with most Sundays turning out close to expected, little is left to chance.

Now as it happens, many of the more recent games have turned out to be pretty good. Two of the last four games were decided in the last minutes, and the blow-out that was endemic in the '90's hasn't happened since Trent Dilfer gave Art Model the ill-earned trophy.

So what will happen with me? I'll probably watch elsewhere, again hanging out with a crowd. It will be a bit of a dissapointment; as I was actually hoping for a Chicago-Indianapolis Super Bowl.

Super Bowl Stuff 3: Cursed, Blessed Cities?

2006-02-03T12:36:00.000-06:00

Okay, so maybe I lied. Yesterday I meant to talk about my impressions of viewing the last few Super Bowls, but I remembered wanting to hit this subject. I'll write about that tomorrow or Saturday, in time for the Super Bowl itself. In the meantime, my apologies and my writings below:

A couple other items to note while looking at the Super Bowl Standings: It's much harder to go undefeated than to go winless. Only the San Francisco 49ers have been to go undefeated with more than one win, while four teams have had more than one appearance without any victories.

Second, while it's obvious why Arizona, Detroit and Jacksonville hae not appeared in the Super Bowl, there are a couple of cities which have not appeared despite having multiple teams. Cleveland missed the Super Bowl with the earlier Browns after co-dominating the fifties with Detroit, and the new Browns Franchise has not really made much of a move. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt for now, as the present Cleveland Browns are the second newest franchise in the NFL (NFL official history be damned).

Houston is another city that seems to be cursed. While it has the newest franchise, it also had probably the only franchise that finished over five hundred in the regular season and finished last in its conference. (This was the AFC Central, with Pittsburgh in peak form).

So in a way, you're talking about two unlucky towns. Teams that almost made it (or made the wrong time to be "good enough" in certain cities, only to move on and make the final jump into the Super Bowl. (note: while the Titans lost their Super Bowl appearance, they DID appear.

And what's there to say about Baltimore? One team wins and loses a Super Bowl game in Baltimore, moves to "Greener Pastures" and has come up empty since (especially this year, after going a long time undefeated); while another storied franchise moves in and does what it couldn't do in Cleveland (appear, and WIN the game). That city, while not necessarily stable (nor the powerhouse, as the Washington team down the road seems to always garner more attention), seems to be blessed for its fidelity to Pro Football -- they have their own fan club, band and other support teams, which have stuck with the city and driven the NFL (or franchise owners) to add franchises to the city.

Next Time: My Thoughts On The Game (and this time I mean it.

Super Bowl Stuff 2: Any Given Sunday, Anybody?

2006-02-01T22:47:00.000-06:00

First, a comment about Bush's State Of The Union Address: Nice speech, let's see the action. I've seen it these past five years, it's been wanting.

Now, onto the topic of Super Bowl Appearances by teams: Out of forty games, these three teams have shown up the most:

Dallas Cowboys: 8 appearances
Denver Broncos: 6 appearances
Pittsburgh Steelers: 6 appearances (including SB XL)

Which gives twenty Super Bowl appearances, or 25% of the slots filled by three teams, or 9.6% of the teams.

Add in the following teams, each with 5 appearances:

San Francisco 49ers
New England Patriots
Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders
Washington Redskins
Miami Dolphins

We're now up to forty-five appearances and eight teams. One quarter of the teams have made over 56% of the appearances in Super Bowls. They also have 27 of the 39 victories so far -- over 69% of the victories have gone to teams that have shown up five times or more (and that statistic would be more askew if it weren't for the Denver Broncos -- remove them from the equation and you have nearly 76% of the wins by teams with five or more appearances).

Add in Green Bay, Buffalo and Minnesota, and you have fifty-seven appearances by eleven teams. That's seventy-one percent of the appearances taken up by just over one-third of the teams. And even with the bad luck of Minnesota and Buffalo (both the best of an inferior conference during their time in ascendence), there's a 30-26 record for teams with four or more bowl appearances.

As for teams with 3 or less appearances, only the New York Giants have a winning record AND more than one showing in the Super Bowl. The rest are either .500 or below, or have had one Super Bowl showing.

So while the saying is that "Any Given Sunday" anyone can beat anyone, experience tends to shine in the Super Bowl. And right now, it's best to say Don't Believe The Hype"

Next: Is The Super Bowl Worth The Hype?

Super Bowl Stuff 1: Looking at Records

2006-01-30T21:59:00.000-06:00

First, I'll make things easier on myself and link to the official NFL Super Bowl Standings.

Admittedly it's a bit unbalanced, since it ranks the teams by winning percentages.

So I'll parse through the basic statistics to bring out some subtleties.

First, a list of the teams you WON'T see on the list after the superbowl:

Houston Texans
Jacksonville Jaguars
Cleveland Browns
New Orleans Saints
Detroit Lions
Arizona Cardinals

(The Indianapolis Colts won it once (and lost it once) as the Baltimore Colts, and The Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans, who made an appearance. The Seattle Seahawks won't belong on the above list by July 6, so I'm not including them on the above list now.)

The Houston Texans are too new to belong on the list, and the Jacksonville Jaguars are still new enough to have an excuse. The present incarnation of the Cleveland Browns is also pretty new, although when the Baltimore Ravens were known as the Cleveland Browns they had been unable to make it to the Super Bowl.

The New Orleans Saints have suffered from an extreme sense of frustration, as this is the team that saw the invention of the paper bagged fan and the diminuition of their nickname to "The 'Aint's". This year has been especially rough on them, with their home turf flooded and the team being locked in to where they're definitely not wanted nor needed. I can think of four places where franchise would fit in better -- Los Angeles, San Antonio and Sacramento could fit in smoothly with no muss, and Oklahoma City has proven its salt with the NBA.

Then there is the Detroit Lions; also known on this board as the Football Puddy-tats. Trust me, any team that has has trouble over nearly fifty years winning a postseason game (try a single win, with few tries to boot) is a case of a team embracing mediocrity. The fact that they moved into a SMALLER stadium (and didn't have the excuse of space that the Bears had) should point to you what they expect from their team.

So why aren't the Lie-downs the bottom of the list? Simple: they've been known as the Detroit Puddy-tats all this time -- unlike the Cardinals, who've moved from Chicago to Saint Louis to Arizona and still haven't found a way to get a championship. Curse Art Model as much as you want, but at least he got the Super Bowl Championship he always wanted.

Next Posting: Teams with a tradition of making the Super Bowl