Stories That Should Be Remembered

I read a post on an online friend's blog yesterday.

He quoted from a college professor railing against military veterans in her class, accusing them of wanting to get a degree so as to earn more money killing, raping and looting, using the tools their "masters" had given them in the military.

This is a link to the article: soldiers in her classroom. Referring to them, she said:

"The American military and mercenary soldiers who 'sacrificed' their lives did not do so for the teacher’s freedom to teach the truth about the so-called war on terror, or any of US history for that matter. They sacrificed their lives, limbs and sanity for money, some education and the thrills of the violence for which they are socially bred. Sacrificing for the 'bling and booty' in Iraq or Afghanistan, The Philippines, Grenada, Central America, Mexico, Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other numerous wars and invasions spanning US history as an entity and beginning with their foundational practice of killing the Indians and stealing their land."

You might notice that she didn't mention The Revolutionary War, WW I or WW II. They don't fit as neatly in to her thesis.

I think soldiers, sailors, and marines are not as arrogant, or as stupid as the good Doctor makes them out to be. I certainly don't think most of them "are parroting their master’s slogans" as she accuses them of doing. Kids, for good or bad, going to war (be it back when I was one of them and could avoid doing it because I had a "4-D" deferment and avoided it, or when one of my high school friends, who had no way out, went in, and died as a result, back in one of the wars the Doctor mentioned, Vietnam), or today, for the most part don't go in, or come out, brainwashed as the Doctor implies, without any analysis, as killers. She, in my mind is arrogant and mindless to assume that having gotten out of the military, their only purpose is to get a piece of paper that allows them to make more money doing what she, without any evidence accuses them of having done, more mindless killing.

I am not defending a soldier who commits an atrocity, as I would not defend the kid in Utah who mowed down some people in a mall last week. I am defending our other soldiers, sailors and marines. While I don't like what old people like me like to use them for sometimes, attacking them because they served is plain wrong.

One of my brothers was a Marine from '72 to '76, during the Vietnam era.

He went in for the most part because of a stupid old man and his own youthful machismo. He and a friend were out in some woods that were part of a state forest. It was winter and it was cold, they slipped a lock on a cabin and went in. A Department of Natural Resources Ranger came by and arrested them. The stupid old man, a judge, told them they could spend some time in a youth facility, or they could join the military that spring when they graduated high school. Stupid kids that they were, they did the stupid old judge one better. They weren't going to be wimpy soldiers or sailors, they'd be Marines.

My brother was lucky, as he tested through the roof on the entrance exams. They put him in, I think it is called, the "Air Wing." He worked on the avionic systems of A6 and A5 Marine jets that flew off Navy aircraft carriers near the Philippines and Japan.

He left after four years, at the time, the youngest peace time Sergeant in the history of the Marine Corps. He went to school and built upon what his "masters" had taught him. Not the killing part, the avionics part.

When my Mom died, we were sitting in her house going through stuff to be distributed. One of the things sitting in one of the boxes was my brother's commendation for having jumped into a burning jet to "save" the pilot.

I only knew about it because he and I got drunk together one night in the late Seventies. He told me about it, saying it was the worst thing he had ever done because the pilot died the next day as the result of his stupid reaction. Had he let him die in the cockpit, the pilot would have passed sooner and less painfully. My conclusion about his action was a bit different. I don't know if his "masters" made him a hero or if he brought the character trait with him to the job.

In my mother's living room, holding the leather folder holding its fine-paper commendation, I asked my two nieces, his daughters, if they knew that their father was a hero. Looks can't kill. Violent head shakings didn't deter me because unless I told them, they would never know.

I told them something of the story without the parts about charred flesh.

My brother is a hotshot with an aerospace company. As near as I can tell, if no one else in the world can figure out what's wrong with an airplanes' distance measuring equipment, he fixes it. His daughters have half of their genes from him. He might have never settled down, excelled and married his kid's mom, built a good and honorable life with his wife and spent way too much money educating their kids, unless "his masters" gave him the tools to be what he always was.

The good Doctor does my brother and hundreds of thousands of other veterans wrong by her vicious screed. More, she does her students wrong by not teaching them to think critically, rather, encouraging them to criticize and hate without reason.

I hope my brother doesn't find his way to this post. Heros aren't comfortable with attention.

Fermi, Don't Read This Post

Back in 2000, as the story goes, a group of MIT students put together a hoax website that has resurfaced over the years. Here's a current version. Don't click this Fermi. http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/

Pled - Right. Pleaded - Wrong. Says I.

Before I was a lawyer, I said, and I thought most people said, "he pled guilty." Lawyers say pled, when speaking or writing in the past tense. For the past few years, if you hear about a plea, present tense, on TV or on radio, or read about a plea in a newspaper or magazine, he or she pleaded. I don't like it. It doesn't sound or read right.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/pleadguilty.asp says I'm wrong, with some sympathy. Blogger spell check wants to substitute plead for pled, having no sense of tense. It has no problem with pleaded.

Answer.com says "v., plead·ed or pled (plĕd)." Something called die.net disagrees with me. Worldwebonline.com puts pled before pleaded for usage.

I say I'm right. You be the judge, legally or stylistically.

Newly Recommended

I've added a few blogs to the list on the right side of the page.

Blognonomous is written by Kvatch. Mostly topical stuff. Skews to the left. Well written.

Crush Liberalism by Jonathon, guess what, skews the other way. Again, well written.

Dr. Blogstein is witty, irreverent, topical. He has his own internet radio show.

thomaslb writes Living Next Door To Alice. Labels don't work for him. A gentle soul.

More Very Unimportant Stuff by a Canadian rancher/farmer turned Texan. You'll like his take on life as he finds it.

The Average White Guy, Jim, is just what he says. Steeler fan.

The origninal blogs in the list are as good as ever. Check them all out.

DHL Denouement

In our last episode DHL was making a heroic effort to find and deliver the package.

Yesterday, I got an Email from Sharon in "Key Accounts" responding to an Email I sent last Friday. She asked me to reply if the package wasn't delivered yesterday.

It was not and I told her so.

Today, just before 11:00 a.m. the wayward package arrived. It had a bright red sticker that said "Bldg.1." The box was a bit mangled and looked to have been opened. The packing list that the box said was inside was not there. The wireless router was. I think I'll leave well enough alone.

DHL Update

Got a voice mail this morning from DHL. "From what I understand, there's no suite, just Building 1. We'll try to get this out to you this afternoon. If not then, tomorrow."

This is progress of a sort. After only a week, DHL now actually calls when they say they will; and, they've acknowledged they don't need a suite number. They read the previous post and they're toying with me, aren't they?

"This Is Not Indicative Of DHL's Service"

For those not interested in reading about bad delivery service, move right along; but, do come back.

Since Tuesday DHL has had a package for me, somewhere in Atlanta.

On Wednesday, using the tracking number, I learned that they had “attempted delivery” at about noon on Tuesday. I thought that to be strange since I was at my office at that time.

I called them and learned that the “attempted delivery” translated into they had Building B instead of Building 1 on the label; they had mis-copied it from the bill of lading. I corrected their mistake and the representative told me I would be called within an hour to advise whether the package would be delivered yet that day, or on Thursday.

No call.

No delivery on Wednesday.

No delivery on Thursday.

Friday morning, I called and the representative advised that in addition to the Building number (they still showed B), they needed a suite number. The fact that no one had called to ask for a suite number since Wednesday aside, I have no suite number. There is a building. It has a door. When you walk in you are in my office. I told the representative this. She said someone would call to tell me whether the package would come Friday afternoon or on Monday. Sound familiar?

