Inconsistency RULES!

Yeah, more hit-or-miss on the blogging lately. I've been "busy," but doing what exactly I'd be hard-pressed to come up with. I guess I could just blame it on my attention span, which has rapidly gotten oooh, shiny!

(sorry, dunno the source on this "poster," but really enjoyed it from a recent email.)

This blog has been pretty politically-heavy lately, but I meant for it to be a little more well-rounded and fun. Recently realized that I need to add pictures and lighten it up a bit. Have several things partly-blogged in "draft" form, will try to release them slowly to decrease the boredom level for my (two) readers. :-)

So today, here are the things I am NOT blogging on:

• Blago - I won't waste my time waxing on about how sociopathic he is coming across, with his media blitz in this eleventh hour before his impeachment trial in the senate. His lead council resigns about the same time he starts whoring himself out to any media outlet that will broadcast him (apparently he'll be on "The View" Monday). He calls the trial a travesty of justice and complains how the rules are against him, yet it was himself and his own legal team that failed to file appropriate paperwork for witnesses, etc. And he blames the whole attack on him as some sort of conspiracy to raise taxes. Nope, not worth my time.


• Obama - there's too much coverage already, in MINUTE DETAIL, about the beginning of his first "100 days," or "100 hours" as I've heard it described today. He's trying to bring Washington together and get some real stuff done. But it is story after story about the Malia and Sasha dolls, and their cafeteria food menus, and fashion, and pre-recorded performances at the inauguration, and people that still believe Obama is not our real president because of a "questionable birth certificate" or because of a stumble on the oath - GIVE IT A REST. Give the man the time and cooperation he's earned, and let's check back in a while and see where things stand.


• The press in general - shows like "Access Hollywood" and "TMZ" that give forum to the paparazzi that stake out the funeral for Travolta's son and stuff like that. Now the mainstream media is turning more and more into that, with hounding of the pilot from the Hudson Bay crash, and endless coverage of "the Beast" (Obama's limo) and all other minutia inauguration-related. Ugh.

I know my blogging tends to be rant-related, but I'll also try to mention a good thing every now and then. Most interesting stories start with a bit of a struggle though ....

The other day my iPod shuffle (mp3 player) crapped out on me. It's a first generation, have had it since 2005 or 2006 when it cost about $100 for 500 MB of storage. It worked like a charm, with a terrific battery life, and no real problems despite the fact that I abused it regularly while working out, and made it do double duty as a jump drive for data on occasion. I would not exactly call myself a "Mac Whore," but I appreciate the elegance, creativity, and general ease-of-use of Apple products.

When it got nudged while in the USB slot and generated an "error, may have lost information" message, I experienced some mild panic and then went through the paces to try to check the drive. Wouldn't register at all in my iBook (except under "System Profiler") - so it didn't appear on the desktop nor in iTunes. My wife's PC recognized it as an Apple USB drive, but could not access any of the material. OK ... so whatever the hell I had on it from a data point of view was scrapped - not a big loss (I think!), since it was probably untouched from 1-2 years back.

Apple has a pretty good support site, with technical advice from Apple along with forums from users of every experience level. I cruised around there and found out that the behavior of my ancient iPod was very well documented (if you are really curious read more here), and might actually be fixable by reformatting ("restoring") the device. Unfortunately, even with special downloaded software to restore the device on my Mac, the drive still couldn't get recognized. On my wife's PC running Vista, that software (rated for Win2000 or XP) would not launch. I tried the set-up disc that came with the iPod as well as loading up iTunes on her PC, but neither could "fix" the drive.

After about 4 hours of banging my head against both our computers trying to get all this to work, I gave up and decided we may have to invest in a replacement. Of course, technology has moved on, and the "equivalent" product now is the 2nd generation iPod shuffle, the dinky little item in front at the right. At only $50 for 1 GB of storage, along with the smaller size and clip-on design, it would kick the ass of my older device. But that's $50 I could be spending on chocolate or toward other worthwhile things, like heat and rent. Besides the fact that my 2004 iBook G4 is still running OS 10.3.9 (whereas today's Mac is running 10.5.something), which may not be compatible with the newer product. (I've already fallen out of the loop for Firefox and other application updates.) :-(

So I dragged my wife with me as we trudged into downtown Chicago (the hour+ walk was our "exercise" for the day) to the Apple store on Michigan Avenue. I brought the iPod with, hoping that maybe one of the "geniuses" would be able to do something with it. And holy shit, not only did I manage to get squeezed in for a free consultation without an "appointment" - but they managed to reset the device. So far so good - we've got some fresh tunes on it, and we'll see if the fix holds out. So, in the words of a fellow blogger (and admitted "Mac Whore"), this was an "epic win" for Apple and the Apple Store concept. It's a great place to go and drool over new toys. Maybe I'll even consider an appointment next time... although that sort of prep would be "inconsistent" for me. Could I use "quotes" more in this article?

