Fair And Balanced My Foot

Over on Fox Nation, a Fox website for their news arm, they often run headlines that are taken directly from a heavily conservative blog called NewsBusters. If you're not biased already and do your own checking you'll see that half the headlines today on Fox Nation are directly taken right from this conservative blog.

What's worse is that one caught my eye entitled, "Oliver Stone: 'Reagan Was a Dumb Son of a Bitch... and Bush Was Dumber.'"

The curious part of this is that, as you can see above, it's CLEARLY quoting director Oliver Stone saying "Reagan was a dumb son of a bitch." Can we all agree that this is what this headline is suggesting? Frankly, if you think it means anything else I'd have to question your educational background.

Anyway, this story is about an appearance Oliver Stone made on Bill Maher's show Real Time with Bill Maher. The problem with it is that I saw this show. Oliver Stone was talking with Bill about his research for his movie about Richard Nixon and pointed out that Nixon said Ronald Reagan was a dumb son of a bitch. He did agree with that quote but that's something entirely different than what you see above.

What's more is that at the time I saw this there were 127 comments on the story and it was clear from looking over every one of them that not one of these people actually saw this show but that didn't stop them from demonizing Oliver Stone.

I put up a post denoting this mistake and, quite unsurprisingly to me, my post hasn't been put up. Hmmm..... Even more interesting is that if you actually read the NewsBusters piece the headline is the same but the story points out that Stone is quoting Nixon.

Again, people only hear what they want to hear and when they hear it they have no reason to ever question it or verify it for accuracy. That we have a network that abuses this reality is, frankly, abhorrent to me. It just shouldn't be.

What Comes Around Goes Around "Gamers"

Today there's a headline in Kotaku (a popular gaming site) entitled, "In Defense of the Classic Controller". The story is about the demise of the classic gaming joystick/controller due directly to the popularity of Nintendo's Wii console. It's so popular that both Sony and Microsoft are moving to similar, or even more advanced, designs taking us even further away from the classic controller with the next console overhauls.

One of the key comments in the piece is this gem, "Making something 'more accessible' doesn't necessarily make it better."

I find this all quite entertaining because it's about time it came to this. Why? Because back when PC's dominated the games industry we had to go through the very same trouble once console gaming came along. The reality was simple--it appealed to a wider audience and a wider audience meant more opportunity for profit. That's it. "Better" is always a variable term depending on who is doing the calculation. Better to the manufacturers means whatever drives more profits into their coffers.

So now the sniveling little snots that dumbed-down the gaming experience that was PC gaming have now grown up to find that their own efforts have exposed an even more challenged group of buyers out there and the result is another step down in complexity and accuracy.

This next round will still resemble gaming and will help get some off the couch. I fully expect that the generation after that will all be brain wave-based so that you won't even need to move to play a game. You'll just think the moves and they'll happen. That's just one step away from a solution that allows the dead to play.

I'm just ranting a bit about the fun of seeing this crowd have to swallow the bitter medicine for a change even though I realize the issues and support the market continuing to expand this way. What I really took issue with was that generation moving away from the PC while ridiculing its more accurate input devices as antiquated.

Welcome to the party kids. Now it's your turn to listen to grandma and your 3 year-old niece tell you how antiquated your console's controllers are and why they're not necessary.

What's Next? Being Worried About Brutal Nerf Attacks?

There was a strange headline the other day down in the Entertainment sections of the various news sources. The headline was this:

Kevin Spacey horrified of knife crime in Britain

In the story Spacey spoke about loving England and that he's now considering dual citizenship but then had this comment, "I think crime here (Britain) is shocking and knife crime is shocking and everyone must do what they can to be safe. It is terrible when you read about it, absolutely terrible."

I had to sit there and wonder about this "story". While a recent string of knife slayings has been going on in England, and crime has been on the upswing, I wonder where the other side of this story is. Wouldn't the next statement likely read, "....but of course all of it pales in comparison to the endless gun-related deaths in the United States."

The whole point of the situation in England is that, while any homicides are terrible, things could be much worse if the populace all had guns. They don't so they have to resort to using knives. Nothing personal folks but given the two situations I'll take England's side of this story any day of the week.

Very strange.....

Stocks Fluctuate For Food, Inc.

Last night my friend Dave and I headed off to the theater to see the documentary Food, Inc. Filmmaker Robert Kenner gives us a tour of the nations food industry in hopes of exposing elements most consumers have been kept from knowing.

Food, Inc. has an altruistic goal from the outset of the film. It starts by explaining how the food we eat has changed so dramatically in the last 50 years that humanity really has no other period to compare it to. The story is broken up into small segments that come at you a bit like a book with chapters. Each chapter explains its core supposition and provides us with evidence it hopes convinces us of its main conclusions.

Food, Inc. is spotty in this regard. The chapters often break just as you're getting interested and take you off in another direction. Sometimes the two segments meld well and at other times they don't. Making things more challenging is that the first third of the movie is a bit slow and does a poor job of really convincing the viewer of much. Oh, we're presented with anecdotal evidence. There are video images that make you cringe but some of it is questionable in its ability to convince us of the bigger picture.

For example, we're introduced to the mother and grandmother of Kevin Kowalcyk. Kevin died in 2001 at the age of two after eating hamburger contaminated with a specific strain of E-coli. My problem with this is that there's no way to not feel sympathy for the Kowalcyk's. Using them in this manner distracts us from the raw data. We're supposed to just feel their heartache and effect a change. To me it feels like unnecessary manipulation. Just give us the facts and keep the anecdotal evidence out of the film or leave it until after you prove the main points without it.

This is not to say there isn't compelling information in the movie. There certainly is quite a bit of it. The movie does a wonderful job of explaining how the origins of all these changes came about from the efforts of one well-meaning company and the drive to meet its new, novel needs.

Along the way we also get to meet the CEO of Stonyfield Farms whose products prove that you can have organic products that also make a solid profit and can lead their field in demand.

We also get a hint of a disturbing change to our own freedom of speech. In some states, we're told, it's illegal to criticize the food industry. Oprah is given as the one example where, given all her riches, she was able to win out over the industry when she so famously said that Mad Cow Disease had gotten her to stop eating beef.

It also does a fantastic job in an area or two. It tells us the story of chemical company Monsanto that now owns a near-monopoly on all soy production in this country. They were able to change the laws so that genetically altered seeds could be patented and they defend this patent to radical extremes. Growers that use such seeds are, for example, prohibited from saving the seeds of the plants that result from them to use for the following growing season. They instead have to buy new seeds each year. If your traditional soy plants happen to border those of a farmer that uses Monsanto seeds then it's almost inevitable that nature will dictate that your crop becomes infected by the altered species and then you'll be sued by Monsanta for patent infringement. More disturbing is that Monsanta keeps lists of every soy farmer and related peripheral players. The lists are used to drive out anyone involved in any activity that might keep farmers from using non-Monsanto soy seeds.

Another point well made is that, back before this revolution a typical burger had, essentially, a 1-to-1 relationship of burger to cow. In other words, earlier generations would go to a butcher who would take a slab of beef and create ground beef from that slab. The result was a burger made up of meat from a single cow. The problem with this approach is that it's slow and results in unreliable tastes. One cow can taste entirely different from another and people don't like unreliable results. Today the average burger includes meat from over a thousand cows. This results in a very dependable taste but the downside is fairly obvious. Each burger now has to deal with the issues of a thousand cows instead of just one. The odds of infection per burger goes up dramatically.