I wrote an Email to DHL setting out all of the above information. I got a fairly quick reply which apologized and told me that “this is not indicative of DHL’s service,” (no it wasn’t, it was soon to get worse) but that the “local station” has advised that it needed a suite number.

I replied to the Email, again advising that there was no suite number; just come to the building, someone will be there to take the package.

No call during office hours on Friday.

This morning I went into the office and got a voice mail left Friday evening telling me the package would not be delivered on Friday (duh) and that I had to call them to give them a suite number so that it could be delivered on Monday.

I called and repeated all of the above and the representative said someone would call me in the morning to confirm delivery. None of the above was recorded on his tracking screen. I told him not to have someone call, just deliver the package. He said it would get done and he would call anyway. I told him my money was against him but that I wished him well.

When they call tomorrow I’m going to tell them I’m in suite 2525, it has a ring to it, and who knows, maybe then they will “attempt delivery.”

Vista Report

A few days ago I posted that I didn't know whether to "turn off" Vista and run it as XP until the bugs are found over the next few months.

I decided to run Vista. There are a few issues, mostly with compatibility with vendor programs and older software that I have tried to install. The best news, it talks to Office 2000 from my old dead laptop, so I don't have to spend money on Office 2007.

It won't talk to MGI Photosuite II, admittedly, a program that is seven or eight years old.

At first, it would not install AVG anti-virus, but this morning it relented and AVG is operational.

ZoneAlarm firewall isn't compatible. An annoying aspect of trying to install it; Vista doesn't tell you it is not compatible until after the download and installation.

Canon does not offer Vista drivers for my digital camera (four years old) or my photo printer (three years old) and advises that it isn't going to. Hopefully, I can find a driver in the Windows driver wizard that will work. If not, after decades of Canon use, I am shut of them.

As to Microsoft's "WOW" campaign for Vista, if you have installed the latest Internet Explorer (7?) and SP II, you have most of what Vista is. Graphics are a bit different. Search in Vista is light years ahead of XP. It is fast.

Finally, I think I have found an actual bug. Whether I am connecting through the LAN at the office or by WiFi at home, IE occasionally shunts me to "working offline." No problem with getting back on once I found out where the drop down for offline is; but, annoying anyway.

Whither Global Warming

First disclosure of my lack of credentials to write this post:

1. I got a D- - in High School Advanced Algebra. I used to get points for correctly copying the equation or whatever its called on my answer sheet. What I took from this class: It helps your grade when the Varsity wrestling coach is also a co-assistant football coach with the Algebra teacher and explains the consequences of a failing grade to the prospects of the wrestling team.

2. I got a C in college Trig by promising the professor that I would would not be taking any more math courses. What remains with me from this course: it has something to do with circles and uses the words sign (sine?) co- one or the other spelling, tangent, cotangent and some others.

3. I got a C+ in freshman Biology having averaged a 2.98 on the assignments, quizes, tests and the final. Though unlike me, I lobbied the professor for a B and he pointed out that 2.98 is less than 3.0; thus, a B requiring a 3.0, is not obtained by a lesser number. What remains with me from this course: Science is a cruel mistress.

4. I got an A in "Dummy Physics" having somehow dodged having to take Chemistry (an aside, scoring in the 99th percentile in math/science on the then prevalent ACT is not an indicator of ability at anything other than being able to narrow down to the correct answer when provided with four alternatives, though it may be an indicator of guessing ability). I digress. I took from this course that molecules are little, grumpy, smelly men. They don't like each other and only get close together when it's cold. When it gets hot, they smell even worse and retreat from each other. Scientific conclusion: matter shrinks when cold and expands when hot, though this does not seem to fully square with the Big Bang Theory. They probably cover that in the next class.

So, take the rest of this with a grain of salt:

A hot topic of the media, talk-show hosts and my friends is whether Global Warming is contributed to by us - humans. Even President Bush is getting in on the talk by mentioning it in his State of the Union Address (though he may have needed a minute of speech and not wanted to talk about Iraq).

So, here's my considered opinion (re-read points 1 -4 above before you jump on the bandwagon):

1. Man-made emissions, whether or not they increase global warming, aren't a good thing. Where we can, it is a good idea to reduce or eliminate them.

2. Reliance on fossil fuels is a bad thing. Those with control of them recently, Iran, warring Iraq, Saudi Arabia and crazy Chavez, leverage income from them to gain political influence and power, internally and internationally; and, if we become dependant enough on oil, they will have more control over our economy and security.

3. For the most part, we will not move to alternative energy sources until driven by economic factors. But in the short term, mandating, not cajoling for, mandating minimum gas mileage, across the board, of 30 or 35 mpg, should cost little and will reduce emissions and use of oil. Reduction in oil consumption by the U.S. to any significant degree will lower oil prices. Lower oil prices mean less power held by the aforementioned.

Seems like a good idea to me, notwithstanding my math/science challenged reasoning power.

"Completely Heterosexual"

The Associated Press has reported that, one of four ministers, Rev. Tim Ralph, who for three weeks intensively counseled Ted Haggard, says that he is convinced that Rev. Haggard is "completely heterosexual." Rev. Haggard's dalliance with a former gay prostitute was, according to the counseling minister, the result of "an acting out situation.... it wasn't a constant thing."

These four guys have a fall back career if they ever lose their preacher gigs. They are good.

New Phone Company Update - One For Six

If you haven't read the previous post, read it first.

Now, though admittedly unscientific, I judge the new AT&T to be something less than 20% good in terms of the employees I encountered in the fiasco described in the previous post.

At about noon today after not getting the call promised by nice rep number five, I again called tech/repair. The nice lady (number 6) did all the robot talk her predecessors did. As I described the problem, I told her that I punched in my PIN, "xbyd." She said NO, that isn't your PIN, its "xycm." Said I, I got my pin from my monthly statement. She replied, doesn't matter, your PIN is "xbyd."

We proceeded to test her theory. She hung up, though I was reluctant to let her before getting her solemn promise to call me if her resetting didn't work and before I gave her five different ways to find me, if it failed. We hung up without wishing each other to have a nice day.

A minute later my office phone rang. I picked it up and told the caller "I love you." She giggled. We talked a bit. She said "woo who," if that's the way it's spelled, at one point. She wished me a great week.

So, why didn't five New AT&T employees ask me what PIN I was using? Why did my statement give me the wrong PIN? Why did the recording at the remote forwarding number loop instead of saying "you gave me the wrong &&^^% PIN, you idiot?" All of these questions are mysteries to me, after literally hours of searching for enlightenment on the phone. I am going to finish this post and go surfing for a zen website.

The New Phone Company

Though I don't know if I've been dealing with AT&T, SBC or Bellsouth employees, I am not happy with the current company.

I have Bellsouth everything. Last Friday I went into a Cingular store to get info about getting an internet card for my new laptop. Cingular has such a card and after rebate it is only $55.00 with $59.00 a month for service (not bad considering the versatility). I know that sounds ok. The bad part is that the card doesn't fit the laptop. Cingular won't have a card that fits the laptop for two or three months. Dell has the card on its website. Dell wants $299.00 for said card. (An aside. I just used spellcheck. Did you know that Google doesn't know how to spell internet?)

Back to my ire. (It can spell ire.) While there, I was introduced to a Bellsouth rep who advised me how to save some money on my bundled bill. Stupid me. I agreed.

