4:04 AM Productions

It's a private matter

2009-11-30T07:48:00.000-08:00

Actually, the vehicle accident involving Tiger Woods is not a private matter at all. For those few who live in hermit-like existence and haven't seen the news, Tiger Woods was involved in an accident while driving his Escalade SUV in which he apparently struck a tree and/or a fire hydrant. Allegedly, his wife used a golf club to break out a window to enable her to pull him out for treatment.

However, according to various media sources, this may have been domestic violence against Tiger by his wife, it may involve infidelity on Tiger's part and there's a woman who is allegedly Tiger's mistress who flew to Los Angeles so that famed attorney Gloria Allred can represent her. Why she needs representation is another matter entirely, but we'll wait for the inevitable Allred press conference.

Sorry Tiger, you're a public figure. You depend on this for much of the over $100 million per year that you earn and you can't be a public figure and then suddenly plead for privacy when something like this happens. This is the downside of living in the public eye, and you've handled it very badly.

*If* the allegations are true, you should have simply owned up to the error, and told people you were working it out with your wife. Talk to the cops about the accident and how it occurred and then put the whole thing behind you. All you are doing here is four-putting on a very easy green. Not very much like the Tiger Woods the world knows and loves. Although how much they will continue to love you in the face of what is to come has yet to be determined.

What does that mean on my planet??

2009-10-02T06:53:00.000-07:00

So legal expert Whoopie Goldberg has stated that what Roman Polanski did wasn't "rape rape". What in the world is the difference between "rape" and "rape rape"?

There is a lot about what happened at Jack Nicholson's house between Roman Polanski and his victim that is not in the public eye. People have made up their minds without all of the facts, as evidenced by the Hollywood apologists for Polanski. I wonder if they knew what their hero said when he was interviewed so that a probation report could be prepared on him for the judge.

Example: Everyone who apologizes for the "alleged" child molester points out that he pled guilty to only the single count of Unlawful Sex with a Minor". They seem to forget that he was originally charged with Child Molesting, Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor, Rape by use of Drugs, Oral Copulation, Sodomy and the count he ultimately pled guilty to. The other charges were dropped in a plea arrangement that was reached for the primary purpose of preventing the need for the victim to testify in court.

The time he spent behind "bars" prior to his fleeing the country wasn't a punishment it was part of a psychiatric evaluation period. Whoopie says that Polanski fled because he was afraid of being jailed for a hundred years. In fact, the most he could have gotten if the judge decided the original plea agreement wasn't valid was five years.

The lyrics for the old cop show Baretta include the phrase "Don't Do the Crime if You Can't Do the Time". He may be an Oscar winner, he may be a brilliant director and he may have suffered the loss of his wife in a heinous murder, but he did the crime here and he needs to be held accountable by being made to do the time.

Filmmaker Harvey Weinstein is circulating a petition to call for Polanski to be released and not extradited to the U.S. My response to this is that I will personally boycott all Weinstein Company films from this point forward.

Cleaning up a Dirty Mess

2008-11-16T09:01:00.001-08:00

This is a big, dirty economic mess we find ourselves in and without getting into the blame game, it's time to work on a realistic fix.

When something is dirty, you need to clean it up. There are a lot of causes to our mess, but for the purpose of this entry I am focused on one in particular, the outsourcing of jobs to other nations. This may have enhanced the profit margins of U.S. corporations, but it hasn't done a thing to help the bottom line of Americans whose jobs were sent overseas, nor has it helped the economies of those communities where those jobs were lost.

So I propose we use some SOAP to clean up this mess. Stop Outsourcing American Propersity would be an act of Congress to penalize U.S. corporations and Multinational Corporations that operate in the U.S. that take U.S. jobs and send them overseas to be done more cheaply. SOAP would do this by establishing the following conditions:

1. Corporations would no longer be able to take a tax deduction for the salaries and other expenses of jobs that are outsourced outside the U.S.

2. These corporations would also be subject to a Federal excise tax on the salaries of jobs outsourced outside the U.S. with the revenue from this tax being used to fund extended unemployment benefits and job re-training benefits for those whose jobs were lost through said outsourcing.

3. For manufacturers who outsource jobs overseas, additional tarriffs would be placed on goods they send back to the U.S. from their overseas factories

4. Tax credits would be given to corporations who had previously outsourced jobs and who bring them back to the U.S.

Apply a little SOAP to any dirty mess, add some elbow grease and effort and pretty soon the mess begins to get cleaned up.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign....in English

2008-08-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

Every four years the little envelope arrives in the mail and you renew your California Driver's License. It is an automatic thing, no big deal and I hadn't given it any thought the last two renewals which were done through the mail. Knowing that this year was a renewal year, when the envelope arrived, I fully expected yet another auto-renewal.

I was in for a surprise. "Because your last two renewals were done by mail, this year you must come in to the DMV, make any changes in your personal information as required, and take a vision test. Since I wear glasses, the vision test is no big deal, they don't make you take it until you are so old that your corrected vision might still be suspect, and I have no objection to providing accurate personal info or giving up a thumbprint. What I object to are the horrendous wait-times one experiences at the DMV. Especially since, as the sign says "Due to budget cuts, walk-ins will be cut off at 3:00 p.m., and only clients with appointments will be allowed to join the lines after three.

Wait a second you say, if you have an appointment, why would you be getting in line? Because even though you have an appointment, that's just a way to get you into a shorter, much faster moving line. I had an appointment when I went to the DMV on Friday and after I checked in, five minutes before my appointed time, I found there were seven people in line ahead of me, all of whom also had appointments.

Eventually I was waited on, paid my fee and after posing for a photo, got my temporary license. It was while waiting for the photo I overheard someone being asked if there was a particular langauge they wanted to take the written exam for a driver's license in. The person responsed they wanted to take the exam in Vietnamese and that got me to thinking.

We are so sensitive to immigrants we not only do not require them to learn English, we let them take the driver's license exam in other languages. That might well be no big problem except for one tiny little matter. THE STREET SIGNS LIKE SPEED LIMITS, STOP, YIELD, ETC, ARE ALL IN ENGLISH.

If an immigrant, legal or illegal, can't read the sign, we shouldn't be licensing them to drive on our streets. I don't want to be driving on the same street with people who don't know that "STOP" means what it says.

They don't have to learn the entire English language, but they should certainly know enough to be able to read the street signs.

Can the Tabloid Media be Any Dumber??