There's one segment of the movie that I need to mention that's intended to provide solid evidence for organic meat farming and yet the way it's presented turns it into one of its biggest failures. The movie introduces us to an organic farmer who raises free-ranging cattle, naturally-raised chickens, pigs and more. The point is to show us that organic is so obviously better--for us, the animals, the environment, the economy, etc.

The problem is that we see several shots of this farmer killing his chickens en masse along with the, seemingly, heartless cleaning process. He's telling us how sanitary it all is while, on-screen, it all looks filthy to the uninformed. The main reason this fails so terribly is that we rarely ever see the non-organic side. We only glimpse hints of it. One disturbing scene involving the death of plant-processed pigs is, ultimately, confusing. I'm still not sure what I saw happen. We see pigs go in. We hear squeals. We see dead pigs come out. Contrast that with the organic farmer where we see them physically grab a chicken, stuff it into a funnel, head facing down and then watch as its throat is cut and the blood drips into overflowing vats on the ground. We see this repeated for several chickens. The end result is a revulsion to all such killing. Maybe this is what the movie really wants to convey but it works against the stated message.

The fact is that I believe humans are carnivores. We eat meat because meat tastes good to us. What has changed is that most of us no longer have any connection to old-style farming. My great-grandfather would have thought nothing of creating a meal of a chicken in his back yard and all that's involved. We've been so removed from the process that seeing any part of it disgusts us. Maybe we're finally at a cross-roads and technology might be able to give us a win-win here. We want the meat but we don't want the guilt. This, to me, is a different story for a different movie.

The point is that we now live under a food system that's been turned entirely upside down. Products we grow in the ground that are good for us are now dramatically more expensive than those that aren't. Processed foods go through so much technology and research and yet, with subsidies, these products end up forcing people to choose what's bad for them. Why? Profit of course. There's more money to be made from potato chips than from potatoes.

The best part of the film is the final analysis that makes the point that we all have a voice in this and that our voice is heard. Wal-Mart is now selling organic products because their consumers demand it. We're told we all have a vote, three times every day, and to use it to demand change. I guess the best result of all is that the movie has made me once again consider what I'm eating. Maybe this time it'll have a real impact. Then again I came home and ate two packs of Tastykake's.

No Bad Effects From The Hangover

This weekend found me catching yet another in our continuing series of "Judd Apatow-like" movies. The most current installment is The Hangover. The movie stars Bradley Cooper (the jerk fiance in Wedding Crashers), Ed Helms (of The Daily Show and The Office fame) and Zach Galifianakis (er, okay, I don't know Zach).

The Hangover is male humor at it's most basic and effective level. It's essentially the story of four guys who head off to Vegas for a bachelor party and wake up so hung over from the evening's events that they have no idea what went down or where the groom-to-be has disappeared to. What takes place is a series of hilarious journeys of understanding as each oddity is unfolded for us. If Memento were a comedy this would be it.

There is one exception to the explanations that I'd love to hear input on from anyone that catches this. Our first sign that something has gone ..... awry is a shot from the hotel room as one of the men is waking and in the background is a live chicken roaming about the room. We never find out how the chicken got there or why. Seemingly every other bizarre circumstance is explained.

This is not a movie for everyone. Much of the plot is just entirely unbelievable. I don't care. It was still hilarious. The movie also does a great job of leading you down the path of expecting one outcome only to find something even funnier than what you had in mind. Just when you think you've got it figured out another twist pops out to keep you laughing.

The movie does slow down about three-quarters of the way home but then picks up again for the ending. It's a must-see if you like this kind of humor.

Another Double Standard

Please explain to me why David Letterman, a comedian, is coming under intense scrutiny and fire for making a joke--granted, a bad one.

This fake indignation over a non-issue is ludicrous. Why do I view it as a non-issue? Because when and where it matters most, those doing the finger pointing in this case, are nowhere to be seen.

Want specific examples? Okay, fine. Back in September of last year Jay Leno's monologue on the tonight show included this joke:

"Governor Palin announced over the weekend that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant. And you thought John Edwards was in trouble before! Now he has really done it."

So, where was the outcry then? Leno's joke has all the same elements. Underage girl being impregnated by a much older man (middle-aged in this case). Not a peep came out of Fox News, Governor Palin, the Republican party, etc. The only difference I see is that the big target of the joke was a Democrat. Hmm....

Meanwhile anyone who criticizes Bill O'Reilly or any of the other pundits that are spewing all sorts of volume-raising rhetoric towards their viewers are off-limits. We're told that's all freedom of speech. Bill and crew are free to call anyone the anti-Christ, reference Hitler, call them murderers, executioners, suggest someone should be killed, etc. We're told that anyone who acts in response to any of these comments does so without having any culpability placed back on the speaker.

Governor Palin wants us to believe, and supporters have agreed, that Letterman's comments are damaging and open the door to making it okay for grown men to carry out acts of pedophilia or to otherwise attack or denigrate women or girls.

So let me get this straight. A comedian telling a bad joke carries the responsibility of how his words are perceived and acted on while people who are professionals in political and social discourse are exempted when their words may, or even can be shown to, have incited heinous actions or crimes? If Letterman's joke can spur pedophiles on to rape surely Bill O'Reilly's calling Dr. Tiller an executioner and other slurs (42 times) can spur viewers on to equally unlawful actions. Letterman's comment was a joke while political pundits often present their comments with heavy-handed emotion. Which is more likely to elicit an actionable response?

To get back to the Letterman issue specifically. I was quite impressed with the apology that he offered Governor Palin. He went on, quite a while, in explaining that it was a joke he shouldn't have made and that his intent didn't matter--that it was the perception people took away from it that mattered and he apologized genuinely about it. Governor Palin accepted his apology but not before taking some final shots at his words and their possible impact.

Again, I want to know where she was when all these other statements were made by people in her party. I also ask that anyone that considers Bill O'Reilly genuine compare Letterman's apology to the one O'Reilly offered to CNN--an apology that started off with bragging about how rare he does so, included direct character attacks against Rick Sanchez, continued on with justifications and concluded with a plug for an upcoming segment that would essentially suggest that he was justified in everything he was supposedly apologizing for. Add to the fact that this "apology" included a flat-out lie right in the middle of it.

I'm done being conciliatory towards supporters of Bill O'Reilly or any of the other fear and hate peddlers on Fox News or conservative radio (or anywhere else for that matter). When, for example, is Sean Hannity going to apologize for telling his audience:

"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of 'em is making sure" that Pelosi "doesn't become the speaker."

Either we believe that Free Speech means free speech without any recrimination or we don't. People cannot have it both ways.

There are essentially two areas that concern me with free speech. One is the moral issue and the other is about the legal implications. In thinking about this it's the moral responsibility that concerns me most. The legal ones are fairly well defined. Slander and libel have clear definitions and there are other less clear legal limitations to entirely free speech. In other words, we don't have total free speech in this country. There are legal limits. On the legal side, if it's illegal to cheer on a rapist, should it not also be illegal to knowingly and willingly engage in speech that crosses the line? Remember, the right to bear arms doesn't mean you have the right to shoot anyone you want. Why should the right to free speech mean that you have the right to verbally assault anyone you want without repercussions?

That said, it's the moral angle that I believe needs to be considered here. When someone openly tells millions of listeners or viewers that it's okay to go ahead and kill someone (certainly Hannity wasn't suggesting someone die trying to vote Pelosi out of office) I believe the moral implications should come down heavily on such incidents. Those engaging in these sorts of attacks should not be supported by us. They should not be condoned. Such morally questionable actions should be met with outrage and indignation. At the least these people should feel compelled to apologize to the rest of us for their actions. In the cases mentioned above it's my feeling that these people should be fired and the networks employing them compelled to distance themselves from them or, likewise, face their own backlash.