Fast forward to Monday morning. I got an Email from an engineer that had tried to call me six times that morning, getting a busy signal and no voicemail (my home phone is forwarded to my office). I used my cell to call my home phone and confirmed the busy and no voicemail.

I called the 800 number for technical/repair issues. After punching in my phone number four or five times and sitting on hold being told repeatedly that I could pay my bill online for about fifteen minutes, I got a person, who,after asking me how she could provide excellent service and after four or five minutes told me that I didn't have call forwarding service. The proverbial light bulb illuminated and I said that I had changed my plan last Friday to save some money at the behest of the Bellsouth rep. The nice repair lady said, yes that is when your forwarding was cancelled.

No longer having a technical/repair problem, I was transferred to customer service to have forwarding restored. The nice lady asked me how she could provide excellent service and said she was quite sorry after I had explained the problem. She told me forwarding would be restored by 3:00 p.m. She also tried to sell me faster DSL which I declined politely. We wished each other a nice day.

Between 3 and 7:00 p.m. I tried to forward calls a bunch of times. Each time I called the nice female voice told me to punch in my phone number, which I did. The nice voice then read me back my phone number and told me that if she had repeated it correctly, I should punch in my PIN, which I did. The nice voice came back on and told me to punch in my phone number. I went through this loop three times and concluded that I wasn't getting anywhere.

I called a nice man with customer service who after the obligatory phone hell hold, yeah, asked me how he could provide excellent service. After I explained my problem he told me that restoration was scheduled for February 8, day after tomorrow. He politely interrupted my admittedly strident response and told me to hold on while he tried to get the schedule overridden. After about twenty minutes he advised that forwarding would be restored by midnight. I made him promise twice. We wished each other a good evening.

This morning I called the mobile forwarding phone number and got the now familiar loop.

I called another nice customer service lady (how can I...) who told me service was scheduled to be restored on the eighth. I didn't let her interupt my strident speech reciting what you have just read above. She expressed her dismay that those other nice reps would tell me things that were't true. When I asked for someone who could do something, she said she would transfer me but that the answer would be the same. After some more back and forth for some reason she decided she could indeed override the scheduling order. She told me she had. I called the remote number and got the loop. I did it again with the cell on speaker so she could hear the loop. She went back to someone else and confirmed to me that service had been restored. She told me that this was now a technical/repair issue (see paragraph 5, above) and got Sue on the line from that department. I made her promise that Sue would take good care of me, the three of us chuckled and Sue and I went through the loop scenario twice with me doing the number punching and once with Sue at the controls. Sue told me that she would refer this to "Central" and I had a flashback to women sitting at a long switchboard with spagetti wires everywhere. She told me that Central would call me back with the results in a few minutes on my cell phone. It's about two hours later. I do not have call forwarding and Central is MIA.

I am depressed. I hope you have a nice day.

Superbowl Commercials

They sucked.

Budweiser won by default.

CocaCola should have saved its money.

Is it telling that I can't remember much more about the commercials?

Does the fact that approaching maybe forty percent of the commercials were for CBS shows mean that the bloom is off the rose and $2.6 million for a commercial is too much?

XP? Vista?

My home/travel laptop crapped out early last fall.

I started looking for a replacement and finally ordered a Dell laptop on 01/30, the first day of "consumer Vista." Stupid me, because I had settled on what I wanted the day before which would have come with XP and a free upgrade to Vista.

I am told that I can "turn off" Vista, in effect running the machine on XP, and then restore it in a few months when the bugs are mostly squashed.

My quandary, do I turn it off; or, do I use it at the risk of being inconvenienced and pissed by the bugs?

My question, are any of you running Vista, and if so, what are your thoughts?

Give Me A Good Reason Why Corporations Should Be Taxed

One of the reasons corporations were created was to encourage investment. The shell allowed investors to invest without the then concomitant risk of loss greater than the value of the investment.

Limitation of liability encouraged investment, which was thought to be a societal good. The fiction that a corporation is a person is normative as it seeks to change behavior.

Tax laws are also normative in effect, if not purpose. Corporations spend enormous amounts of time and money complying with tax laws. They spend more time planning their businesses because of tax laws. They make decisions, in part, based on tax consequences. Should they?

A corporation does not pay taxes. It passes them on to its customers. If, starting tomorrow, corporations stopped paying taxes, there would, after transition, be no net tax increase to individuals. To compete, the corporations would lower prices, a benefit to their customers. Government would presumably increase taxes to individuals, which would be paid out of the price savings they were enjoying. There would be a net wash in cost to people and income to the government. In fact, by taking corporations out of the taxing chain, they would save the compliance costs mentioned above, money that could be passed on to their customers, reinvested in the economy, or both. Either results in a net gain to people. Corporations would conduct their business without having to worry about tax consequences, instead deciding on true economic factors, again, presumably a good thing.

The other big gain is that currently trendy word, transparence. People would have a better idea of what they were actually being taxed versus the present system that hides taxes in prices.

So, I ask is there a good reason for corporations to pay taxes?

Implanted Chip Ban Proposed, Among Other Pressing Matters

Georgia's General Assembly meets only forty days a year (though it takes them three or four months to get in the "forty days" due to tricks with the clock).

During those forty days there's a lot of stuff that has to get done. This year our Governor, Sonny Perdue, is promoting fishing in the state by a bill that would spend just under $20 Million Dollars under the slogan "Go Fish Georgia." Tick Tock. Our esteemed Governor is opposed to selling beer and wine at retail on Sunday, though bars and restaurants are free to sell it. Tick Tock. Republicans are proposing that we install a statue of former Governor and Senator Zell Miller on the Capitol grounds.The Democrats aren't sure because Miller is nominally a Democrat but gave the keynote address at a recent Republican convention. Tick Tock.

With all of these pressing matters pending, one of our representatives has introduced a bill that bars employers from forcibly implanting tracking chips in employees. I know that sentence can be read two ways. I take it that the bill will not allow an employee that refuses a chip to be fired. Since the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was brief and vague in its article this morning as is often the case, I'm left with guessing why such a bill was introduced. My guess is that Georgia is a "right to work" state, which, interestingly means that an employee can be fired for any or no reason. We aren't much for unions here in Georgia. But, the reason can't be racial, religious, etc. I guess we are adding silicone intolerance to the list. Tick Tock.

Somehow this strikes me as silly. If it's silly, it is becoming mass silliness because Wisconsin passed a similar law last year; and, seventeen other states have the matter under consideration. You'd think that if it were really a dumb law that it would have originated in California or Oregon.

I guess I'm just glad that the Georgia Legislature and Governor are ahead of the curve in protecting me and my fellow Georgians, especially as they only have those forty, short days to do it in. If all goes right, Sundays in Georgia are going to be the alcohol and implant free, fishin' and statue buildin' paradise God (Southern Baptist edition) meant for us to enjoy.

Unheeded Predictions

In February 2003, the U.S. Army War College issued a 60-page report, "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario," warning of possible pitfalls. Among its specific cautions: " ... Thus, a small number of terrorists could reasonably choose to attack U.S. forces in the hope that they can incite an action-reaction cycle that will enhance their cause and increase their numbers. ..." "... Without an overwhelming effort to prepare for occupation, the United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making. ..." "The longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces. At the same time, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could lead to instability and perhaps even civil war. ..." " ... To tear apart the Army in the war's aftermath could lead to the destruction of one of the only forces for unity within the society. Breaking up large elements of the army also raises the possibility that demobilized soldiers could affiliate with ethnic or tribal militias. ..." " ... However, a withdrawal from Iraq under the wrong circumstances could leave it an unstable failed state, serving as a haven for terrorism and a center of regional insecurity or danger to its neighbors. The premature departure of U.S. troops could also result in civil war. ..."