---

(Pictures of the iPods and Apple Store borrowed lifted from www.apple.com)

Their "death," and not a moment too soon

And I thought it was just a string of bad decisions.

No, there was actually a political philosophy behind the horror that has been the U.S. foreign policy for the past 8 years. Neoconservatism (practiced by neocons, for short) - as laid out in this article from the BBC news, is about:

• a tendency to see the world in terms of good vs. evil (ie, the axis of evil)
  
• a minimal emphasis on diplomacy, with a "disdain for multilateral organisations"
  
• emphasis on U.S. unilateral action
  
• readiness to use military force

What part of that is the outgoing administration proud of?

Just because we are, were, or think we might still be the strongest military force, that is not an excuse to exercise it without just cause, nor against stand-in targets (Iraq vs. Al-Qaeda). Unilaterally? In today's global economy, let alone since the creation of the United Nations, unilateral action should always be a last resort, right up there with military action itself. And what kind of example is the U.S. setting by trivializing diplomacy, a country itself based on democracy?

It served to amuse me how Obama was attacked during the campaign for being willing to re-open discussions "without preconditions." I was just so happy to hear about a politician willing to actually DISCUSS things and CONSIDER the international community before pulling the trigger of the military.

Obama has already inherited fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the powder keg that is the Israel-Palestine situation - I look forward to a fresh perspective about these conflicts starting in just about a week now. The real tests over the coming year or so will be Iran and North Korea - how Obama's administration handles the nuclear (note, not "nu-ku-lur") threat. And, of course, the ominous "terrorist test" he will face simply because he is a new commander-in-chief. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Regardless of the actual challenge, at last we have people that are willing to dig deeper into the playbook and utilize tools that have been helpful in the past, and reaffirm Americans' commitment to humanitarianism on a global scale. Down with the neocons!!

More on government, Blago, & Burris

Here's a joke my father sent me recently:

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."

The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."

"Done!" replies the government official. And that, my friends, is how government contracting works!

Made me smile, given what's happening with Blago. By the way, if you hadn't already heard - he was impeached (first governor in Illinois, whoo-hoo!!) with of a vote of 114-1. What was he doing during the vote? Off jogging in the streets of Chicago.

A little tidbit that seems to have just come out recently about Burris's connection with the Senate appointment: allegedly he approached a colleague of Blago's as early as July or September and expressed interest in the Senate seat. Now does that mean there was anything shady between them that resulted in his December appointment after the news broke of Blago's investigation? Not necessarily. But knowing this and the drive Burris seems to have for personal accomplishments, I am even less inclined to believe he is completely innocent in this debacle.

The Illinois Supreme Court apparently ruled that they will not force Jesse White to sign the Burris appointment document, but their ruling indicated that it should not be necessary to gain his signature for the Senate to seat him. So now I guess it bounces back to the Senate Rules Committee. The last statement from Reid in the Senate indicated that if the Illinois courts approved him, they would seat him. I would anticipate, given the push by Obama to avoid further distractions from the economy, etc., that Burris will now have his dream fulfilled and become the "junior Senator from Illinois" - at least until the seat is next up for election in... I think 2010.

Hopefully by that time, the then-governor will already have a head-start on washing away the stink of corruption, and we might be able to drudge up some candidates that don't make you cringe.

C.R.A.P. Sunday - New Year's edition

Catch-up Rants And Platitudes - #1
Like I indicated before, I'm just getting back into blogging. Here I'll make use of something I've seen from other bloggers - an outlet for mini-rants and messages that wouldn't otherwise be worth a post of their own. Things I've been stewing over for the past week or so and are still with me enough to need venting.

• First off, would like to wish happy holidays and best wishes for the New Year to any and all (or should I say, "both") my readers. :-) A little cliche'd, but heartfelt all the same. We have a lot to look forward to this year as a nation as well as globally - dealing with the economic crisis, high hopes for our new president, working through this recent conflict in the Middle East as well as other fronts - not to mention our own personal goals. And a whole year ahead of us to make good on those goals or to screw-'em up. At least we can vow to fight off procrastination THIS time....



• Blago - Ugh. Have long since given up hope of our Illinois governor resigning, but the taint left by his appointment of Burris as senator has been compounded by Burris's own words.
  
  Apparently, the process of seating a senator (at least, in this situation) requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on a document which then goes to the senate, which then "seats" the representative in the appropriate caucus. The democratic caucus is refusing to seat any appointee by Blago for good reason - he is charged with corruption DIRECTLY RELATING TO his power of appointing a replacement for Obama. Our secretary of state, Jesse White, has refused to sign the document as well.
  