The longer we allow these messages of hate to continue unchecked the more damage we'll have to undo.

How VoIP Has Fared For Me

I realized I haven't said much about how VoIP has worked for me in just about two years since first moving over to it.

In the past two years I've mainly been with an interesting little company out of Albany, New York called ViaTalk. I also recently tried out service from a company founded by an ex-ViaTalk employee that thought it could be done differently called VOIPo.

In the last two years things have been hit and miss. One thing is for sure. VoIP technology is still not likely to get confused for traditional copper-based phone service. In some ways that's bad but it's also good in other ways.

For my house the main desire was to heavily reduce the $1,800 I'd been paying for two phone numbers (not counting cellular service). ViaTalk offered various plans and I took their unlimited service that costs $199 a year but included a special offer of throwing in a second year for free. That got the main price down to about $99 a year per line. That's quite a savings from $1,800 to $200. However, that wasn't the end of the story.

One annoying thing about ViaTalk is that they have a couple of small fees that they don't include in the price and currently they have no way to pay those yearly (they did the first year but not the second). So every month I get this little bills for under $2. I'd be much happier to just see the total and pay it in one lump. As I noted before, it's quite nice to pay a phone bill once a year (or so) and forget about it.

As far as the features, I can't say enough good things about it. Most VoIP companies run circles around what you can get with traditional phone service. For a tweaker like me that's a big positive. You get so many that it'd take a much longer post to even begin to cover them all. One I like is the ability to completely filter all my inbound (and outbound) calls in any number of ways. Got an annoying number that keeps calling? Just set that number (or name) to always ring busy, go right to voicemail, forward it to another number (this one can be fun) or other options.

I had a medical bill that I was being harrassed about (and that I didn't owe) so I set that caller to have all his calls forward to his boss' extension. I wish I could have been there when that call went through. In another similar case I forwarded the call to a number that instructs the caller to "please deposit 25 cents". There are useful call logs, more flexible greetings and all manner of advanced features.

The service works simply enough. You take a small phone adapter and plug it into your Internet service (generally a router somewhere near your PC usually) and then you plug your phone into that. Things are really simple if you have a cordless phone with cordless handsets. Then it really doesn't matter where the main phone is. Setup is often non-existent. You just plug the adapter in, then the phone and start dialing. Transfering any existing phone numbers was also quite easy.

Speaking of advanced features and the phone adapter itself there's one big feature that may be useful to you. Most of these adapters are able to actually provide you with a free (if your provider supports it as ViaTalk does) second "line". That requires a bit of explanation. You don't actually get a second phone number for this line but it can be used just like one. If your child is hogging the phone you can just pick up a phone connected to this second line and dial out on it as if you had a full second line. Callers will see your same number. This might be very handy for some households. Since I have two full lines my adapter is maxed out so I don't get (or need) this feature.

ViaTalk's technical support is also miles ahead of anything I ever got with Verizon. While they may not always be fast they generally can fix an issue and most of the reps care about your issues.

As far as the service itself, that's where things get questionable. It is, to be accurate, different. Some things just won't work like you're used to. Some things aren't as reliable. I notice it takes longer for calls to go through (we're talking just a matter of a couple seconds but it's still longer). Then there are calls that just don't go through. I have this happen about 10% of the time. I dial and the phone just doesn't ever connect. I hang up and re-dial and it usually works fine.

There are times calls with drop. This happens more than calls not going through. I'll be talking and suddenly I'll hear a fast busy signal. The longer the call the more likely it is to happen. However, this too happens rarely and calling back is not a problem.

Then there are a couple of strange things. One example is something all VoIP companies are now struggling with that seems to have come out of nowhere involving what are known as DTMF tones. These are the tone sounds your phone makes when it dials. Sometimes when I'm talking the other caller will hear a random tone or I'll hear one while someone else is speaking. This has something to do with the phone adapter confusing that snippet of voice for a pushed button and playing the appropriate tone. This doesn't happen often but it's surprising when it does. It took so long to equate it with the phone service that many of us failed to even mention it to one another. Now VoIP users are comparing notes in an effort to eliminate the problem.

The quality of the calls is generally as good as anything I ever had with regular phone service. Every so often it'll sound funny but that's rare. It also helps to have a good Internet service provider. Things have improved quite a bit now that I've moved from Comcast to Verizon FiOS for my Internet service.

As far as VOIPo goes, I ended up canceling my service with them after about 3 months of trying it out. It wasn't that it was bad in any way. In fact, I found their technical support to be even better. The issue was that I didn't find it any better really. They don't have any small extra fees like ViaTalk does but the differences were so minimal that I just felt more comfortable staying with a service I already am comfortable with.

The bottom line is that I'm not quite ready to give up on landline phone service but I'm no longer willing to pay the costs associated with traditional service. The savings are well worth the minor hassles. I have several friends and family members using VoIP (several with ViaTalk) and none of them are as interested in the extras as I am. All of them use it and find that it works just fine for them.

Will The Real Government Please Stand Up?

Okay, this one cracked me up yesterday. Anyone that gets just a bit of my commentary on politics is sure to think I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" and it'd be pretty sad to jump to that conclusion because the facts just wouldn't bear you out on it. However, I fully admit that I find the Republican party to be one totally screwed up group. If I had to pick one of the two major parties theirs would not be the one I'd pick simply because of the way they handle themselves and the type of message they put out. Theirs is a party message of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). FUD is something I've been fighting in the consumer industry my entire vocational life and if there's anything the Right parallels it's the ethics of corporate America.

Yesterday's was a classic case in point. In response to President Obama's plan for health care--most notably the public plan portion of it--the Republican response was entirely contradictory and they didn't seem to have a clue how conflicted it was. I believe they just go with the old "throw anything at the wall and something is bound to stick" plan. It doesn't really matter to them that they're making no sense.

On one hand you had a message from them about how absolutely horrible a government-run plan would be. Pundits were going on about how poorly the government runs anything (these are the same people who seem to think they're just great at organizing and running wars). They keep saying things like, "The last thing we want is a failed system like the Canadians have", or "nothing should come between a doctor and a patient." Both are ludicrous. The Canadian system is nothing like the Right portrays. You keep hearing about long waits and lines for service. I've got news for you, a close family member of mine was just given a very scary set of test results (the worst kind) and even after many calls to countless doctors the soonest they could see this family member was in 9 days. Before that the closest appointment was late July. Imagine being told you may have cancer and then being told that the follow-up is in 6-8 weeks. This happens all the time in our glorious system. Also, this notion that no one should come between me and my doctor? That sounds great but frankly I'd rather risk the government coming between me and my doctor instead of the insurance companies doing it now.

Then you had other pundits (and in several cases, the same pundits) saying that it wouldn't be fair for the government to offer a public plan because that would be unfair competition.

Er..... you can't have it both ways Republicans. Either the government sucks at running things or they don't. It can't be both. If they're that bad then the private sector should have no trouble running circles around them. One of the best analogies here is the post office. It's government run and does a solid job. Meanwhile UPS and FedEx are competing just fine. Both were born and prospered along side the far more established post office. If anything, their creation forced the post office to reinvent itself to keep up. Maybe it's time for the government to get the insurance companies off their backsides for a change.

What is it about our health care providers that they're so scared of government competition? Sounds to me like an industry that doesn't want to invite anyone else to their party for fear that they newcomer might be more popular.

History Shows Benefit To Auto Bailout Plan

A lot of my friends are simply too young to remember much (if they were even alive) about 1979. However, I remember 1979 very well. For the most part it was a gloomy period. Jimmy Carter was in office and things were going horribly. Most notably, by the end of the year, hostages from our embassy in Iran would be taken and the resulting 444-day stand-off would have an impact for many years to come.