2007-12-27T06:47:00.000-08:00

Hotel mogul Barron Hilton has decided to follow in footsteps of other billionaires and donate most of his fortune to charity rather than to pass it on to his heirs. 97% of his estimated 2.3 billion dollar fortune will go to worthy causes. For those too lazy to do the math, that means that over 60 million dollars will go to his chosen heirs.

So the tabloid media headlines the story that it's Paris Hilton who is losing out. Pardon me, but did you idiots happen to be unaware of the fact that the man has eight children of his own, without worrying about his grandchildren? Would Paris really have gotten any large chunk of this man's fortune in any event, given his evident disdain for her antics? I think not.

Has it really been a year

2007-10-15T04:36:00.000-07:00

since I wrote here? Seems difficult to believe, but it has been more than a year in fact. Sandy Shaw is going to be paroled, but that's not why I'm sitting here at 4:46 a.m., staring at a blank screen. I sit here pondering other things.

Why has Joe Francis become a multi-millionaire (over one hundred million at least) by simply asking young, sexy girls to bare their breasts for his video cameras and will anything stop the growth of "Girls Gone Wild?"

How many times can ESPN2 re-run the same episodes of the World Series of Poker 2007 with the exact same narration and staging?

Is Regis Philbin the living portrait of Dorian Gray?

Am I the real father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby?

How is it possible for the son of a Santa Monica dentist with so little in the way of brains or talent could gain so much fame and fortune (referring to Spencer Pratt)?

Isn't it bad enough we get spam emails about penis enlargement in our email boxes, did they have to add a 30 minute informercial on top of the spam??

Beverly Hills Business Cops

2006-09-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

Today is Sunday, September 17th and if you were to stroll down Beverly Hill's famous Rodeo Drive and wander into any of the ritzy establishments that line this extraordinarily expensive thoroughfare (some of the world's most expensive retail space on a per square footage space), you probably wouldn't bother looking for, or even notice if they had a Beverly Hills Business license. But if you did, you would see that it had EXPIRED in December 2005 and the City has not issued a 2006 license to that business just yet.

How can such a broad statement be made, without knowing which business you might or might not wander into? Because as of this past Friday, September 15th, 2006, the City of Beverly Hills has not yet issued a single 2006 business license and according to an official in the city office that oversees such things, they have no estimated date of when those licenses will be issued.

This official, who would not give his name, said that there was some kind of computer problem that prevented the issuing of licenses and it had to do with ensuring that confidential information would not print on the licenses, which are required to be posted for the public to see.

Now according to Beverly Hills City regulation, all city business licenses exprie every December 31, and must be renewed in January. If they have had a computer problem of that magnitude, don't you think it would have been solved by now? It would seem that almost any kind of computer problem should be solvable within 3 or 4 months, let alone 7 or 8. The city says nothing, apparently is doing nothing, and businesses just continue to do business, with expired licenses.

If you pay for your license late, you pay a penalty. What penalty will the City of Beverly Hills pay, for failure to issue those license? Probably nothing more than a slight bit of embarassment.

If I lived in Beverly Hills, I would sure hope they have better organization for their public safety departments.

Inconsiderate potential employers

2006-07-13T08:08:00.000-07:00

I am once again searching for a job and I want to relate an experience I had recently with one potential employer that I will someday write up as an example of how not to screen employees. It was rude, inconsiderate and wasted my time and theirs.

I won't mention the type of employer or their location, but they were in the market for more than one person to beef up their Human Resources department. They had advertised in several sources (newspaper, internet, etc) and I had responded to an ad on the net and I got a form email saying that they had reviewed my resume and they were inviting me to a "interview screening" on a certain date/time. No human contact, no check to see if that date/time was workable for me, just a form letter that said if the time didn't work, to respond cancelling.

I showed up. The screening consisted of tests, four in all, two of which had nothing to do with human resource work whatsoever. One involved reading a 3 page business description for over 30 minutes, without being allowed to take notes that could be retained, and then being tested on the functions of that business, including complex calculations using formulas that were in the description that were not available on the test sheet. The other non-HR related test was a MENSA type intelligence test that was fairly easy for the most part although the last three questions required having taken calculus, trig and advanced geometry at some point in your life, again, none of which you use on a regular basis in the Human Resource field unless you are developing HR software (none of these positions were doing that).

So after finishing all of these tests, I was supposed to interview with someone, but that person wasn't available and so I found myself interviewing with the company's president instead. He said and I quote "I don't know anything about HR and so I don't know what to ask you, but I was the only one available to meet with you, so here we are. So why would you want to work here?" Before I could answer he had to take three phone calls and then halfway through the answer, someone came in to join us, the person I was to interview with. A few minutes later when I was in the middle of answering the president's second question, there was a conference call that the president had to take and that was the end of my interview. Then, to add insult to injury, the form letter telling me that they had elected to pursue employment with other candidates was in my email box before I could make the short drive home.

Now there is no way they could have possibly evaluated all of those tests they gave me, especially since the two on HR were essay type in response, so that email wasn't based on the testing. So, why bother putting me through all that testing if they weren't going to use it in the evaluation process? I suspect they realized after they had me there that I was overqualified for the opening that they had brought me in for, and that my desired pay range was outside of what they were willing to pay. But that is no excuse for wasting my time.

If you are going to make someone spend three hours filling out tests, at least take the time to grade and evaluate those tests and in your response to that person, let them know how they did on those tests, which you can do even if you are telling them you've chosen to go with another candidate. It might take a little effort, but it is the right and considerate thing to do.

Pity Poor Chad Lowe

2006-07-13T07:55:00.000-07:00

He wakes up to find out that his estranged wife, two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank has aired his substance abuse problem in public and he's angry....

I'm sorry, but since when did a public personage's substance abuse issue become a totally private matter, even when they've somehow managed to keep it a secret to some degree? Congratulations to the man for three years of sobriety, and in her remarks, Swank says she is proud of him for getting and staying sober. But what is wrong for her choice to say that his issue was at least partly to blame for their break-up? Given the public fascination for the details of the lives of celebrities, if some celeb wants to pass out details then more power to them.

It is more of a sad commentary on our society that we are so wrapped up in wanting to know those intimate details of the lives of celebrities which indicates the level of dissatisfaction with our own lives. As for Chad, stop being angry and focus on staying sober.