  But here is Burris in a statement to the press saying, (paraphrased:) "I have been legally appointed, I am senator - the rest is just paperwork." And on the day the appointment was made, I recall Burris saying something to the effect of "I have made it to the senate!" Shouldn't the "elevation" to that position more appropriately be recognized as an outlet for his constituents (ie, the residents of Illinois), rather than as a personal achievement?!? He insists the corruption charges are unrelated to his being appointed, and is fighting to be installed instead of letting the legal process resolve things. To the claim that "Illinois needs it's representation" - fine, install an "interim" senator until a permanent one is appointed by a taint-free governor or voted in by a special election. Clinging to the appointment has only stained Burris further, and his refusal to consider the wishes of his constituents as well as his future colleagues proves that he is not the kind of representative I would want in Washington.
  
  Even president-elect Obama (a fellow black politician) is calling for Burris to decline the appointment - so the argument of letting it happen for the sake of keeping an African American democrat in the position should hold no weight.



• Reading - in my down-time I am getting a little better about turning the TV off (finally!) and trying to plow through some books. I guess I'll write a separate entry on this. Recently finished "Wicked," now (re-)reading the original "Wizard of Oz" to see what was based on the original work....



• In early December had a job interview for what would have been an ideal position for July 2009, and a 1 in 3 chance of getting it. Was told we'd find out within the week. After nearly 3 ADDITIONAL weeks of untoward suspense, finally learned that the position went to a different candidate. Have another interview at the end of January, and in the meantime will keep searching - but in the meantime this uncertainty and state of limbo is driving me (and the wife!) NUTS!



• Just to throw another wrench in the gears, my car decided to stop working during the holidays. Thankfully it was after the family meet-up, so no big plans had to be canceled - but it's always a pain in the ass. It is going on 12 years old, and hasn't given me too many problems overall, but I hate dealing with the service department. After hours on hold with roadside assistance and several more hours waiting on help to arrive when it wouldn't start (and a jump didn't help), the mechanics were set to abandon me because they couldn't tow my car down the parking ramp. I insisted on pushing the car to where they COULD tow it, which was much easier than they anticipated. Once at the dealer it turned out just to need spark plugs, but they tried to soak me for thousands of $$ saying the engine needs to be rebuilt, etc. And once the car was back with me it was sputtering and nearly stalling out - not something it had done before it died. Thankfully that improved over the weekend, and for now I can avoid a repeat trip to the service department demanding that they check their work.



• Poor customer service - Dec 2008 was a bad month for it. Dealing with a new health insurance company, and calling in to complain about a product - these things are needlessly frustrating. Here's my 1/2 cent on one item: Rain-x windshield wipes - don't bother with them. Still waiting on a refund. My wife wrote about it here. Apparently owned by Shell, which I will now be boycotting out of spite.



• Opinion polls and article comments - Watching the news on Jan 1st, saw them flash up between segments, "Have you already broken your New Year's resolutions? Text "yes" or "no" to ...." WTF?!? Not only was it less than 12 hours into the new year, but please, please, PLEASE tell me how / why that is "news"?! It is getting nauseating how all these "news" sources are reaching out to Joe Six-pack for input. Have you ever read the string of comments on a recent on-line news item? It quickly degenerates into name-calling and comments on spelling - not exactly an intellectual discussion. Even CNN (which I have stopped watching after the election), with Larry King and other "respectable" news anchors and commentators turning to blogs for comments from the peanut gallery - it makes me want to tune out completely. Professional commentators and analysts have earned the right (theoretically) for their opinions to be part of the "news" - for anything else I can surf the net or listen to a designated call-in show.
  

Ok - that's enough for now. This was much longer than intended. But maybe I'll stop flogging some of these topics (even if just in my head). Now off to hit the gym, to vent my frustrations in a healthier way. Happy New Year!! Good luck with any resolutions you've made.

One - ok, a couple of bad apples....

So by now the whole country is marveling at soon-to-be-former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and the blatant cockiness amidst his corruption charges. Given the presidential election and other distractions, I had not been keeping tabs on much with respect to local politics, but my wife has been quietly whispering in my ear about the dubious character of Blago for a couple of months now. She expressed her concerns that finding a candidate to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat might not happen in the most upstanding way... but I never realized how low our Governor could go.

Apparently Illinois has a "long tradition" of corruption in the government, most recently with former Governor George Ryan, currently in jail on a six-year sentence (also for corruption) and with some officials moving for his sentence to be commuted. Now people are talking like Illinois is a haven for corrupt officials, and how glad they are to not be residents of this state.

Personally, however offended I am at these actions by our officials, I'm proud of my Illinois heritage. I won't let a couple of bad apples spoil my whole impression of this state. I look forward to January 20th, when our president-elect can strut his stuff and demonstrate the integrity we should expect from officials from the Land of Lincoln.