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, online edition, January 29, 2007.

I Hope I'm Right About This

Why is there nothing in the news about what Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, et alia think about Iraq?

Why does the the Bush Administration refuse to consider talking to Syria and Iran about Iraq?

Why did the Iraq Study Group recommendation that regional talks were a necessary component of any plan to "solve" the Iraq problem, arrive still-born?

My hope in answering these questions is that:

Behind the scenes, the countries in the Middle East are involved in plans to stabilize Iraq.

We are talking to Syria and Iran, or communicating with them through third parties.

The study group recommendation is not still-born. It's in an incubator in the critical care unit being nurtured back to health by all of the above named players.

If these things are not happening, Iraq and maybe the Middle East, will be toast soon after we leave. Is it too much to hope that President Bush, lover of secrecy that he is, is in fact taking steps to achieve in-country and regional stability?

Who Are All These People?

A couple of times a week I log on to Sitemeter.com. The site tracks visitors to my blog. Among the information it gives is the "referring" URL when the visitor came as the result of a search on a search engine.

A couple of months ago I did a short post with a link to "The Federal Judge Song" on fairjudiciary.com. It's a funny bit along the lines of the songs done by The Capitol Steps. Since then, for some strange reason, scores of people are doing Google searches for "federal judge song" on Google. I am the second result, which I don't understand. When people come to my blog as a result of this search, they then go to fairjudiciary.com. That being the case, why doesn't that site come up as a top result for the search? Regardless, who are all of these people doing the search?

The wonders of the Internet.

It's Almost Too Easy...

to take shots at the Justice Department for the positions it takes in defending cases concerning domestic surveillance.

From an article by Adam Liptak in today's online edition of The New York Times:

"Plaintiffs and judges' clerks cannot see [the Justice Department's] secret filings. Judges have to make appointments to review them and are not allowed to keep copies. Judges have even been instructed to use computers provided by the Justice Department to compose their decisions….Justice Department lawyers have been submitting legal papers not by filing them in court but by placing them in a room at the department. They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves….[A] government lawyer refused to disclose whether he had a certain security clearance, saying information about the clearance was itself classified….[The government accused plaintiffs in one case of misconduct by 'mishandling] information contained in [a] classified document' by, among other actions, preparing filings on their own computers."

It doesn't seem necessary for me to say anything about any of this. To steal from numerous comedians over the years, "you can't make this stuff up."

Almost A Plan

Media reports of the State of the Union address indicate that it was a clunker. Don't know, didn't watch.

About a third of the way through, the President said:

"Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America — with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border, and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in, and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country — without animosity and without amnesty." (Emphasis added.)

Seemed like a plan to me, until he got to the most contentious issue, what to do with those illegals that are already here. Having no solution that will appeal to the anti-immigration groups on the last issue, probably makes any "comprehensive reform" DOA.

My thought would be to ignore the last issue. If the rest of the legislation were passed, current illegals would either be caught and deported or leave on their own if they couldn't keep or get work under the new law. There would then be an orderly line (?) to re-enter as temporary workers.

A Scary Statistic

"In New Orleans, before the storm, about 4 out of 10 men in the working-age population were out of a job or not looking for one, compared with less than 3 in 10 nationally." Quoted from an article by Adam Nossiter in The New York Times online edition, January 21, 2007.

The four out of ten in New Orleans is not the scary statistic. Think about it, 30% of men of working age in the country aren't working. However you juggle the numbers, there are a bunch of people being supported by the rest of us.

The unemployment rate for December 2006 was 4.5% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate for white and black men, respectively was 3.5% and 8.3%. "Unemployed," as I understand the term means not working but looking for work. Putting these numbers together means that more than 21.5% of men of working age aren't looking for work. (The percentage would be higher using a blended white/black rate, which I couldn't find.)

I'm not an economist. I'm not great at math; and, I'm even worse at statistics. But, an economy where at least twenty percent of the available male work force is "sitting it out" is not healthy.

Posting Failure

It is Sunday morning. I've been working on a post dealing with the controversy surrounding music and movie downloads and my thought that the controversy will die out once law catches up with technology.

Having stated the premise, I am scrapping what is currently four or five pages of meandering discussion. Try as I did to get from the premise, through the discussion, to the conclusion, I have failed. I'm going to stop now and try to think of some interesting issue that I can expound on for a page or two without boring even me.

Torture: Kind Of Bad. Coercion: OK.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is implementing new rules for upcoming Guantanamo trials.

It will not use statements obtained by torture. It will use physical evidence obtained by torture.

Coercion? No problem, coerce away, the statements and evidence obtained are admissible.

Class assignment: Re-read Alice In Wonderland.

Who's Story Is It?

Yesterday I wrote the words "[n]icely written. Your words gave me your experience" as a comment to a post on hedysblog.blogspot.com. Stiff. Inarticulate. Here's what I meant to say.

You may think I'm wrong; but, reading is better than watching a story. Hedy wrote about going to breakfast at a diner last Saturday with her husband. In her post, she took me with them.

I've been to diners. After the fact, thinking about what I saw, smelled and tasted in them is one story. Reading someone else's description, results in a different story, one I helped to "write."

When I was in college, I saw a performance of Shakespeare's The Tempest. They did it wrong. I know they did because I had read, and in the process, cast, staged and directed the play, in my head. As the performance unfolded, I felt I and Shakespeare were being badly wronged. Bill had created a wonderful world that I could populate while reading. Those people on the stage had done it differently.

Without belaboring differences in art and craft, good writing engages your imagination. Even the best stage or film production does little to ignite your imagination.

When I went to the diner with Hedy and her husband the "narrow green doorway" was on the right of the building as you faced it. The "seven stools at the curvy counter" were along the back wall, in front of the grill. The "maybe ten tables, tops" were along the front wall. Kathy, the proprietor, "with her salt and pepper hair [and] warm smiling eyes" was wearing a red sweater. Hedy by her descriptions, gave me the basics with which to cast and stage the play.

Had I not read Hedy's story, and gone to see her or someone else's production of it, their interpretation would be limiting. They might put the door on the left, the counter could be on the side wall and Kathy could be wearing an apron. I'm then stuck with their interpretation whether good or bad. I could like it, or not. In either case, I can't participate. Reading good writing trumps watching even the best play or movie.

Headline

The following is from a January 16, 2007 New York Times online article about a judge's efforts to enjoin further distribution of documents online. The documents had been "sealed" in connection with a lawsuit; but, had made their way to several people and organizations (including the NY Times) who published them. The judge's order told the people who got them to tell the people who got them from them to destroy them and tell the people getting them from them to..... You get the idea.

"On his TortsProf blog (snipurl.com/Torts), William G. Childs, an assistant professor at Western New England School of Law in Springfield, Mass., put it this way in a headline: 'Judge Tries to Unring Bell Hanging Around Neck of Horse Already Out of Barn Being Carried on Ship That Has Sailed.'”

Well put.

Screwed Up Again

Ten minutes ago I realized that my brother, Tim, celebrated his birthday, drumroll, three days ago. I am always forgetting these things. My excuse, lame as it is, is that my former secretary used to keep a diary and give me a sheet of paper a week ahead, four days ahead and the day before. I usually ended up patronizing FedEx or UPS the day before.

Happy Birthday Tim!!!

Feel free to wish him well by way of a comment below.

What Hath TiVo Wrought?