Oh Those Grapes are Indeed Sour

2006-03-15T06:11:00.000-08:00

Pity poor Annie Proulx, author of the short story that led to the acclaimed film "Brokeback Mountain". She wanted the honey pot of gold known as Oscar for her story but instead of the Pooh wanna-be having the pot stuck on her nose, the Heffalumps stole the pot and gave it to the film Crash. At least that is how one must interpret her diatribe in "The Guardian".

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1727309,00.html

The critical portion of Ms Proulx's piece follows:

"We should have known conservative heffalump academy voters would have rather different ideas of what was stirring contemporary culture. Roughly 6,000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest-homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline."

I wonder if she saw "Crash". I did. I thought it was excellent. I say the same thing about all five of the Best Picture nominees of this year. That she felt the need to name-call the winner in order to attempt to make a point illustrates the invalidity of her argument. Neither of these films were "trash", but were the roles reversed and writer Paul Haggis to have been the loser and to have written a diatribe where he referred to Proulx's piece as "Poke in the Back Mountain", cries of "You can't say that, that's homophobia" would have rung out from Proulx and her crowd. Further, if Ms Proulx is angered by the "conservative" side of Hollywood, where is her anger at the decision to re-write and re-cast characters that she wrote as Hispanic as Caucasians? Doesn't that bit of Hollywood conservativism bother her, or was that acceptable because it involved getting her work onto the big screen. Can you say "hypocrite" rather than "sour grapes"?

Award contests where members of an academy like the Oscars do not really choose a "Best" Picture. They hold an election campaign and choose what should more properly be called a "Most Popular" Picture. "Best" Picture awards should be chosen by panels of professional film critics.

As for Ms Proulx's sour grapes, let us hope that in the future, the woozles do not join the heffalumps in attempting to frustrate her efforts to stamp her signature on the fermenting culture.

Clemency for Tookie? Why?

2005-12-06T09:17:00.000-08:00

On consecutive days there were full-page advertisements in the Los Angeles Times calling for convicted murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams to receive clemency at a hearing that will take place on December 8th, only 5 days prior to the scheduled execution date for the self-professed co-founder of the Crips gang.

Wow! I would love to know if the Times charged the sponsors of those ads their regular rate for full-age ads, because I wonder where all the money is coming from to back this orchestrated campaign calling for clemency for this convicted murderer. There is a fairly nice website www.savetookie.org that has some very slanted views of the facts in the case, arguing in favor of clemency, but then again, who would expect a balanced argument with both sides of the issues from a website that is trying to save this man? If anyone from the website happens to be reading this, I think you should know that the Supreme Court doesn't set execution dates. That's what your site claims in this section:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Tookie on his final appeal and set his execution date for December 13. Thus they disregarded 9 of the 24 Ninth Circuit Court judges' assertion that the District Attorney at Tookie's trial employed "reprehensible and unconstitutional" racist tactics, using animal-in-a-jungle metaphors to refer to Tookie and to the South Central environment in which he lived. This landmark ruling means that minorities can now legally be rejected from juries based on race. This is now the law of the land."

An interesting piece of writing. First of all, it was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Pounders who set the execution date, not the United States Supreme Court. A small, but important distinction. The USSC doesn't set execution dates. Then let's look at the 9 out of 24 judges comment. That's 3/8ths of the members of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal of all of the Federal Courts of Appeal in the Nation and less than one-half of its members come out in favor of this slanted position? Or in other words, more than one-half of the members of this very liberal court had no interest in hearing this appeal and do not feel that the DA engaged in reprehensible and unconstitutional racist tactics. For the math challenged out there, it was 15 to 9 decision, which if we apply a little math to it, comes out to a ratio of 5 to 3 opposing Tookie's motion. That's almost two to one, which seems almost overwhelming.

Oh yes, the lack of blacks on the jury? What about William McLurkin? His death certificate shows that he was black. Tookie's lawyers dismiss this though, saying "It doesn't matter if he was black or half-black, cause he looked Filipino." That's laughable.

What about "You can't kill him, he's a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee"? So now is a Los Angeles radio talk show host, who got himself nominated for the Peace Prize to illustrate how corrupt the nomination process is. Williams has been nominated for both the Peace Prize and for the Literature Prize, but those nominations are meaningless.

All sorts of Hollywood's best and brightest are campaigning to get clemency for Tookie. I have no problem with Mike Farrell, who is opposed to the Death Penalty in any instance. At least he is consistent and I laud that. But Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Jamie Foxx, Snoop Dogg and the Reverend Jessie Jackson and especially Bianca Jagger need to go back to their vapid little lives and stop trying to prevent this murderer's date with destiny.

Maybe if they were to take a moment out and read the Los Angeles District Attorney's response to the clemency petition. Or this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47647
that includes evidence that Tookie hasn't been the model inmate that he has been painted as. Here's a partial list of his transgressions since being imprisoned:

throwing a chemical substance in the eyes of a guard Jan. 28, 1982, in an attack that resulted in chemical burns and emergency treatment;

a second attack on a guard with a chemical substance Jan. 29, 1982;

an attack on another inmate Feb. 16, 1984, in which Williams only stopped beating the prisoner when a warning shot was fired;

a threat to kill a guard June 8, 1984;

the beating of another inmate Dec. 24, 1991, that only stopped after a warning shot was fired;

another fight with other inmates July 6, 1993, in which a stabbing instrument (shank) was recovered.

Oh yes, there is the fact that this Nobel Peace Prize nominee threatened all of the jury members when they found him guilty. "Specifically, the defendant looked at the jurors and said he 'was going to get all' of them," said the report. "After learning of this threat, the trial judge inquired of the jury foreperson. The foreperson confirmed the defendant mouthed the words 'I'm going to get each and every one of you m-----f------." Now that's the reaction of an innocent man, wrongfully convicted? I don't think so.

Is he really saving any lives? According to a column written by a Los Angeles actor, Book Scan reports show that Tookie's books don't sell very many copies. If the books don't sell, and he isn't out on the trail talking to kids, how is he changing lives? By example?

The supporters of this drive for clemency say that they are working for justice for Tookie. Where is the justice for the Yang family? Where is the justice for Albert Owens?

University of Spoiled College athletes

2005-11-15T06:36:00.000-08:00

He allegedly said "I own the law" after allegedly punching another party-goer twice before fleeing a Halloween party and now freshman linebacker Rey Maualuga appears to have joined the very exclusive club of college athletes who are so valuable as to be above the law as long as their team is winning. He plays for the University of Southern California Trojans, who are ranked #1 in most polls and if they remain undefeated, will play for the National Championship in the Rose Bowl. Nothing wrong with this, except that they have yet to do anything to Maualuga about his having been arrested. Now he was demoted to the scout team or so it was announced, but he said he knew nothing of any punishment and in the Saturday that followed his arrest, he played in the second half of the USC game against Stanford. Why bother announcing that he was demoted if the demotion was only until they needed to bring Maualuga in. Then all of a sudden he wasn't demoted anymore, he was in the game.