The economy was a mess on top of all this and Chrysler was in the news almost daily as it looked more and more likely that they'd go completely out of business. At the time pressure came to Washington from every corner of the country. Losing Chrysler meant losing countless jobs in every voting district in America. Politicians figured they should do something instead of risking their own futures.

So, in September of that year Chrysler asked the government for a $1.5 billion loan. We gave it to them as an early Christmas present that December. Major changes came with the loan including the biggest positive of all--bringing in Lee Iacocca from Ford to run the company. Lee was the Dave Thomas (Wendy's) of his day. You'd see him everywhere on TV and off. The only difference was that he didn't do funny bits but he was every bit the marketer Thomas was. He told Americans that Chrysler was going to revolutionize the industry and to make good on their loans as a result.

The first deal Iacocca made was to get the government to buy thousands of pick-up trucks from them. Next up Chrysler created the hugely successful minivan. Finally they also created what was called the "K-car". This design saved Chrysler. It was a highly-competitive model that made buyers feel patriotic and, to top it off, was very profitable to boot.

The end result was that Chrysler was able to repay their loan, several years early, in 1983 with the US government realizing a profit of more than $350 million ($750 million today). It's quite interesting to note that the original loan would be about $4.4 billion today. In other words, we've done something very similar to this before and seen it turn out positive. That was 30 years ago. How many jobs did we save as a result? We rolled the dice before, made a profit and gave countless citizens continued prosperity for more than a generation. Maybe we can get Lee Iacocca to come back?

Do They Also Have A Tattoo?

Speaking of much ado about nothing..... I've noticed something a bit strange about the Bush Presidents. Why is is that in surprising numbers they show up with embroidered jackets that point out their own titles as if they've forgotten they were once President?

What am I talking about? Check out this photo:


If you blow this up a bit you'll notice that it says, on his right chest, "41st President, George HW Bush".

This is what he wore to go sky-diving today on his 85th birthday. He did a tandem jump so it was just he and the sergeant he jumped with. Did anyone think they'd confuse these two and thus it was essential that he wear this identifying garb? Also, think about this thing. How often will he actually wear this that someone had to take the time to go about embroidering it?

The odd part of it is that while I once recall seeing Bill Clinton wear a jacket like this (and there's no doubt about his ego) I've seen the elder and younger George's wear a similar jacket time and again. It just strikes me as a bit odd as if they need some sort of validation of themselves that they can't get without a garment.

Of course it could be all about charity. Bill O'Reilly just auctioned off a jacket that the Reagan Library people gave to him with similar embroidering and it sold for $25,000. I'm left to question who would pay that sort of money to buy a jacket that has someone else's name on it and makes little sense as to the connection. Bill O'Reilly has what in common exactly with the Reagan library that he warrants a personalized jacket? So maybe the George's wear these once and then sell them to charity. No matter what the reason I'm just curious to know what it might be.

FYI, I've seen President Obama wearing a shirt with the same sort of deal going on. Is this some sort of new men's club fashion statement perhaps? I think we know who you guys are. If we're not sure we will figure it out as we approach you to get a closer look and get knocked into the cement by a black suit, dark glasses-wearing Secret Service entourage.

Much Ado About Nothing

Fox News is in a lather about the David Letterman joke regarding Sarah Palin and her daughter. As usual the hypocrisy of the network is completely lost on them.

I find it quite typical for this crowd that they can, on one hand, try to hold a comedian to the fire over a joke, while on the other hand dismissing incendiary hate-filled messages that drive nutcases to think it's alright to kill people as a simple matter of free speech.

I wouldn't expect Sarah Palin to get it. I've never liked this paper-thin (I'm talking about her personality, not her figure) politician. Her ego-driven motivations were clear from the first moments she stepped onto center stage and nothing she's done since has positively offset that viewpoint.

Yes, I would, if given the opportunity (which, of course, won't ever happen) jump at the chance to sleep with her. She's clearly quite attractive. However, it seems that unlike most conservatives, I don't think with my dick. I'd sleep with her, tell her she was great, and then go vote for whoever is running against her.

Comcast Goes After FiOS

Comcast is now feeling the competition from Verizon with respect to it's FiOS service. So much so, in fact, that they've now put together another FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign directed at it.

Many years ago when I switched from Comcast to DirecTV I wrote about it for a few publications and lamented that Comcast chose to go down this path instead of improving their own product. Back then they were telling consumers all sorts of misinformation regarding DirecTV.

The message is nearly identical with respect to FiOS more than a decade later.

In the website-based ad called, "Don't Fall For FIOS" they put forth all the typical mis-truths that they long ago perfected:

The first bullet point talks about price and mentions a promotional period with FiOS that expires leaving you to pay up to $400 more a year for FiOS. Verizon doesn't have Comcast-like promotion periods. You lock into payment plans like you do for their cell phone plans. When they expire there are similar plans at similar prices right behind them. I also have never seen any Comcast market where, with all costs being considered, that Comcast is cheaper.

With DirecTV the difference was huge--DirecTV was 50% cheaper than Comcast for similar packages.

Their next bullet point is very myopic. It compares FiOS' HD On Demand library to Comcast's. While the reality may be that Comcast has more On Demand HD content this is an attempt to distract consumers from the bigger picture that Comcast has FAR less regular HD content than other providers.

The really fun point is the next one where Comcast answers the fact that FiOS has a better picture. They don't compress their content upon receiving it. It basically goes out exactly as they receive it. Both DirecTV and Comcast compress their signals and this impacts the picture to varying degrees depending on several factors (size of TV, quality of TV, ability to perceive quality, etc.) The fact is that the picture on FiOS is better. Everyone in my family could see it immediately (we'd try out Comcast time and again during special offerings).

Their response to the question, "Does FiOS offer better HD picture quality?", is a definitive, "Nope." They then go on to explain this by referencing a consumer study that says both are the same (without technical details offered) and then finish it up with the totally misleading statement, "So with Comcast you get the same great picture and more HD for less.*" (note the asterisk)

Now suddenly potentially more HD via On Demand content has been expanded to the much more desirable "more HD" which is just patently untrue.

The last bullet point talks about installation and here I knew what to expect based on how they painted DirecTV installations all those years ago. "FiOS installation means you better clear your calendar. Installation can take hours and can involve digging up your lawn with heavy construction equipment and bolting big router boxes to the outside of your house. Comcast installation is quick and normally doesn't involve heavy machinery."

What a statement! I don't even know where to begin with it. I guess we can go at it sequentially.

"You better clear your calendar." Uh, okay FiOS installs are likely to take longer. However, when I called for mine I got a time window that was short and the installer showed up on time. Every time I called Comcast the window I got was several hours across. Thus, I still had to clear my calendar and sit around at home. Why is it that these guys seem to never show up at the front end of the window they give you?

Second, while it might take hours (it did in my case) it's often because Verizon is doing this with trained Verizon reps who care about the end results and your experience. They listen to how you want things done and what you expect. My installer spent several hours getting it all just right and then spent more time making certain everything was flawless before he left. Several times I've had fights with Comcast installers insisting on running cable in ways I didn't want it run and doing shoddy jobs. Fast often doesn't mean Quality.

"...can involve digging up your lawn with heavy equipment." Talk about playing the fear card. Oh my. While this is true (but not in most cases) note the key last five words of the bullet point regarding Comcast's installation, "normally doesn't involve heavy machinery." Um, excuse me, but how does that differ, in any way, with the FiOS statement preceding it. The same is true of FiOS installs. They don't normally involve heavy machinery. The heaviest machinery my installer had was a spade and a drill.