In the meantime, it continues to be an embarrassment that Blago will not resign. Apparently, his lawyers plan to plead "not guilty," and have indicated that a resignation would look like guilt. But I'll be waiting with bated breath while they try to explain away his machinations toward selling Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, among the other charges. Especially when they have his own voice on record from Justice Department-approved wiretaps. And on the very eve of the FBI's actions to bring up charges, we have his smug-faced invitation to have his phone lines tapped, his sincerest assertion that he is clean as a whistle.

Yeah, that one may be more worm than apple, but I'll keep my support behind the rest of Illinois. After all, if you dig deep enough there's probably not a single state that is free from its embarrassments. Not even shiny, white-frost covered Alaska. You know, that state that is so close to Russia.

Political rant #1 - gay marriage

Ever since the heavy pre-election coverage this year, I've been drawn back into the medium that captures the essence of the hot news and presents it in an entertaining format - political satire, frequently well-represented by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, both on Comedy Central.

Tonight Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee (former Republican presidential candidate) on, and engaged him in a mini-debate on gay marriage. As usual, the conservative and liberal viewpoints were framed in different perspectives and they had to agree to disagree. The arguments at their most basic seemed to be: (C) - "We must preserve the sanctity of marriage as defined between a man and a woman," and (L) - "Gay people should have the same rights and benefits granted to heterosexuals."

It was quite gratifying to listen to Stewart present a very cogent argument, and I won't hide my own support for gay marriage. I was quite disappointed with the referenda this November that shot down attempts at legalization of gay marriage in multiple states. Huckabee made reference on the show to the "fact" that 68% of the population is against passing such legislation. I won't take issue with numbers because I have no idea how that polling was conducted, the demographics, how recently it was done, or any of those details. Most of us have heard the expression "lies, damn lies, and statistics" - and that holds true more often than not; depending on how you ask the question, let alone grouping and analyzing data, you can twist numbers to support your argument either way.

To be honest, I really don't care about the numbers because THEY DON'T MATTER. I don't care if 80% of the population is against something. Just because a group of people want something - or want to prevent something - doesn't mean that it is appropriate. The reason we have government is to protect citizens and deliver services that would otherwise be unlikely to happen. If it wasn't mandated by the government, how many of us would contribute money to pay for police, infrastructure, and other social services? How many people would put money aside for their retirement? But we accept taxes and social security deductions because that is a part of our responsibility in supporting the government that protects us. And it protects us in ways we did not anticipate over 200 years ago - look at the relatively recent strides in equal rights for women & blacks, and new protections from discrimination based on handicaps and religion. Those anti-discrimination statements in many systems include "sexual orientation" - an obvious evolution of the concept to protect this portion of our population.

It was a laughable moment in the VP debate in October, when Joe Biden went on a mini soapbox talking about equal rights for partners including hospital visitation, workers benefits, etc. - that [gay] partners will have (paraphrasing) "the exact same rights and privileges as spouses" - but when asked point-blank by the moderator if the democratic ticket was supporting gay marriage, he said no. It is a sad statement that - in order to minimize alienation of a portion of the electorate - the Democratic ticket had to set aside pushing that component of the agenda.

But at its heart, the issue really is about equal rights. If people were interested in legislating about the sanctity of marriage, we'd talk about the divorce rate and banning same-day marriage (i.e., running off to Vegas), requiring "marriage classes" (like some religions do), and maybe even raising the minimum consenting age. If the issue is really about parenting and establishing a family unit for raising children, we would talk about mandated parenting classes or even more aggressive regulations about who is allowed to procreate (or adopt), and when. (Both of these arguments are exemplified with the "Brittany Spears" example used by Stewart) We know it could not possibly be about preserving a religious definition of marriage, thanks to the separation of church and state. So what is left? What possible reason is there to deny two men or two women from legally committing to each other, and being granted ALL the legal and social recognition that accompanies that?

It seems to me to be the downside of tradition, the part that is slow to change simply because "it hasn't been that way before" or "we've never done it that way." Just because religious-based organizations oppose it, or because stubborn people or not ready to accept homosexuality as a fact of our society, does not mean that our goverment can ignore this component of our population or choose not to protect their rights on this issue.

The last point I'll make is again something well-stated by Stewart - opposition to gay marriage is often based on the assumption that it is a choice to be gay. Just like choosing to convert between religions may mean changing what you eat, or how you interact with people - "choosing" to be gay means denying yourself legal recognition of a union. But religion is one of those cardinal protections, and society is barred from denying you rights based on something that is undeniably a choice. But is homosexuality a choice? Many say no - and if you are guaranteed equal rights whether you are born a man or woman in our enlightened age, the same should hold true whether you are born gay or straight.

But again - the answer to THAT question is really irrelevant. Equal rights are equal rights. How can you select out something the law should NOT apply to?