Trojan Head Coach Pete Carroll says "He has been punished, he is being punished, there are things he has to do for this program through next year," (from a L.A. Times column by Bill Plaschke, 11/13/05). Oh really? How was he punished, Coach? How is he being punished? His arraignment isn't scheduled until November 22nd, and you've punished him already? Is that punishment for merely having been arrested, or have you already tried, convicted and punished him and whatever happens in the criminal justice system will have no impact on his career on the field for the Trojans?

There is something to be said for privacy and it should be noted that Maualuga is going through a difficult period. That doesn't excuse him from throwing punches if he in fact did so, and the pressure of a winning streak and a #1 ranking and shot at a BCS Bowl bid doesn't excuse letting him off without punishment if he is deserving of it. If this was being handled properly and was capable of withstanding scrutiny, then the punishment would be public and we would know what it is. We don't. Therefore, we can't help but suspect that something is rotten in the scheme of things and the Trojan football program is hiding something. If players are supposed to be role models as Carroll has said, then they should be held to account for their actions.

Symbols and symbolism

2005-11-15T02:37:00.000-08:00

Once again, San Francisco has demonstrated that it is out of step with the rest of the nation, by passing Proposition I, a symbolic measure that called for an end to military recruiting in the city's public schools. It passed with the support of 60% of those who voted and that's no surprise, because there is no risk to passing this symbolic measure.

I wonder if the voters of San Francisco would have voted the same way if the langauge of the proposition had been written differently and had taken a real stand by banning military recruiters from having access to those students enrolled in the city's public schools. The city or should I say the school district can do this, but at the risk of losing federal funds. They were willing to vote for a symoblic, fist in the face of recruiters gesture, but when faced with the loss of federal funding, I doubt those voters would have been as eager to take the same stance.

The question is, why the vehement opposition to recruiting and recruiters? It is time to stop opposing the war by protesting the recruiting effort. If someone wants to protest the war, then protest the war itself. Make a sign, march in a demonstration, do whatever. But since the days of the draft ended, and the all volunteer force began, the need for recruiters and recruiting have become critical. The 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" requires school districts to provide recruiters with the names, addresses and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal funding.

That same act also allows the student or the family of the student to chose to be left alone, that is to "opt out" and if they do so, they will not be contacted by military recruiters. One piece of paper, one form, and no recruiter will phone or make any other attempt to contact the student. It is very easy to opt out. In fact, the same type of opt-out method is currently in use by unions in California to allow those members who don't want their dues payments used for political purposes and the unions used the ease of this method as one of their defenses against a proposition to change that system in the most recent special election. So if it is good enough for union members, it should be (and is) good enough for students who don't want to be bothered by recruiters.

So, San Francisco, either do it right, and ban recruiting altogether and give up the money, or just pass out the opt-out forms and be quiet. Let the recruiters do their jobs and you do yours.

Unhappy Veterans Day

2005-11-12T07:32:00.000-08:00

I have finally figured out why I get so agitated on Veterans Day and the root cause surprised me. It isn't that no one says "thanks" for my having served, after all, aside from a few close friends, most of the people who know me don't know that I spent ten years in the military. I'm still angry over having lost my G.I. Bill educational benefits to a loophole in the law that was changed in 1984 and it was an editorial in the L.A. Times on Veterans Day that called for the government not to skimp on G.I. Bill education benefits that finally made me realize what bothers me so.

I stood in line, starting at 4:00 a.m., on December 30, 1976, in order to enlist and gain access to the Vietnam era G.I. Bill educational benefits. My recruiter had explained at length that this meant that upon my leaving the military I would have ten years to use my four years worth of educational benefits. It was one of the primary reasons that I had decided to delay entry into college and go into the military. That, and the fact that I could go to night classes in college once I was permanently assigned to a duty station (if all went well, and it did).

But in 1984, the rules were changed, thanks to then Representative Sunny Montgomery and there was a loophole in his legislation that I got caught in. For people who were eligible for the Vietnam era benefits, they had to remain on active duty beyond a date in 1988 in order for their benefits eligibility to convert to the new program his bill created. I left the service in July 1987. Therefore, I had only from August of 1987 through December 31, 1989 to use my four years worth of educational benefits. 17 months to use 48 months worth of benefits?? Yeah, that just doesn't add up. As a result, I was unable to use any of my educational benefits, as I had to secure work right away and the following year, even if I had applied to college, the benefits would have run out in mid-year.

I wrote to Rep Montgomery asking that he sponsor legislation to amend his bill to provide adequate time for me and others like me caught in the same loophole to use our benefits, but received no reply. Neither of the U.S. Senators from my home state of California nor the Member of the House whose district I lived in at the time responded to letters on the subject either, except to say that there was nothing they could do. Good ole B-1 Bob Dornan did respond saying he would look into the matter, but later responded saying that budgetary constraints prevented anything from being done. At least he looked into the matter.

So now, every Veterans Day, I am reminded that this is how my nation said thanks for my service. It took away my promised educational benefits. No wonder I don't like this holiday.

Playing the Blame Game

2005-09-13T14:51:00.000-07:00

It seems that almost everyone, everywhere, who is anyone of note, wants to point the finger and assign blame for some part of what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Oprah Winfrey thinks that an apology is owed to all of the victims. Goodness knows how many people want to blame President Bush and the list of things they want to blame him for may reach back to being the cause of the hurricane itself. Don't laugh. Some are blaming Hurricane Katrina on global warming and his (President Bush's) failure to sign the Kyoto Accords. This makes no sense, but it is being argued anyway.

So the blame game is afoot. Let's play. We should start by reminding everyone that those who fail to learn the lessons of history, in this case known as Hurricanes Betsy and Camille, are doomed to repeat them. Unlike earthquakes, which give no warnings, hurricanes give advance notice of their coming. There is time to evacuate in advance of the arrival of a hurricane. Many residents of New Orleans and other cities that were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina chose not to evacuate in spite of the warnings that a major hurricane was en route. I blame each and every one of those individuals who had the means to evacuate and chose not to, for worsening the burden and workload of rescue personnel in the aftermath of the storm. Every person who could have left and did not do so made that much extra work for rescuers to have to do once the storm had passed.