If you've read this blog before, or talked to me in person, you know I love TiVo.

Three stories on the influence of TiVo:

First. I've been in a hotels (being male, the remote is always near). While watching TV, I miss something or want to see it again. Reach for the remote. Damn, no TiVo. Timeshifting becomes part of watching TV when you have TiVo.

Second. I'm driving down the road, half listening to the radio. Something catches my ear and I have the same reaction as I had in the hotel room. Damn again. I think XM or Sirius or both are starting to sell receivers that have a mini-DVR in them so you can back-up while listening.

Third. And the best. I think I'm glad this wasn't me. A friend was in his office which has a TV and a security camera monitor. Thus, there are remotes on his desk. Several people were having a discussion that he wasn't paying much attention to. Yes, for a moment he started to reach for the remote to play back what he had missed while zoning out.

Maybe I Should Rejoin The ACLU

Back when George H.W. Bush was the President he made a snide comment about "card carrying members of the ACLU." It pissed me off, so I joined and became a card carrying member.

I let my membership lapse somewhere in the '90's because I thought the organization was too strident. Maybe some stridency is needed in this century.

Back in 2002 a guy named John Gilmore went to the Oakland, California airport and then to the San Francisco airport with the intent to get on planes to Washington, D.C. As we all are, he was asked for identification. He refused. No boarding. He was told that he could board without showing ID if he submitted to a search which was more intrusive than normal. He again refused.

He investigated and found out that the TSA issues directives about what ID and searches are required of passengers at different airports. These directives varied by airport and were changed, sometimes weekly. He was told they were given orally, not in writing. Thus, he could not see them.

He filed suit. He lost in the U.S. District Court. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court which issued a twenty-five page opinion which dismissed his claims. As it always is with law, the Court looked at a bunch of different legal issues. One of the issues raised was that his constitutional right to due process had been violated because he was penalized for failing to comply with a law that he had never seen.

I don't have any problem with a legal requirement to show identification or submit to a search prior to boarding an airplane. On the whole, I think Gilmore, who was trying to get rid of airport security, was, to put it mildly, misguided. But, here's what bugs me. Recall that Gilmore tried to fly in 2002. He filed suit in 2004. Not until 2005, and then on appeal, did It turn out that there was indeed a written directive. Until the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the government wouldn't even admit that it had a policy. The District Court had decided the case based on the "assumed truth of the content of the identification policy" as alleged by Gilmore. How could such a policy get so far without the public knowing what it was? Congress exempted the TSA from providing notice and the opportunity for public comment because the policy related to security. Given that exemption, no one outside of government knew that the policy was being formulated or what what it was.

Even in the Ninth Circuit, Gilmore wasn't allowed to look at it because the TSA had classified it as "sensitive security information." The Ninth Circuit looked at the Directive in camera and ex parte. That means it was turned over to the Court by the government, only when ordered to by the Court, which read it in private and without the parties' input. Gilmore couldn't look at it and neither could his lawyer. The Court decided that the Directive did not violate due process protections because whatever was in it that Gilmore, you and I can't see "articulates clear standards. It notifies airline security personnel of the identification requirement and gives them detailed instructions on how to implement the policy." The Court reasoned that the signs at the airport that said he must show ID notified him of the policy and that that was enough. Since the TSA and the implementing airline employees know what they are supposed to do, whether or not they do it, and whether or not they do it correctly, no one can challenge them.

It is sometimes said that bad facts make bad law. Gilmore's case may be an example of that bromide. Gilmore tried to fly to set out a test case to argue that the government cannot impose restrictions on airplane travel, specifically requiring ID and searches, without violating a host of constitutional provisions. On the merits, the government probably had the better case. But,the way it went about establishing its policy in secret, defending its position by refusing to even acknowledge that it had a policy and the fawning deference the courts gave to its obscuring tactics are much more important in the long run than the obvious point that reasonable levels of security don't violate the Constitution.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order denying certiori. Thus, the Ninth Circuit's opinion, for most purposes, is the law of the land. The government is now free to classify pretty much any law, regulation, rule or policy (and do it behind closed doors without the knowledge of or participation by citizens), and put up signs or take out an ad in a newspaper on on TV saying what it is you must do or not do. Four or five years down the road a court may review the piece of paper, again behind closed doors, and vote yea or nay. That's "process;" but, I'm not sure it is that which is "due."

With Apologies to Trekkies

I stopped last night at a bar to meet with some friends. There were a bunch of big plasma screens scattered around the room. Usually they show sports and news. For some reason, one was airing an episode from Star Trek: Whatever It's Called Now.

I would occasionally glance at it. It struck me that in the original series, the bad guys were always aliens. Romulans and that other species that I can't ever remember, that invented the cloaking device? Hah, remembered, Klingons. Romulans had bumps on their heads. The Klingons had distorted faces. Vulcans had pointy ears..Then I remembered that Spock was half Vulcan, half human. Nice guy, torn by his mixed planet heritage. Pure bred Vulcans were good people, if a little rigid. So too when Michael Dorn became a character. Good guy. So it can't be that alien equals bad.

Alien does equal lack of variation among a species. One facial type per as evidenced by the aforementioned Romulans, Klingons and Vulcans Having gone to Wikipedia, I've confirmed this: Ferengi, all one type. Cardassian and Borg, same. I assume this is budget. Squiggly, tentacled creatures cost money.

But how come all aliens breath air? They do, except for some I remember on the original series that were a sort of low budget Northern Lights. They are always on the bridge on the Enterprise. No helmets. If you want squiggly and methane breathers, you have to go to Mars Attacks. There they had long necks with little bubbles over their little heads. But again, this is big budget movie versus smaller budget TV.

But then there are Tribbles. Easy on the budget, with lots of colors. They may not need air. As I recall they spent most of their time in overhead compartments and utility ducts. Maybe they were anaerobic.

All this is in contrast to the humans on the shows. United Nations. Rainbows. You have your Uhuras, Scotties, Chekovs and Sulus (though we didn't know it back then, your straights and gays). Then came Whoopies (and a little person Whoopie, if I remember correctly), Geordis and Data (I don't want hear about android v. human). The episode last night had some people with wires around their heads. Human or alien? Over the years all of these characters had an episode or two when they were out of character. Good and bad. Maybe, just human.

I guess all you can really conclude from all this is that Gene Roddenberry's future and maybe our present have enough problems without complicating them with racial divisions.

I'm Pissed

A few minutes ago I was midway through doing a post. Google told me it was unable to establish a connection with Blogger and that I should test the connection. Blogger said it was down for maintenance. Result: post lost. Moral of the story: compose in Word, then copy and paste.

The Death of Privacy

Several of my recent posts have been about the Bush Administration's, in my view, obsession with trampling civil liberties in its quest to increase national security.

On reflection, I don't think President Bush is the biggest threat to privacy that we face. To paraphrase Pogo (because I'm too lazy to look it up): we have met the enemy and it is us.

Being relatively ancient, I didn't get a social security card until I was sixteen. Now they are passed out with the birth certificate. My first driver's license was filled out on a typewriter. My current driver's license has a digital representation of my thumbprint on the back.

Kroger knows what I eat and drink because I let them swipe the little key-chain card so I get the "discounts." Kroger also knows that I didn't completely fill out the form to get the card because the register periodically spits out a note to me saying that I could get even more savings by mail and Email if I would give my addresses. If I use a coupon, the register spits out another coupon for me tailored to my purchases.