"...bolting big router boxes to the outside of your house." Another fear tactic. The box they're talking about is called the ONT or Optical Network Terminal. It's a rather handy box that is quite similar (though a bit larger) than most of the boxes we already have on or in our houses for phone service. In my case the ONT was put EXACTLY where I requested it--inside my garage, and the old network box was cleanly removed from outside my house. They make it sound like you'll have a hard time confusing the ONT for a garage door. By the way, this box is also functional. Customers can tap into it to test phones, their network and to make service changes if they're informed customers.

When is Comcast going to recognize that the best way to win customers is to provide a superior product? It's the reason FiOS is gaining so much traction and interest in the first place and Verizon is far from perfect. The service is mired with its own issues. Their DVR's are behind the times (but so are cable's) and Verizon's customer service is about as bad as it gets. People have a myriad of horror stories regarding billing problems. I had one myself that was futile but only cost me $20 once. Why Comcast doesn't focus on this I'm not sure. Maybe they feel their own service is suspect?

Comcast will never learn as far as I can tell. They improve their product only marginally and only well after the competition forces them to and then rely entirely on aggressive misinformation campaigns to hold or woo customers. Not good.

Is Your Political Bent Vanilla/Chocolate or Strawberry?

The debate about the two major political ideologies got me thinking about ice cream of late. What the heck does that mean?

Well, those of you on the right that I've interacted with make a big deal of some typical Fox News network talking points. My question is if they really mean what Fox, and their on-air personalities, suggest they do.

For example, Fox likes to claim it's the number one news network on TV. Bill O'Reilly never misses a chance to tell you he's got the number one show in prime time.

In thinking about these two things and looking over the numbers they seem extremely impressive on first glance. If you're to compare O'Reilly's numbers to any other cable news show then there's generally no contest. He often has a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 advantage in viewers. It's not that dramatic for Fox News in general but they too usually have a substantial lead over other cable news networks.

However, I then started thinking about what those numbers mean and that's where ice cream came in. Say you're a fan of strawberry ice cream. Most places will have an abundance of quality vanilla and chocolate ice cream but you'll often find strawberry to be a bit .... hit and miss. Let's say one ice cream shop in town specializes in strawberry ice cream and that there are several other shops in town that have this abundance of chocolate and vanilla on hand.

If you haven't guessed already Fox News is the strawberry flavor in this equation. If conservatives are right and "mainstream media" has a liberal bias they find offensive then it suffices to say that all the non-Fox News channel networks serve up the standard Vanilla/Chocolate.

So, now the strawberry shop gets more visitors per day than any of the other shops. Here's the key point. Does this mean strawberry is the most popular flavor? Based on Fox's comments and those of its personalities and fans that's what it means but this isn't accurate.

All it means is that the vast majority of strawberry fans (conservative TV viewers) frequent the one shop (network) that features its favorite flavor (ideology). In other words, vanilla/chocolate fans (liberals) have a much wider selection of shops (networks) to choose from so it only makes sense that this would result in having an impact on each one of them.

The brilliance of Fox News is that they correctly figured out that they could make a fortune bucking the trends and providing viewers with an option they didn't have before--a truly conservative-bent news network.

The problem now is what's being made of this. Fox is attempting to brainwash everyone into believing that just because their network draws more viewers than any other single network that this means they speak for the majority in this country and that "strawberry" is the most popular flavor.

A more accurate accounting would require comparing the total liberal audience against the total conservative audience which, I'm not sure, is all that possible right now but I suspect it would come out very much the same as voting does (somewhere near the middle).

Consider Glenn Beck. He was on CNN but couldn't gain an audience. He moves over to Fox and his show suddenly vaults up heavily. That shows that conservatives are not hanging out on the other networks. If it were just about the people and their viewpoints then Beck's numbers should have been similar. He went from 300,00 a night to nearly 2 million a night on Fox.

What muddies this even more is when an O'Reilly bloviates and starts telling people he has the #1 show on TV, or in prime time or in his time slot or in news and none of those are even close to being correct. Top network shows draw well more than ten times his audience. Even a single evening of a typical news show like NBC's Dateline draws multiples of his audience size. Brian Williams on NBC's nightly news routinely pulls in more than 10 million viewers a night. If we're to listen to the conservatives then these are liberal shows and given the choice wouldn't conservatives be over at Fox News? If so then these are liberal viewers primarily. I'm not ready to buy that as this would suggest that liberals outnumber conservatives by a factor of about 10-to-1.

That doesn't seem right to me just as I know strawberry isn't the most popular ice cream flavor.

Why Bill O'Reilly Sucks

For fans of Bill O'Reilly it's hard to understand what it is about him that bothers the rest of us. I was having a dialog with my father about him when I tripped over a classic example of the problem.

The transcript is here:

From Fox News' Bill O'Reilly site.

The video for this is here:

Youtube Video Link

Let me get to the key points of just one piece of this video:

".... Williams takes his orders....." (as if Brian Williams is a puppet and has no say in anything he does)

".... from NBC President Jeffrey Zucker, a committed liberal..." (WHAT?!? and this is a crime because????)

".... who has completely RUINED the news operation..." (Really? More staw-man in a long list and it's not true. It's his opinion. NBC News is at the top of the heap drawing 10 million viewers nightly. Fox can't even get to a tenth of that number. Interesting metric there Bill.)

".... turning it into the most far-left outfit in the HISTORY of broadcasting..." (Does this man realize the network he's broadcasting from? This sort of pot calling the kettle black commentary doesn't work on me. I have a pulse.)

".... Zucker has also destroyed NBC's prime-time entertainment line-up..." (another staw-man comment designed to bring more haze to the issue. It has NOTHING to do with the point here. NOTHING. Why is this mentioned at all?)

".... Now, if you saw the hate MSNBC spewed last night....." (Classic. Now MSNBC is a culprit by-proxy if ANY of the people they interview says anything wrong... Hmm, do you not see a HUMONGOUS double-standard here? Fox has this going on all day. O'Reilly calls Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer" but bears no responsibility for anything.)

".... there can be no question that NBC news is now totally out of control...." (Huh? So they have a guest on who says something Bill doesn't like and now they're out of control? No Bill, it doesn't work that way. TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL?????)

".... Remember, NBC has never, ever said a negative word about Tiller's activities...." (RIGHT! Because they're REPORTING the news, not MAKING the news. I don't give a damn what Brian William's opinions are. I want the news. O'Reilly not knowing what reporting is doesn't surprise me.)

".... Tiller became a millionaire doing this....." (He became a millionaire providing a LEGAL service to LEGAL citizens looking for a LEGAL procedure that is their own personal choice and private decision. Why is this mentioned? Is this more unbiased "reporting"?)

".... gaining the disdain of millions....." (What does this have to do with anything? Howard Stern earned millions while being hated by millions. So? This is America is it not? Conservatives are capitalists aren't you they?)

".... but you'll never hear any of that on NBC News...." (Another lie. Just go to MSNBC and type Late Term Abortion. I did. Funny how easy it was to find just what he said you wouldn't find. It just sounds good to tell the choir this because they won't check it. An entire news network never mentions the contentious situation that is late term abortion? Give me a break.....)

".... the blame once again falls on General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt... (So now the blame for something that isn't true falls on the CEO of GE for NOT saying something but O'Reilly bares NO BLAME when he does say something?)

".... But what Mr. Immelt may not know is that Federal authorizies have developed information about General Electric doing business with Iran..." (What in the HOLY HELL has this got to do with what he said? Again, obfuscate and change the subject off him. That's all this is.)