I blame the Mayor of New Orleans for failing to use the plan to evacuate the residents of the city who had no way to get themselves out of the city, by using city busses. If this was the written, advance plan for such a disaster, then it should have been exercised, tested and had that been done, it would have probably worked. I also blame said Mayor for failing to exercise proper leadership in the aftermath of the storm. Screaming on talkradio may have raised his national profile, but it accomplished little else and did nothing to aid his constituents. He should have been more visible in the city, helping people in need, working the food lines, solving glitches in the rescue and relief efforts, and on the phone to the Governor to demand more assistance.

I blame the Governor of Louisiana for failing to respond more quickly, and for not having a better response planned as soon as it was apparent that the storm was going to hit. I further blame said Governor for failing to take a proactive position on repairing the levee system that was overwhelmed by the storm and failed, causing the flooding that has made New Orleans uninhabitable.

I blame President George H. W. Bush Jr. for failing to appoint a director of FEMA with the training and experience to properly manage a disaster of this magnitude. I further blame our president for failing to step in and declare martial law in the most heavily damaged areas right away so that those areas could be cleared without any problems, or further looting and the recovery could eventually begin. I also fault the president for his clear inability to manage a crisis or his public image during a crisis, causing a complete loss of confidence in him by the bulk of the American people, even among his Republican supporters.

The blame game. The problem with this game, no one wins. No one ever wins the blame game.

File Under Lessons Learned

2005-09-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

So my headhunter sends me on yet another job interview, telling me that this is for a full-time direct hire position and I show up on time, in the appropriate suit and tie. Actually I was early but the important point is that I got there before the appointed time. I went to the reception desk, portfolio tucked under my arm, fresh copies of my resume and professional references inside.

I waited in the reception area of this large corporation and was first greeted by a courteous woman who introduced herself by telling me her name and that I wasn't on her calendar and she then asked "How can I help you" and before I could respond, the receptoinist explained that I was there to see her counterpart. She apologized for the confusion and quickly enough her counterpart came out and ushered me into her office.

I found myself being interviewed for a position, but not the full-time direct hire position I thought I was there for. It was for a temporary contract position that would only last for four months at best, and wasn't even full-time during that entire four month period. I was taken aback because this wasn't what I was there for and being an honest, upfront person, spoke up about the confusion. After the confusion was sorted out, the interviewer asked me if I was interested in the contract position and after I was assured of a few conditions that I needed to be met in order to be able to take on the contract job, would be met, I said I was interested, and the interview went on. I even felt it went well, as I expressed interest in the specifics of what needed to be done during the four month period.

Subsequently the headhunter tells me that the firm came back to him telling him that the interview went "negative". Well, damn. I find myself interviewing for a position that wasn't what it was supposed to be, for fewer hours and less money that it was supposed to be, completely catching me by surprise and they felt the interview went negative.

Now I've sent a card and a note of apology to the interviewer, apologizing for any negatives she may have experienced in our interview, because they certainly weren't intended. But when one considers just how much surprise there was in that morning's interview for me, she might have been a bit more accomodating to give me time to absorb the shock and try to determine if I was interested in the position.

Lessons learned. 1. When working with a headhunger, interviews may well contain surprises. Don't let them put you off of your game. 2. Keep that positive smile on your face in the interview room.

Kayne West is an Ignorant Fool

2005-09-03T05:53:00.000-07:00

So Kayne West decides to use a benefit for victims of Hurricane Katrina as a platform to bash President Bush. According to the Associated Press, West appeared about 2/3rds of the way through the show on NBC and said "George Bush doesn't care about black people", that America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible" and "I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food."

Well, well, well. Mr. West, you have a lot to learn and while I doubt you are a regular reader of this blog, in your vernacular, I will try to school ya. First of all, let's consider those images, haunting images of the victims of Hurricane Katrina from the city of New Orleans. They are truly horrific and it appears that almost all of the victims are black. Which makes it seem like there is someone to blame for the disproportionate amount of black victims, since blacks make up roughly 11 percent of the population of the United States.

But wait. New Orleans is a city with a predominately black population. The population living within the city limits at the time of the hurricane was 67% black. Or to put it another way, just over 2 out of every 3 people living within the city limits of New Orleans when the levees overflowed was black, and likely a victim of poverty as well. There was no government mandate for blacks to live within the city limits. The only reason for the absence of whites living within the city limits of New Orleans is that phenomenon known as "white flight" to the suburbs surrounding the urban area of New Orleans. The whites are in Metairie and Kenner.

As to the differences between looters and those looking for food, when we see images of looters carrying armloads of guns, flatscreen and plasma televisions and other items that are not edible, it is difficult to see or portray them as anything but looters. Were they to be carrying food and water, it would be a different issue.

Is assistance slow in arriving? Probably. But remember, this is a representative democracy, in which the federal government can only act based upon requests from the local and state governments. President Bush could do nothing except order FEMA to stand by and prepare to render aid until the governors of the impacted states asked for aid. Even then, when helicopters intending to rescue survivors approached the Superdome, they were shot at. Makes it kind of hard to render aid, doesn't it?

Fats Domino was a victim who had to be rescued and yet, he wasn't poor and he had the resources to flee before the storm arrived. Instead he chose to "ride it out". That was a mistake that he and everyone like him, who had the ability to get out and chose not to made, and in doing so, increased the burden upon the rescue and aid systems. What has happened is that the order to evacuate has come before, but the hurricane has missed the city and people have grown tired of evacuation when it seemed there was no reason to. This time, the reason did exist, but the people in the line of danger failed to heed the warning. Just like with Hurricane Camille, just like with Hurricane Betsy.

You see, Mr. West, this has happened before. But those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

How Many is Too Many??

2005-08-08T22:15:00.000-07:00

Now there is a loaded question. How many is too many? Are we talking about martinis at a business lunch because then in this day and age the answer might well be one. On the other hand, if we were talking about peanuts at a baseball game, there probably is no correct answer provided that you don't get ill in the car on the way home.

However, in this instance I am asking about a very specific instance. When you are in the express check-out line at the grocery store, how many items over the limit is too many for the person in front of you to have? Is it one, or two or just how many? I must admit never having given too much thought to this question until this past Sunday morning when I got into that express check-out line with three items in my cart, well below the limit of ten items or less and I saw not just ten but 13 items in the basket of the elderly woman in front of me who was laying her items onto the conveyor belt while waiting for the customer in front of her to finish checking out. Then, to add insult to injury, a younger woman (probably her daughter or niece) came up to the check-out line, stepped in front of me to join the elderly woman and added three more items to the pile on the conveyor belt. So now instead of being just three items over the limit, she was six.