Netflix knows that I have rented Naughty Nurses: Vol. 23, six times (ah, poor old Judge Bork, who got "borked" in part because the clerk at his local video rental place gave out his rental list). Netflix also knows if I am, in its view, a rental hog and slows down delivery if I am. DIRECTV and Tivo know what I've watched on television and when I watched it. (When I went to DIRECTV's website to confirm how its name is spelled, at the top of the screen, it greeted me with "Welcome back, David.")

I go to a restaurant here in Atlanta on fairly regular basis. It uses a POS (point of sale) computer system. Even if the person at the podium has worked there for an hour, when I give my name, he or she knows where I like to sit and what I have eaten in the past. The screen has a code on it, giving me a customer rating (though I'm sure they call it something else).

In the good old days, Joe, the VP at the bank, was happy to give a signature loan. He knew where you lived and worked, he passed them every day on his way to work. Now, HAL the computer, in the server room at Ditech or ELoan, whirs for a second or two and says yea or nay to your loan request.

Microsoft knows everything about you. What it doesn't know, Google does. Microsoft over the years gained a reputation as the Evil Empire. Google, though slipping, still engenders warm feelings among the populous. Both have "privacy policies" that I am willing to bet are very similar and which don't protect you against any of the stuff talked about above.

Each of these "invasions" of my privacy (except the social security card and thumbprint) was agreed to by me. I gave "them" the information. No one was pointing a gun at me. For the most part, I knew that these companies were keeping track of me. I submitted anyway.

My point? We the people have given up our privacy. It isn't coming back. We have come to rely on the benefits of transparancy of lives and habits. President Bush is only taking our complacency over the past few decades and using it to his (he would say our) benefit just like all of the companies mentioned above.

Privacy is on its deathbed and you and I will be found complicit in its murder.

Lost Opportunity

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Hank Johnson, the newly elected representative for Georgia's fourth congressional district, walked up the steps to the House of Representatives yesterday and a guard stepped in front of him. Mr. Johnson, not taking advantage of this opportunity to wap the guard upside the head, smiled and said that his name was Hank Johnson, one of the the new congressmen. The guard smiled and Mr. Johnson went on his way. To date, Cynthia McKinney, his predecessor, has issued no comment.

Postscript To Neither Rain...

First, if you haven't read the previous post, read it before you read this.

After finishing the "exigent" post, I realized I had missed a point about Bush's anti-privacy bent: it's stupid and unnecessary.

Search warrants, especially those sought by federal law enforcement in connection with suspected terrorist activity, are ridiculously easy to get. In a case where it is suspected that a piece of mail contains evidence relevant to a criminal or national security investigation, and it isn't thought that there is a bomb, anthrax, etc. in the piece of mail, the officer can hold the piece and go to a judge, set out facts that indicate that the officer has "probable cause" to believe that the evidence is relevant, and the judge will give the officer a search warrant for the piece of mail. Under this system, the government has full ability to investigate and prosecute crime and terrorism; but, individual citizens are afforded some degree of protection from unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

Where the suspected activity is related suspected terrorism, the government has even more leeway. Some years ago the Foreign Intelligence and Security Act (FISA) was enacted. Under FISA, a special court (FISC) was set up that operates in secret and hears warrant applications. Officers can even get a warrant after the fact in many cases. The warrant is almost never made public, even to a defendant charged based on evidence obtained under the warrant. In 2005 the government applied for 2072 warrants to the FISC court. A total of NONE were denied.

With such a rubber stamp process available, why in the world does President Bush need even more leeway?

Through Rain or Sleet or Dead of Night...

nothing will keep us from our appointed rounds. Except us. Us, the Federal Government.

President Bush has a neat trick he often uses when he signs bills, to try to subvert their purpose. When he signs the bill he also issues a "signing statement." In the statement he sets out how he "interprets" the bill. White often becomes black, sunshine can become rain.

On December 20th he signed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. According to an article in the New York Daily News the bill "deals with mundane reform measures." It also "explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.'' In his signing statement President Bush said he will "'construe' an exception, 'which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection [read first-class mail] in a manner consistent...with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances.'"

Not to go legal on you, but, exigent circumstances permit law enforcement to search without prior warrant. Ticking bombs are exigent. Fresh blood leading up the porch to the door of a house allows the police to enter to find the leaking body without going to get a warrant first. Exigent "EK-suh-juhnt\, adjective: 1. Requiring immediate aid or action; pressing; critical." (Google online dictionary) This time constraint on action begets the exception to requiring a warrant.

"Exigent" first-class mail has a bomb in it or some anthrax.

Emily Lawrimore, according to the article, a White House spokeswoman "denied Bush was claiming any new authority." She went on to talk about exigency and warrants.

She and President Bush doth protest too much. If current law lets you open first class mail to neutralize the bomb and anthrax and doesn't let you open it to find evidence of a non-exigent crime or hazard and you aren't "claiming any new authority" you don't need a signing statement. You need a signing statement to try to fudge existing law.

President Bush, I've read, did well at Yale. I have to believe he was exposed to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. I have difficulty believing that he doesn't understand them. So, I am left with the conclusion that somewhere along the line he developed a deep-seated antipathy for what they mean and guarantee. He has two more years to continue trying to gut them. Maybe one thing the new majority in Congress can do is slow him down; but, I'm not holding my breath.

Misdirected Money

Advertising confuses me.

Take drugs. (I guess you can read that sentence two ways.) I would never think to "ask [my] doctor" about some drug which was the subject of a 30 second TV spot. Especially since I often am not sure that the spot was actually for a drug. And almost all of the time, I don't know what the drug is for. "Doc. Here's a list of TV ads that I think are for drugs. I don't know what they are for; but, could you check me out see if I can take any of these? Please, please?"

Actually, Viagra and Cialis are exceptions to this. Few men would have gone to their doctor seven or eight years ago and raised the subject of erectile dysfunction. Physicians didn't have the "disorder" high on their screening radar. The drug companies had to create a demand for a product that no one admitted to needing. Consumer advertising made sense. (While on the subject of male enhancement - isn't that a great phrase - the ad agency that turned the legal disclaimer into advertising gold, should get a lifetime achievement award. "If your erection lasts more than four hours, see your doctor immediately." Insert your own jokes here.)

I suppose I'm wrong about drug ads in general. The ads keep coming at a cost of tens of millions of dollars a year. They must work. Physicians must long for the simple days of "detail men (now pretty women)" with their pens, scratch pads and free staff lunches.

Now BASF. What's up with that. Raise your hand if you ever bought anything because it contained a BASF product. No hands. Purchasing Agents - when was the last time you poured over the BASF catalogue the morning after seeing one of its commercials? Hands?

McDonalds. I understand advertising Happy Meals and Ronald McDonald to kids. There is a valuable whine factor created. But McDonalds spends millions on, for wont of a better phrase, presence advertising. I know it's there. I'd be much more likely to respond to advertising that trumpeted that McDonalds' food now tasted good. I guess they can't do that without violating truth in advertising laws.

The Internet. I have three or four programs running on my computer that fight pop-ups, -overs and -unders. Are you like me and have subconsciously learned to scan a web page without actually seeing the ads? When using Google to shop, I almost never click on one of the blue results. For some reason, I'll click on the real result for the same site that usually is there, or just enter the URL for the advertising site. I think it's because I feel guilty for costing the company money when I am only window shopping.

I suspect that a lot of advertising spending is done on if "it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "we have money in the budget" bases. What would happen if we didn't advertise? CEO's get fired for cooking books, not spending ad dollars.