That's one single segment of 1:44 seconds and that's 13 highly-questionable quotes from it. That's the problem. I watch him and have this sort of experience all the time.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar. It's just the way he is. He says whatever he thinks he can get away with not realizing that in today's digital age it's a simple matter to check or not caring because he knows 99.9% of his viewership will never bother to do so or listen to the rest of us that take the time.

Take another quick example. I've been told that Bill is very balanced and, as an example of his sincerity and balance I was pointed to the fact that he "apologized" for one of his most recent lies about CNN, with the exception of Anderson Cooper, not reporting the death of a Private at a recruiting office.

Here's a link to both the "apology" and the story that triggered it:

From PolitiFact.com

Here's the text of the "apology":

".... we have a correction.... a RARE correction on The Factor.... Earlier this week I said that only Anderson Cooper on CNN covered the murder of Private Long in Arkansas. Well today a snide and surly guy on CNN pointed out that the story was covered more extensively by that network and that is true. I was wrong. My apologies to CNN. I was talking about prime time but I did not say that, so I was wrong. As they say in third grade, my bad. Now on Monday we'll have more on how CNN handled the uh, Private Long and Tiller story to make a comparison, so don't miss that."

Only blind supporters would see this as a valid apology. If anyone apologized to you like this for anything they did none of you would accept it as sincere. How anyone can point to an apology that includes the phrase "snide and surly guy" and then a defense ("I was talking about prime time") and finally, and to the point, a commercial for a segment that will attempt to again make the point for the thing he lied about, is a mystery to me.

I'm supposed to view this as evidence of his balanced, fair style? Color me lost. Oh, and even more to the point, there's ANOTHER LIE within this apology. He said, specifically, that he was talking about PRIME TIME. Bull. Here's the original quote:

".... so all day long it wasn't news to cover an army recruiter getting gunned down in Arkansas...."

Since when is "all day long" prime time???? Talk about balls. Bill O'Reilly is a liar, period.

Upping Up....

Saw Up for the second time on Sunday night. Just wanted to say briefly that it's quite a film. It was extremely impressive in plain old 2D with many vibrant colors. I also found it even more emotional this time around. The jokes were also just as funny.

The pre-movie short was also more impressive this time and solidified my thinking that it's clearly the very best pairing of short and movie in Pixar's history. It sets the tone wonderfully for the film that follows.

Up's brilliance is in the way it presents very adult concepts and emotions and yet still keeps to its Pixar roots without seeming too adult-oriented. Who else could so effortlessly succeed in bringing us a realistic crotchety senior citizen and make it all seem believable without losing any of the lovable nature of the characters. Bravo.

This one is likely to impress for many years to come. I'll be very curious to see how it does overseas given how Ratatouille bowled them over (and deservedly so) two years ago.

Can You Drag Me To Hell?

The career of Sam Raimi has been filled with films that impress all types of audiences. His big directorial break came in 1981 with the release of The Evil Dead. He solidified his reputation as a horror master with 1992's Army of Darkness--a film so perfectly mixed with horror and comedy that it set itself apart.

He won me over with 1998's flawless drama/thriller A Simple Plan. He then did the impossible showing that Keanu Reeves could act in 2000's The Gift.

It was then that he went to a whole new level taking on the mantle of the three Spider-Man movies. I figured we'd seen the last of his early horror movie excursions. It came as a surprise when I then heard that he'd just directed the well-received horror film Drag Me To Hell. Here's a horror movie that, unlike nearly all horror movies, was holding a mid-90's rating on Rotten Tomatoes including a mid-80's score from the industry's top critics. I haven't seen that sort of praise in a long time for this sort of film.

The opening scene gave me a bit of concern for the movie as it seemed like something totally disconnected from past projects. It was like a confused B-movie for a bit and then it got rolling. Drag Me To Hell is, without a doubt, a horror film. It has the whole of the theater sitting on the edge of its seat with much biting of nails. However, much like Army of Darkness, it never takes itself too seriously and lets off the steam here and there with very jittery laughter.

The story isn't very deep but it is quite effective in its simplicity. I should also tell you to be prepared for just about any plot turn and to just go with it. Also pay special attention near the end as the final sequence, though perfectly delivered, was a bit confusing for several audience members who'd missed a key sequence moments before.

This film won't win any major awards and it'll have a hard time gaining audience with all the major films around it but it is worth seeing if you like this sort of movie. I can't put it in the same league as Army of Darkness and struggle to see it as deserving of a mid-90's rating but a mid-80's rating is a good fit. I would avoid it like the plague if gore is something you don't appreciate. It is, after all, called Drag Me To Hell.

Things Reagan Did

The revisionism of history that is going on with respect to Ronald Reagan is a disservice to both the populace at large and the man himself. The unveiling of a statue of Reagan at the capital was yet another chance for people like Sean Hannity and others on the right to peddle their misinformation about President Reagan and his policies.

I lived through his administrations and voted for him in my first Presidential election. I remember his tenure well. Hannity has talked about President Obama's need to "follow the Reagan model" as if it were a flawless plan for a presidency (it isn't). Take, for example, a very basic fact: Reagan would not have understood the venom conservative pundits display in regard to immigration. But first......

Don't get me wrong--President Reagan deserves credit for many things. Chief among them is giving the country back a sense of confidence that it had lost starting with the scandals of the Nixon administration. Another major mark is that human rights, prior to his tenure, was seen as a liberal issue. His effort in this area, though rife with hypocrisy at the time, turned this from a partisan issue into a nearly-universal bi-partisan issue. His oratory skills were simply amazing. His speech to the nation after the Challenger disaster is something every citizen should strive to hear (and to read the story behind its creation).

However, Reagan was responsible for many things that these mis-informers put forth at every opportunity. Reagan grew up in a time when immigration was considered a hallmark of American values. In one of the only examples where he even commented on it he told an audience of naturalizing immigrants that immigrants "enlivened the national life with new ideas and new blood," and "enrich us" with "a delightful diversity." This is also a President who signed a bill giving amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Can you imagine Fox News standing behind those viewpoints today?

Another example is the right's continued mantra in condemning Obama's comments regarding meeting leaders of enemy states without pre-conditions. The Reagan model would dictate exactly this course. If Reagan had insisted on pre-conditions for meeting we'd have never gotten anywhere with the Soviet Union. It was a nod to his intelligence that he didn't insist on such lunacy as pre-conditions. Reagan reached out, openly, and without pre-conditions (and to the complete shock and disgust of most of his own party leadership) to Leonid Brezhnev just after taking office in 1981. This didn't go anywhere because Brezhnev was on his deathbed at this point. He then did the same thing with both Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko (both succeeded Brezhnev but died not long after taking control). It was no surprise that he did exactly the same thing when Mikhail Gorbachev took control. He sent a personal letter to him that was hand-delivered by then Vice President George H. W. Bush. The letter included an open invitation to a summit. If Obama acted this way with Iran the right would go ballistic.

Some other tidbits that Americans who didn't live through the Reagan years should know about "the Reagan model" as it existed, not as it is being re-envisioned:

• Reagan almost single-handedly saved Social Security by making a deal with then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill to keep benefit levels the same and to raise payroll taxes which guaranteed the entitlement for decades to come.
  
• One of the most religious Presidents of our time did virtually nothing to put down abortion. In fact, he played the religious movement like Mozart directing an orchestra.
  