I was of course too polite to point out their transgression, since I am no longer a member of the National Express Check-out Line Limit Enforcement Force. I resigned several years ago after a very nasty confrontation with a shopper turned violent. She resisted apprehension after I told her that her excuse of being parked illegally in a handicapped parking space did not give her the right to use the express check-out line when she had more than twice the amount of items allowed, even if it meant she might get a $300 parking ticket. Anyway, since I no longer have check-out line enforcement powers, I couldn't say or do anything to the elderly woman and her younger counterpart in front of me who were 60% above the authorized limit of items.

Frustrated, I searched for an appropriate course of action to take and finally it hit me. As the lovely young checker scanned the first item above the limit of ten, I called out firmly, "Eleven!". As she scanned the next item, I increased my level of volume slightly and said "Twelve!". At this point, the checker leaned over and said to me that she was sorry, but once the customer had placed the items on the conveyor belt, there was nothing she could do about it. I told her it wasn't her fault and not to worry about it. Then as she scanned the next item, I called out even more loudly, "Thirteen!" and the process continued with "Fourteen, Fifteen and Sixteen" when finally all of the items had been scanned.

In a perfect world, the objects of my obvious scorn would have been embarrassed by the attention I was drawing to their transgression. But they weren't. However, I will not be deterred by this. In the future, should someone in the express check-out line in front of me be more than one item over the limit, I will repeat this process. I encourage all of you who are not members of an enforcement agency able to take action against the transgressors to use this same method to embarrass them. Perhaps someday if we all take aggressive action, we can make express check-out lines safe for all.

What in the world is LWOP and why isn't LWOP really LWOP in one case???

2005-07-04T21:43:00.000-07:00

LWOP is an acronym for Life WithOut Parole, usually used by law enforcement personnel. As for when is LWOP not LWOP, that is in the case of convicted murderer Sandy Marie Shaw.

Ms Shaw, who is a prisoner in the Nevada state prison system was turned down for parole, but she can apply again in 2007. This is in direct contradiction to the Life Without Parole sentence imposed upon her at the tender age of 15 when she was convicted of murdering James Cotton Kelly in one of the most gruesome killings in the history of the Las Vegas Valley.

What made this killing so gruesome? Was it the six shots that were pumped into the face of the victim, James Kelly at the desert site he was lured to for the purpose of robbing and killing him? No, not by itself. It was the fact that for the next six days, while the body lay there undiscovered, Sandy Marie Shaw and her two accomplices returned to the scene of the crime several times with friends in tow for the purpose of showing off what they had done. The media, which I was part of at the time, immediately dubbed this the "Show and Tell Murder" and it was front page news from the day the body was discovered until the day Ms Shaw was convicted and sentenced to LWOP. The other two who were involved, Troy Kell, who is now believed by many to be the triggerman is on Death Row in Utah after killing another inmate there, while Billy Merritt who got a lighter sentence in return for implicating Shaw has subsequently returned to prison on other felony charges.

Then, in what appears to be one of the most gross miscarriages of justice I can imagine, for some reason the Nevada State Board of Pardons voted 5 to 3 in November of 2004 to commute Ms Shaw's sentence to make her eligible for parole. Why, I have no idea? While she may have earned a high school diploma and associates degree during her time in prison, and even have counselled other inmates, that doesn't change the fact that she brutally took another person's life. This is not a moment to debate the death penalty, but when one commits murder in the first degree, that person must forfeit their right to be a member of society for the remainder of their days. That is why it is murder in the first degree. Had she been convicted of a lesser offense, parole would have been permitted as part of her original sentencing. There was no reason for the Board of Pardons to be second-guessing the judge. Nothing that Ms Shaw did or does while behind bars will ever "make-up" for the heinous act in the desert that took the life of James Cotton Kelly. That is, if it was murder in the first degree.

At her parole hearing, Ms Shaw claimed that she did not fire the shots that killed the victim and that she only arranged to have her two accomplices "beat Kelly up". According to the brother of the victim, the court transcripts tell a different story and the parole board listened to him. But was he right? Was he telling the truth about those transcripts? Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith wrote a column on Sandy Shaw in April of 2001 that raises doubts about Shaw's role in the murder. She was involved in bringing Kelly out to the desert location where he was killed, but she may well not have been part of the plan to take his life and IF that is true, then she does deserve parole consideration. Especially if as Smith wrote, she was unaware of the intent of Kell to kill the victim.

Raphael Stavale, a friend who attended Shaw's parole hearing in December, was appalled by the decision.
"The damn parole commissioners do not judge her for who she is today, but the lost teen she was in 1986," he said. "What more does she has to do to prove herself? You tell me and her mother what she has to do to convince the board she is good and worthy of her freedom?"

The answer here is simple. Convince the board that she didn't pull the trigger. Convince the board that she was not aware of Kell's intent to kill James Cotton Kelly. If that is truly what is in the transcripts of the trial, then drag them to the hearing and quote from them. Diffuse the brother's testimony before he has a chance to testify.

The Politics of Lunacy or Vice Versa

2005-06-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of politics in the 21st Century where nothing makes sense and why should it?

Senator Dick Durbin calls U.S. detention facilities "gulags", describes what is going on there as having been done by mad regimes such as the Nazis or Pol Pot and then he blames the Right-Wing Media for taking his remarks out of context. Since his remarks were made in a speech to the U.S. Senate and the text is in the Congressional Record, the context should be clear. (btw, he should be censured, but he shouldn't resign)

We have a group referred to perjoratively as the "Religious Right" by a group whose leaders include Rev Jesse Jackson and Rev Al Sharpton. Are they the "Agnostic Left"? The "Satanic Left"?

California's Gubinator finds his popularity rate plummeting and suddenly he is interested in bi-partisanship.

Everyone thinks that the "Downing Street Memo" is some great big smoking gun, when all it turns out to be is a memo that says that one British Intel official expressed the opinion that President Bush's mind was already made up about going to war with Iraq ahead of time. Hell, the Agnostic (Satanic) Left has been of that opinion all along, what does this intel guy's memo change?