Finally, Tivo. Proof that God loves us and one big reason that advertising will change rapidly in the near future. In the past three or so years that I've had Tivo I've watched almost no TV advertising. Did you know that there is a rythmn to fast forwarding? I can half watch the commercials speed by and pick up visual cues that the program is about to come back on. I'm usually within a few seconds of the restart of the show. I shouldn't have written that since the channels will change their rythmns to fool me more often. I'm kidding guys. I can't really do that.

Technology Overload

Yesterday I found out I was getting a DVD with multiple thousands of documents scanned on it. When I bought my current office computer about four years ago, I skimped on two things. The RAM (do they still call it that?) is 256k. That has worked out OK since all I do on the computer is create and edit documents, get and send Emails and surf and research on line. Until yesterday, not getting the, then fairly new, option of a DVD player/burner wasn't a problem.

When I was buying the player/burner, I realized I was out of USB ports on the tower; so, I had to buy a hub.

Surrounding me on the desk, floor and credenza are the DVD device, its various wires,cables, the USB hub with its spagetti and styrofoam, plastic and cardboard detrious from both electronic pieces. I forgot the twist ties.

Various parts of both devices are plugged into each other, the walls and other devices. Having not thought through the process, I am at an impass. I am out of electricity. I have four outlets in the office. One is useless because I covered it with book shelves. Another is useless because it is on an exterior wall and not near anything electrical. Two are now full up, one of which has a powerstrip plugged into it. Until I go get another powerstip, technology is on hold. Rather than do a paragraph or two on the charms of dial telephones and mimeograph machines, I'm off to Target.

There's A Fine Line

between done and over-done.

I usually cook dinner, such as it is. It can range from a sandwich to a real meal. A couple of weeks ago I decided I was going to make potato pancakes. The problem was my only exposure to the process was many many years ago, not really watching my mother make them.

When I asked friends about it they mostly said it was kind of like making hash browns. Did you know if you type the words potato pancakes into Google it returns "about 1,380,00 English pages" for the two words "(in .20 seconds)"? The first result is Cooks.com. It has 12 pages containing 395 recipes. They boil down to the following. Finely grate potatoes. Press liquid out of them. Lightly beat eggs. Add salt and pepper to egg mixture "to taste." (As an aside, what kind of instruction is that? You can't taste it till you're done.) Add flour to mixture. Combine with potatoes. Mix well. Plop a spoon-full into oil in pan. Fry till done. This recipe also results in latkes. Who'd of known?

Tasting at the end uncovered the fact that they were a bit under-done and needed a bit more frying. Add sour cream and applesauce. Pretty good.

Last weekend, I decided to make home fries, without the aid of Google. I cubed potatoes. Added salt and pepper. Threw them in oil in a pan. I tossed the cubes as they spit oil at me. Given my lack of cooking skill, after tasting a cube which turned out to be under-done, I kept frying, just past the point I should have. Lucky for me, I fried two small potatoes and picked out and ate the cubes that I hadn't over done. Not cost effective but serviceable cooking.

You're looking for the moral of this story aren't you? Well, under-do what you're doing. It's correctable. When I'm in lawyer mode, there's a temptation to ask that one last question. I'm much better off when I don't do it. When I'm playing golf, I'm better if I don't over swing. When I'm writing a post, going for that irresistible turn of phrase that takes it over the top is not a good idea.

My motto for 2007 - under-do.

Help Wanted

I read the ingredients listed on food packages. Not because I am concerned about health or have an allergy to peanuts. Because they are there and, at that particular moment, I have nothing else to read.

Rarely, I'll not read at night for an hour or so before bed. But usually, I have three or four books in line for reading.

Lately, I've been on a jag. Reading to exclusion of doing things that I should be doing. To the exclusion of doing anything else. I realized that I only have one book waiting in line.

I went to my local used book store late last week. I walked out without getting anything. I went on Amazon yesterday. I couldn't find anything that I had not read and actually wanted to read. This just doesn't happen.

So, your help is wanted. Give me titles. Give me authors. Skip the overly-serious. I do serious for a living. I've read the masters both classic and modern. Think Richard Russo. John Irving. Enlighten me. Entertain me. If you have a book that made you stop and re-read sentences or paragraphs to savor them, I want to know.

Rainy Night In Georgia

Under a drizzling sky in Atlanta, I hope you, your family and your friends enjoy a very merry Christmas and rewarding blogging in the New Year.

There's A Sucker Born...

My political views are informed (skewed?) usually by two competing mindsets.

I grew up in a conservative household. We went to church where there was a God of Fire who pointed you to a Saviour who, despite your basic cussedness, could redeem you. I took away the thought that people were basically bad and needed rules to follow and some one or thing to enforce the rules. Mix in my parents' Depression era, big government backround influencing me and you have government as your rule giver and enforcer to protect us from ourselves.

Then I read Heinlein, Rand, and others, discovering the charm of the rugged individualist. In the books, unfettered by messy reality, the individualist prevailed against the collective. We were all good. Rules and Rulers should be kept to a minimum.

Yesterday morning I had to drive south of Atlanta to McDonough in Henry County, Georgia for a hearing on a motion. Nice little town with a square on which the Courthouse sat. Gridlocked traffic for a mile around the square evidenced McDonough's inclusion in Metro Atlanta's problems.

In Georgia courts, motions are heard by the Judge on periodic "non-jury trial calendars." Anything and everything that doesn't involve a jury appears on these cattle-call mornings. As a result of my attendance at these events over the years, I am fully qualified to practice all kinds of law that I wouldn't touch on my worst day. Divorce, restraining orders, arraignments for non-payment of child support. I once saw a guy banished from all counties in Georgia but one (a fascinating Georgia practice for discussion in another post).

Yesterday, though my case was in the second position, I wasn't excused until about an hour and a half into the session. While there, I saw five hearings on motions to "Confirm Settlement." In Georgia in some cases, when a person gets a structured settlement (payout over time) of a judgment, the settlement has to be approved by a judge. Any change to the settlement later also has to be approved. These people had "sold" their income streams under the settlements to an investor. Kind of like taking an annuity when you win the lottery and selling it, after another discount for a lump sum later.

But here's the twist.

The amounts they were getting for their annuities ranged from a high of 75% to a low of 20% of the current, already discounted, present value. Without laying out all the math, this is a terrible deal. The people doing it were stupid. They needed someone to beat up the side of their head and knock some sense into them.

Instead, in turn, they marched up to the podium in front of the Judge with the lawyer who represented the investor buying the annuity. The lawyer asked them "questions." Did you read the agreement. Of course they did. Did you understand the agreement. Ditto. Did you consult with a lawyer or understand that you have a right to consult with a lawyer and decided not to. Why yes, I did. Is that your signature on the agreement. Yep.

The Judge then asked them two questions. What is your educational backround? It ranged from GED to college degree. Do you have any mental problems? None admitted to any.

The Judge then signed the Consent Order and wished them luck. Yes, to each he said "good luck."

So, am I P.T. Barnum, with a smile pointing them to the "egress" and wishing them luck like the Judge? Or Heinlein, Rand or anyone of a bunch of current talk show hosts? Or, do I lobby for laws to protect the idiots? If so, what kind of laws?

I got in my car, shaking my head, and drove back to the City.

The Big Lie

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided Swift & Co. plants in six states, arresting a bit over 1,200 people this week after a ten month investigation.

The Company was aware of the impending raids and sought an injunction against them saying they would cause "substantial and irreparable injury." It said that the raid would remove up to 40% of its 13,000 workers.

After the raid Swift & Co. president Sam Rovit said that the Company has never knowingly hired illegal workers.