• He asked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to produce a report examining the long-term physical and emotional trauma women suffered as a result of having an abortion. Pro-Life Koop reported his findings that, in fact, a woman did not suffer long-term physical or emotional trauma as a result of having an abortion. Reagan suppressed the report.
• The Federal Government expanded greatly during his administration. The number of workers in the government rose by 61,000. Under President Clinton, for example, the number fell by 373,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs, one of the largest federal agencies, was his creation.
  
• He more than tripled the national debt.
  
• He compromised on arms controls with the Soviets and, at one point, came within a whisker of agreeing with Gorbachev to scrapping all of boths sides nuclear arsenals (Reagan had a strong belief that nuclear weapons should be abolished). The only thing that kept this from happening was Reagan's hard-headed refusal to drop "Star Wars" (his ill-fated missile defensive initiative).
• Reagan condemned an Israeli preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.
• Yes, he cut taxes heavily at the beginning of his first term. What isn't often brought up is that he then raised taxes six years in a row after that in a bid to make up for the record deficits he created and the negative impact it had on the nation. This is, by the way, a positive mark on his tenure. Seeing that the estimates of 1981 were way off the mark he altered his plans.
  
• The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 950.68 when he took office. A year later, after his massive tax cuts, the Dow was at 845.89 (down 12%). He started raising taxes and, as he continued, the Dow climbed to over 2,200. Does this sound at all the way Sean Hannity describes the Reagan plan? He tells listeners that Reagan cut everyone's taxes and the greatest era of American prosperity resulted. Uh huh. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it. An August 1983 Congressional Budget Office report stated, "Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin."
  
• Unemployment rose steadily during his first term and saw a peak of 10.8% during 1982-83 which is the highest it has been since. It was 7.2% when he took over. It didn't get back to that number until June of 1984 (It bounced around after that until July of 1986 when it finally stayed below 7.2% for the duration). Coincidentally it was 7.2% when President Obama came into office.
• Mortgage rates were lousy under Reagan. The best you could do during all 8 years he was in office, for a 30-year mortgage, was 9.11%. For much of his term the rate was in the 13% range. Can you imagine the outcry today if that was the best you could do?
• We had a Secretary of the Interior, James Watt who was openly hostile about the environment. When speaking about his poor record on the environment before Congress he stated, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns." If you think that's bad then how about this from one of his speeches regarding his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." That finally got him fired.
  
• He had one of the worst heads of the Environmental Protection Agency in its history in a woman named Anne Burford. Republicans and Democrats alike accused her of being against the very organization she headed as she set out to dismantle it the moment she started in the post. She often boasted that she'd cut the thickness of the book of clean water regulations from six inches to a half-inch. She had to resign in disgrace (with 20 of her top employees) in 1983 due to "conflicts of interest" involving the Superfund (environmental cleanup) program. She gave money from the fund to Republican Congressional candidates for 1982. When she wrote her own book she said that she was following direct orders from Reagan and fired when the investigation began to focus on his role. Adding credibility to this claim is that Reagan attempted, a year later, to appoint her to the chairmanship of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and the Atmosphere. The Republican-controlled Senate forced him to withdraw her nomination.
• We should have seen these two disastrous appointments coming. In 1980 while campaigning for the Presidency he claimed that trees were the major cause of air pollution.
• More government officials (appointed by Reagan) were indicted and convicted (over 100) than under any other President. To this day I have a hard time thinking of any period during his tenure when indictments weren't dominating the news.
  
• Reagan gave Saddam WMD's. In 2002 conservative Robert Novak wrote: "An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war."
• Reagan totally ignored, at its most critical period, the outbreak of AIDS. Remember, the first cases came to light in 1981. Reagan's own Communications Director, Pat Buchanan (yes, that Pat Buchanan) said that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Reagan only mentioned AIDS in mid-1987. By that time 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed and 20,849 had died. The disease had reached 113 countries counting more than 50,000 cases. Imagine the hate and ignorance that leads people to believe that a virus is only transmitted between gay men.
• Wall Street collapsed in 1987 dropping 1,000 points (remember it was only at 2,700 at the time), a huge 37% drop.
  
• His tenure left successor George H.W. Bush with an economy so impacted that he faced two recessions and a deficit so crushing that Bush had to go back on his own famous promise, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The reversal cost Bush the Presidency but also helped to right the economy after he left.
  
• His out-of-the-gate policies were so "popular" and "successful" at the time that Republicans lost 26 seats in the 1982 Congressional election (even with the help of Anne Burford).
• In January, 1981, Reagan claimed the federal budget was "out of control". At the time the deficit was almost $74 billion while the federal debt reached $930 billion. By 1983 the deficit reached $208 billion. When he left office the national debt reached $2.6 trillion.
  
• In his eight years in office the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to become its largest debtor nation.

And this is hardly a comprehensive list of the things Reagan did that fly in the face of the rhetoric being put forth on Fox News these days. I didn't even go into Iran-Contra--his biggest scandal. Remember also the next time Sean Hannity goes on about Reagan and his "greatest era of prosperity" this Wall Street Journal report on job creation. It says that Reagan created 16 million jobs (not 21 million as Hannity purports) while President Clinton created 23.1 million. George W. Bush? 3 million. Hannity punching bag, Jimmy Carter, created 10.5 million.

One of the biggest canards is Reagan's trickle down economics (which he borrowed from 1920's Republicans, and we know how that worked out), also known as supply-side economics or Reaganomics. His own budget director stated that it was nothing but rhetoric and "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate." There is no evidence anywhere to show that giving the rich more tax breaks results in a better economy for all.

I'm So Loved

Today is my birthday. I turned 45 today. I woke up to find my e-mail mailbox bursting with well-wishers. Let's see who spends their time worrying about my personal well-being:

Hmm, first I have a note from FlightSim.com. That's nice. Then there's a note from Sunday River (ski resort) and here's one from Scriblink!

It goes on like this as follows:

• Happy Birthday from Ventrilo Tech Support
• Happy Birthday from the people at Broadband Reports
• Happy Birthday from TCAdmin - The Game Hosting Control Panel
• Happy Birthday from Game Server Rental
• Happy Birthday from Team-HK.com
• Navigraph Newsletter Wishes You A Happy Birthday
• Happy Birthday from your Allstate New Jersey Agent
• Have a Great Birthday from your friends at RetroFitness
• Excel Physical Therapy wishes you all the best on your Birthday
  
• Important information regarding your Verizon Wireless Account

Oh, wait, those last people just want to get paid..... They'd be fine if I dropped dead tomorrow (assuming I paid my bill first and that I don't have any time left on my contract).

This all makes me wonder what I did to piss off all my other "friends" at the countless other sites, locations and companies that I have a paper-thin relationship with that didn't send me a note today. I wonder if that means they care more or less than Verizon Wireless?

Pay Us So That You Know You've Been Had

Back in the late 70's when I was learning to drive there was a reference product that dominated every Pep Boys store and often became a must-have product for every frugal driver like me. I'm speaking of Chilton's series of repair and maintenance guide books. Every auto parts store had an entire wall or row of shelves dedicated to dozens of these books. You could find one for every make, model and year of vehicle on the road at the time. The books were rife with detailed information and helpful photos and illustrations on how to go about any type of maintenance or repair job.

If you wanted to replace your brake shoes you'd find a step-by-step guide with pictures of each step of the job to guide you through it. These books saved me and my friends countless critical dollars in repair costs. To give you and idea, we used these to replace our brakes, install new shocks, put in an entirely new radiator, a new air conditioner, install a custom radio, replace faulty wiring for lights and even replace a problematic transmission all without any training on our part.

Today I like to replace my own brakes as I find the job generally easy enough to do and it gives me a sense of accomplishment on top of saving hundreds of dollars in the process.