Teri Schiavo's autopsy reveals that her husband was right all along, that the doctors who supported his position were correct and the "Religious Right" who tried and tried to interfere with that case should have just gone back to church and stopped meddling in a case that had already been heard not once, but six times. Maybe Senator Frist will stop trying to diagnose cases from video and spend more time trying to censure Senator Durbin?

Liberals claim that it is conservatives that run negative, nasty campaigns, namecall, etc, but it is on the Majority Report Blogsite that you see a pile of dog feces referred to as a "pile of Bush". They will claim it is done in good humor, but in fact, this is just one example of the latest in six years of insults from these sources aimed at the President. At least they could be honest and admit they are the side of nastiness, but honesty ain't their policy.

Then again, honesty ain't the policy of conservatives either. Otherwise, Tom DeLay would be facing the Ethics music and the wagons are very tightly circled to keep him from going down in flames for his countless ethical lapses.

Will Rogers once called Congress "The best government money can buy". How right he was.

Nightline and Doonesbury and Proper Memorials

2005-05-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

It is Memorial Day and yesterday the comic strip Doonesbury printed a list of names of the soldiers who have died in the current U.S. invasion of Iraq. Tonight, on the ABC television program Nightline, the entire program will consist of the reading of the names of the soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since last Memorial Day. These so-called "memorials" are actually political statements to show opposition to the "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is a shame that such statements are being made in the guise of paying tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

If Garry Trudeau and Ted Koppel wanted to pay tribute to the "fallen", they should have included the names of Capt. Arthur G. Bonifas and Lt. Mark T. Barrett among those they listed. They were shot and killed on August 18, 1976, on the Korean Demilitarized Zone, while attempting to trim back the branches of a tree that was blocking the view from a U.N. guard post. They should have included the name of Cpl Terry W. Abbot and the 240 other U.S. Marines who were killed on October 23, 1983 by a terrorist bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. They should have included the name of Air Force TSgt Joel C. Mayo and the seven other U.S. servicemembers who died at a nameless spot in the Iranian desert on April 26, 1980 during the failed attempt to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran. They should have even included the name of Capt Dean Martin Jr. who died in the crash of his fighter jet while on a routine training mission on March 21, 1987.

Today is the day that we pay tribute and honor all, repeat ALL of the men and women who died defending our nation. It is not a day to be making political statements against or for positions taken by the current administration and those who use it for such should be ashamed.

All the News that's fit to slant.....er print.....or air

2005-05-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Somehow, somewhere that line between journalists and opinionists has gone from blurry to non-existant and the slanting of the news grows ever more tilted. This becomes especially true whenever the media is covering a story involving illegal immigration into this country.

Consider a story done on Los Angeles area television station Channel 7's "Eyewitness News" involving this critical issue which has been in the forefront of the news recently since the Gubinator was forced to retract a statement about closing the borders citing a "language difficulty" as his excuse for backpedaling". Newsanchor David Ono read the lead-in to reporter Carlos Granda's standp-up saying "Yesterday the governor praised a vigilante group which patrolled the border in Arizona". While it is true that President Dubya did incorrectly label the Minuteman Project a vigilante project, the actual work done by the Minutemen themselves in no way, shape or form qualifies for that particular characterization. If you don't want to consult your own dictionary, the definition of vigilante is: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."

That's bad enough in and of itself but it got worse very quickly. Democratic Party flack Art Torres said "The Governor should apologize and refrain from encouraging this type of illegal and violent behavior. Now nothing the Minutemen have done so far has been the cause of any charges to be filed against them, they are not facing any indictments, nor have they been accused of any crimes at all. But would Granda call Torres on this? No, of course not. A liberal politician makes a statement and a reporter wouldn't dare question a liberal politico now would he? No way. Later in the same report, Granda played a sound bite from a MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund who accused the Minutemen of having detained border crossers at gunpoint. Now there are no accounts of such incidents to be found anywhere on the net.

Another news report on another Los Angeles station mentions a MALDEF suit against the Minutemen for detaining illegals at gunpoint, but no record of the lawsuit can be found anywhere. There is a lawsuit pending about an incident where a landowner held some people at gunpoint, but that has nothing to do with the Minutemen project.

If reporters want to be columnists, then they need to get out from behind the microphones and start writing op-ed pieces and label them as such. But if they want to report hard news, then they need to stick to the facts and remember to question people on both sides of the political aisle, even if that means that their own political biases aside in the interest of getting at the truth.

If it doesn't feel wrong, is it wrong?

2005-05-01T07:17:00.000-07:00

"I don't feel I'm doing something wrong." So said Eamon Cannon, an 18 year old high school student during an hour long seminar hosted by United States Attorney General Alberto B. Gonzales on digital piracy. Cannon, a child of privilege whose divorced parents are both successful actors in Hollywood, attends an exclusive private school on Los Angeles' upscale Westside was defending his illegal downloading of movies and music from file-sharing sources on the internet.

Now if this spoiled, entitled computer pirate were to walk into a Blockbuster Video store, I feel confident that he would not begin to even consider taking a wrapped DVD movie that he wanted, slip it underneath his sweater, remove the protective marking that would set off any alarm and then walk out the door without paying for it. That would be a crime known as shoplifting. For some reason that only Eamon can explain to us, the difference between shoplifting and digital piracy somehow makes one a crime and the other nothing more than something that isn't doing anything wrong. This moral relativism is why digital piracy is the pervasive problem that it is, and it is why government faces such a difficult task in trying to stop it.

As long as the majority of teens feel as Eamon does, any serious effort to try to stop digital piracy is doomed to fail before it begins.

The end of an era...and a nation

2005-04-30T06:49:00.000-07:00

It has been 30 years not 20 and while there were many Sergeants present, none of them were teaching a band to play. They were busy saving lives. It was called "Operation Frequent Wind" and it began with the words "Gentlemen, start your engines". Thus began the ending of the U.S. involvement in South Viet Nam which concluded on April 30, 1975 with the final evacuation of the American Embassy in Saigon.

The scenes of helicopters spooling in and landing on the embassy roof and then struggling to take off again, weighted down by the load of as many evacuees as they could possibly carry is a memory that those of us who watched it on television will not soon forget.

As of this date, there are 58,245 U.S. military casualties listed on the Viet Nam memorial "wall". How many others died in "secret" missions while working for various intelligence agencies is something we will never know and their deaths will probably never be memorialized. They, like others who wore this nation's uniform, died in the service of our country, so that we might enjoy freedoms that most of our fellow citizens spend far too much time taking for granted. I will not dare to question their sacrifices on this day of remembrance by questioning the necessity of their deaths or the deaths of other U.S. fighting men and women in other protracted struggles in other places. That is a subject for another time and another day. Today is a day to remember the men and women who went to Viet Nam instead of going to Canada or taking graduate school deferments or finding other ways to avoid the then compulsory military draft. Whether or not they believed in the war, they went and they served and they did not all come home afterwards to tell the tale.