My considered legal opinion: Liar Liar, Pants on Fire.

FOX IS Fair and Balanced - It Reports, We Decide

Last night FOX News, during Brit Humes' segment, reported two stories that caught my eye.

FOX reported that President Bush will not speak to the Nation before Christmas as previously thought. He will rather wait until the first of the year to unveil his plans in Iraq so as to give him more time for more input. Coupled with this announcement, it was reported that there may be a 20,000 troop increase in Baghdad.

Straight forward reporting. Fair in my eyes. Took about 2 or 3 minutes.

Before, during and after this segment, FOX teased a story about a shocking announcement by Angelina Jolie. When the segment finally aired, I learned that Jolie has met Jennifer Aniston! Moreover, Jolie would like to have a "long sit-down" with Aniston to talk about Brad Pitt!!! (There are three exclamation points used to reflect the tone of FOX's revelation.)

Again straight forward, albeit hard hitting reportage. Quite fair to all three of the stars. Again, not counting the teaser time, it took 2 or 3 minutes.

Those folks at Fox live up to their tag lines!!!

The More Things Change...

"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us, instead of our Anglifying them." Ben Franklin, 1751, as quoted in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 11, 2006.

Cherokee County, Georgia is about 35 miles North of the City of Atlanta. It is one of the newest bedroom communities in Metro Atlanta and suffers all the woes associated with that status. Schools, roads, sewers are needed. Long time residents clash with the city refugees building McMansions on what was pasture land when their taxes rise to pay for new infrastructure.

Over the past month the old and new guards have put aside their differences to focus on what is really important, attacking the "damn Mexicans." (In North Georgia all Hispanic people, if referred to derogatorily, are Mexicans. Guatemalan just doesn't roll off the tongue. And they all look alike you know.) The County Commission has enacted two ordinances. First, it is now a crime for a landlord to rent to anyone who hasn't proved that they are a citizen or have resident alien status. Second, the County cannot spend any money to communicate to anyone in a foreign language unless the communication is mandated by state or federal law or is regarding a major government function: education, courts and health care. Both measures are largely symbolic given facts on the ground. Most rental units in the County are in its two cities, Canton and Woodstock, neither of which is bound by the County ordinance. Most government communication in foreign languages is the result of state or federal laws or involves education, courts or health care.

Cherokee's message to Mexicans by passage of the ordinances seems to be "you're welcome to plant and harvest our fields. Framing, drywalling and landscaping McMansions is OK too. You can maintain what you build. But make sure you're out of town by sundown. Oh, while you're here, keep your mouth shut. None of that jibber-jabber allowed among the polite folk in the County."

There's of course nothing new here as demonstrated by the quote of one of our Founding Fathers at the top of the post. African slaves, Irish potato famine refugees, Chinese railroad laborers, Okies, southern migrants in northern factories during World War II. They are all "Mexicans" to those that get somewhere first.

Jane, You Ignorant Slut

Dueling political commentators got their start before Saturday Night Live. Dan Ackroyd (or was it Chevy Chase?) and Jane Curtin parodied James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander who took rightist and leftist views on a news topic in a 60 Minutes segment called "Point/Counterpoint" which began in 1970. As I recall the feature, it was pretty civilized.

Firing Line, hosted by William F. Buckley, Jr., began a year earlier. It more closely resembled a traditional debate. More than civilized, it was the definition of urbane. The show was best watched with an open copy of the Oxford English Dictionary on the coffee table given Mr. Buckley's vocabulary.

Civility gave way to free-for-all with Crossfire on CNN in 1982. Original conservative host Pat Buchanan yelled at, interupted and talked over liberal host Tom Braden, who returned the invective.

With the advent of cable and its 24 hour appetite, talking heads from remote locations vie with the hosts on all the channels to see who can be the most abusive and derisive. FOX News' Hannity and Colmes, is typical of the breed. On occassion, by accident, a fact is spoken or an objective opinion is aired.

I think it all started going wrong about midnight on a Saturday in the 70's with the use of the modifier ignorant slut. Someone in a news department realized you could entertain viewers with adjectives. News and discourse became by-products.

To steal a phrase, I have a modest proposal. News talk shows should declare a modifier free week. No adjectives. No perjorative language. The speaker gets to finish what he or she is saying. Questioners must ask a real question rather than pontificating their viewpoint. The person answering a question must actually answer it, rather than using it as an invitation to say whatever it is that they want to say. All shows would be on tape delay. An objectivity censor in the engineering booth would bleep all offenses. A month or so of this might be necessary for the players to get the rules down. Early on, the entertainment would be in trying to read people's lips during the bleeps.

Or, we could get the old Not Ready For Prime Time Players to host the news talk shows. They'd show 'em how to do it right.

Borrower Beware

If you carry a balance on your credit card account from month to month, you might be interested in this new way banks have devised to separate you from your money:

I have friend who is a lawyer for a federal agency that deals with banks. He said that Bank of America has changed the way it calculates the "average daily balance" upon which it charges you interest.

The old less expensive way was, in simple terms, to add the daily balances each day in the billing period and divide by the number of days in the period. You paid interest on the result.

BOA now averages two billing periods rather than one. This change means you will pay more interest. An example:

On the first day of your billing period you buy $1,000.00 worth of stuff on credit. When the bill comes you pay $500.00 of the $1,000.00 you owe. Under the old calculation, you would pay interest the next month on the $500.00 balance in the new billing period (500 x 30 = 15,000/30 = 500). But now, BOA goes back sixty days. You pay interest not on the $500.00 you averaged as a balance in the new month, but on the average balance for two months which is $1,250 (1,000 x 30 + 500 x 30 = 75,000/60 = 1,250). If your card has an interest rate of 10%, this works out to $7.50 more in interest over the two month period. BOA is charging you interest on money you have already paid back to it.

According to my friend the fed, as long as the bank "discloses" this (the mice type you don't read) it is legal.

Special for Moral Turpitude

MT - Here it is with poor quality. But here none-the-less. For the rest of you, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution has an item on Sundays that talks about the Web. It highlighted a blog called By the Seat of My Skirt this week. Check it out, it's link is to the right under Recommended.

Can You Go Home Again?

I remember lying on the floor next to our Christmas tree when I was five or six. The main ornament for the tree was a collection of colored balls. Red, green, gold, blue, silver. Though I don't remember the specifics of the daydream, the balls were planets which I visited. Whatever the daydream, it was vivid, intensely pleasing.

The next year, I laid down next to the tree, beckoning the experience. At the time, I am sure I remembered the specifics of the daydream; but, I could not conjure the vividness, the pleasure. It was one of my earliest disappointing experiences.

I grew up Lutheran. Each Christmas season we went to Wednesday Advent services. At the end of the services, the main lights in the church were turned off and the congregation sang Abide With Me a cappella. I anticipated that moment all week. I heard the song recently. Though the feeling returned, it was not as intense. Again disappointment.

Thomas Wolfe wrote Look Homeward Angel. I read it in college and was taken by his language, the story and the characters. Some years later, I re-read it. It obviously hadn't changed; but, the book did not deliver the anticipated transportment. I brought a different viewpoint to it and could not recreate my first experience.

Can you duplicate specific pleasure? From my experience, no. But, we try to. We all take pictures when on vacation and pull them out to reminisce. We sit with family and friends - "Do you remember when….?" Should we? Why not. As long as we don't close ourselves to new experience, remembering past pleasure for its own sake seems, well, pleasurable. I just have to remember not to judge the recollection against the original and find it wanting.