A few years ago I picked up a subscription to a service called ALLDATA. This seemed to have taken Chilton's concept forward to the Internet age by putting all the same type of information on a website for easy access and printing. The cost is about $15 a year per vehicle which is about what we paid for those books way back.

Initially I found ALLDATA to be as indispensable as the old Chilton's guides. Then, in the past couple of years as my vehicles changed, I found that the information started to become limited, cryptic and, frankly, useless.

The last time I bought a subscription was for my van. The diagrams for doing the brake job were so tiny and lacking in detail that they were nearly valueless. Unfortunately I had just renewed my subscription and no amount of complaining would get them to refund the purchase. I had to subscribe to find out that the latest information wouldn't cut it any longer.

So then I found out that the trusted Chilton's now offers a competing product on their website called ChiltonDIY. The front page of the site shows you exactly what I'd hoped to find--comprehensive, detailed imagery to go with step-by-step instructions.

Look at that picture of the engine. It leaves little doubt as to what parts are involved. Things are clearly marked. Just what the enthusiast needs.

Chilton's charges $20 a year for their service but with a legacy like theirs and examples like this it seemed perfectly acceptable to send them the extra $5 a year. I bought a subscription and immediately added my van as the vehicle to try this out on.

Then the reality set in. I don't want to break any rules here by posting information for the van itself as that's content customers pay for (sadly) but suffice to say that the information, it turns out, is very similar to what you find in the example material I found later on their site.

So, let's say you own the demo vehicle they provide. It's a 2004 Suzuki Forenza. Let's say you want to replace the brake pads and you've never done this before. You log in with your account and choose "Repair" from the menu. You're then given a drill-down menu on the left (as in the picture of the engine with the menu on its left). From this you choose "Brakes" then "Front Disc Brakes" and under "Brake Pads" you select "Removal and Installation".

Here's what you get:

PATH: Brakes > Front Disc Brakes > Brake Pads > Removal & Installation

Print

Removal & Installation

1. Before servicing the vehicle, refer to the Precautions Section.

2. Raise and safely support the front of the vehicle.

3. Remove the wheels.

4. Remove the lower caliper mounting bolt.

5. Pivot the caliper upward.

6. Remove the brake pads.

To install:

1. Measure the minimum brake shoe lining thickness.

2. Install the brake pads.

3. Push the caliper piston inward, if needed.

4. Pivot the caliper downward and install the lower mounting bolt. Tighten the lower caliper mounting bolt to 20 ft. lbs. (27 Nm).

5. Install the wheels.

6. Lower the vehicle.

That's not just the text you get. That's ALL you get in its entirety. No pictures, no illustrations, nada. If you don't know where the lower caliper mounting bolt is, what tool you need to remove it or how to get at it, then you're out of luck. I love the first step of installing: "Measure the minimum brake shoe lining thickness". Really? How? Why? Where?

Are they kidding with this? The only person that can make use of this sort of information would be someone intimately familiar with this sort of repair. No novice could ever replace brake pads with such a high-level overview.

I've written to the company to lay out my complaint but expect that I'll get the same sort of stone-walling as I got with ALLDATA. Live and learn.....

UPDATE: I just got an e-mail as follows from the company behind the Chilton service:

Hello.

I apologize that this product did not meet your expectations. I was actually able to cancel the order before the billing processed. Depending on the bank, however, it may take a few days for the pending charges to be removed from your account.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you need any further assistance.

Thank you.

Name Changed
Support Services
Cengage Learning Academic
P.O. Box 6904, Florence, KY 41022-6904
(o) 800-874-2383 | (f) 800-735-0419
(e) changed@cengage.com  

Looks like there's still hope after all.

The Challenge Of Aging

People have discussed aging since the first cavemen could grunt out complaints about bad teeth. Clearly this isn't a novel topic. At 45 (coming Thursday) I've reached a pretty interesting age. I'm young enough that the finality of death still seems like a long ways off (unless I get hit by lightning of course) and yet I'm old enough to feel as if I've been here for quite some time.

I notice that now I play a funny game of trying to convince myself I'm still on the younger side of the half-way point of my life. Last year wasn't too bad. Making it to 88 isn't ridiculous especially when I had a grandmother that made it well past 100. But now? 90 is pushing it. I won't be able to keep up this facade much longer.

Age does funny things to you. First you have to deal with the issue of health. You put on weight with ease. Your hair grays or falls out. Skin does funny things like stop moving the way you expect it to. Pains started in my mid-to-late thirties that have just multiplied or gotten more acute. My blood pressure decided to act up. I have a decently thick medical history now and, for the first time, the doctor has put me on two things that he thinks I'll need from here on out.

That was quite a shock. I've always been wary of one tradition my older family and friends employed and that was the use of a weekly (or bigger) pill dispenser. I remember thinking, "Good God. You need a box to hold all the pills you take each day?" Now it looks like I might finally need one myself. Thankfully it's not for anything overly serious right now but still, it does work to date oneself.

I've also noticed a change in my plumbing. I find I prefer sitting to standing when urinating now. I like the rest. I also find it takes longer to stop going. Likely an enlarging prostate but the doctor doesn't seem concerned so I'm not yet. I also had to realize that I don't have the sexual stamina of my youth. Now, if someone coughs, my mind isn't the only thing that gets distracted. On my recent visit to the doctor (he's my age) he was more than eager to recommend the wonder drug Cialis to me. He looked like a kid talking about the latest, greatest toy on the market. I also notice that more friends and family have commented about trying one of the big three (Viagra and Levitra being the other two). I tried Cialis and it was certainly interesting but, thankfully, I don't really require its use yet.

Of course there's also the disconnect that seems destined to happen when dealing with younger generations. I've always been a techie. Even with that I find I'm just not as into things, at least as intently as they are, like Twitter, Facebook, texting, etc.

I even have to watch my analogies and commentaries. When describing "old-school" people I know I often will describe them as being similar to Ozzie and Harriet. More than a few times now the response has been, "You mean Ozzy and Sharon." Poor Ozzie Nelson would turn over in his grave if he knew that now he's confused for Ozzy Osbourne.

One thing people talk about is how fast time flies. I used to notice it but of late it seems to have slowed down a bit. Age 25 to 35 was a blur. Since then it's moved at a nice pedestrian pace.

There is a specific change that I simply cannot ignore. In the past I've always been able to pull information from memory with ease. I first noticed that my vocabulary started to slip a bit as I had a harder time pulling out the exact word I wanted to use. This blog also helped highlight the change. I used to write for a living and I had no trouble writing compelling prose. Now much of what I write is fairly dull. Then I noticed other areas where memory isn't as sharp as it once was. I often could easily name the most obscure actors in second-rate movies. Now I can see their faces but I can't find their names. It's a change that is, to be frank, annoying.

The one area where I've had my biggest challenge is in day-to-day life. I'm happy to say that from age 5 to about 25 or so I lived a pretty remarkable life. When my brother and I talk to other people here and there we've always been struck with how few stories they seem to have by comparison. We've come to realize that the majority of people spent much of their youth having a good time but we seem to have gone a bit overboard. I can honestly say we lived every single day of our childhood to the maximum. The result is a myriad of memories and stories that will clearly last us a lifetime.

The challenge is, now that life has slowed a bit, so have the experiences. I've spoken with my brother about it and we agree that it's been harder for us the older we've gotten because, by comparison, life the last 20 years hasn't been as crazy as it was the first 20 years. I'm not complaining. I've just had to come to realize that the responsibilities of work, raising a family and just getting older have had an impact. I need to find a way to re-energize and return my youthful exuberance to its rightful place in my life. I'm working on that.