One such brave young soldier was Milton Lee Olive III. He was a black child from the South Side of Chicago who grew up in a middle class neighborhood. He decided to join the U.S. Army rather than finish high school and managed to get his father, Milton Olive II to consent. He entered the U.S. Army on 8/17/1964, three months short of his 18th birthday and after completing his initial training, he volunteered for Airborne school. It was the lure of the extra $50.00 per month in pay that drew him to the Airborne Infantry.

By the fall of 1965, Milton Lee Olive was a hardened combat vet known by his platoon mates as "Preacher" because he often read from his well-worn Bible. On 10/22/1965, his company was on a routine patrol when they were subjected to varying degrees of enemy fire. Each time they repulsed the enemy fire and Private First Class Olive was often in the forefront of the counterattacks, often exposing himself to hostile fire without regard for his own safety. Later that day, as they were pursuing their VC attackers, PFC Olive, his Platoon Commander and three other soldiers were moving quietly through the jungle when a VC grenade was thrown into their midst. Knowing the risk, PFC Olive scooped up the grenade, said "I've got it", moved away from the group and fell on the grenade as he pulled it to his midsection, absorbing the deadly blast all himself.

It isn't PFC Olive's incredible bravery that day, which deservedly saw him receive the Medal of Honor, that has me writing about him on this day. His story, is just one of a number of such incredible true stories that can be read about in a great book "Vietnam Medal of Honor Heroes" by Edward F. Murphy, from which the above text regarding PFC Olive has been quoted or paraphrased (thank you, Free Use Doctrine). It isn't the fact that Milton Lee Olive III was the first African American to win the Medal of Honor in Viet Nam either. The reason I write of PFC Olive's story on this date, is a letter that his father, Milton Olive II wrote to President Lyndon Johnson after learning that his son's bravery had been recognized by the award of the medal of honor. The letter read:

"It is our dream and our prayer that some day the Asiatics, the Europeans, the Africans, the Australians, the Latins and the Americans can all live in One World. It is our hope that in our country, the Klansmen, the Negroes, the Hebrews and the Catholics will sit down together for the common purpose of goodwill and dedication, that the moral and creative intelligence of united people will pick up the chalice of wisdom and place it upon the mountaintop of human integrity, that all mankind from all of the earth, shall resolve to study war no more."

Brilliant moving words, from a man whose apparent sole claim to fame is being the father of a war hero. Words that until I read the aforementioned book, I was unaware of. Today, as we pause for a moment to remember the end of the Viet Nam War, maybe we could all resolve to study war no more. I know I'm down with that, if everyone else is.

Los Angeles Dodgers Management has me a bit upset

2005-04-04T14:40:00.000-07:00

Here's a letter I sent to Frank McCourt, owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers recently:

April 3, 2005

Mr. Frank McCourt
Owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers
1000 Elysian Park Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: Attending Dodgers Games and Dodgers Sponsors

Dear Mr. McCourt:

I am a lifelong Dodgers fan and will continue to be one no matter who owns and operates the team. However, after witnessing what you have done to the Dodgers in the off-season following their first post-season victory since 1988, I wanted you to know the following:

1. For the first time since 1962 (with the exception of those years I was out of the country in the U.S. military), I will not attend a single Dodgers game at Dodger Stadium. Not one. I will not consume a single Dodger Dog, I will not spend a single dime on merchandise of any kind that would result in any profit of any kind for you.

2. I intend to actively boycott every single sponsor of Dodger radio and television broadcasts and will be writing to these sponsors to let them know of this boycott. I will include a copy of this letter to those sponsors so that they will understand why I am no longer using their services and/or purchasing their products.

3. Since a single person boycott will have a very limited effect, it is my intention to establish a website of some sort, calling on other loyal Dodgers fans who feel as I do to join in my boycott and hopefully bring about a change in how the Dodgers are being operated, so that the sinking ship currently in residence at Chavez Ravine can be righted before it plummets to the bottom of the Western Division standings.

Why do I feel this way? Because you and your management team have made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe since the season ended. If Adrian Beltre is to be believed (and he has no reason to lie, whereas you and Mr. DePodesta do), the Dodgers made absolutely no effort to retain him. Letting him go is a mistake that borders on the magnitude of selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees in order to raise funds to produce a musical. The perfidy of one of baseball’s finest coaches, Joey Amalfitano wearing a Giant uniform this year turns my stomach just in writing about it. The departure of Mr. Statistic, Ross Porter from the broadcast booth was not only handled wrong, it was just plain wrong. Worst of all, allowing a fool like T.J. Simers to take cheap shots at your spouse by her own failure to return his call for weeks on end takes foolishness to the edge of stupidity.

I could go on, there are other errors I could and should list, but I think the point is driven home with sufficient emphasis. What you need to do to right the ship is simple. You need to hire someone like Derrick Hall to handle your communications, so that when gaffes occur, they can be smoothed over easily. You need to lean over at the dinner table and tell your wife that while you love her very much, you need to hire someone who knows more about baseball to take over operational control of the Dodgers while giving her a position more suited to her natural abilities. I don’t know what they are, but then again, anyone who isn’t smart enough to know you can’t win a pissing contest with a newspaper certainly isn’t ready to be a COO.

Then you need to reach into whatever funds are left in your wallet and take out a full page ad in the L.A. Times sports section and in big bold letters say “I’m Sorry” to the Dodgers fans of L.A. and tell them that you sincerely mean it. That you blew it when you let Beltre and Amalfitano leave, and that you’re going to stop trying to run the Dodgers like a parking lot structure and start running it like a baseball team. You might want to call Peter O’Malley for advice. He knew what he was doing.

In Tiananmen Square, one single, solitary man stopped a column of tanks solely armed with a sense of purpose. I only hope that I, one singly, solitary Dodgers fan, armed with a sense of purpose can stop you from ruining this team.
Sincerely,

Oh the shame of it all

2005-02-08T15:03:00.000-08:00

Congressional Representative Maxine Waters is upset again, this time by the police shooting of a black 13 year old car theft suspect. She has urged the community to "...demand justice and become even more creative in ways to shame the establishment for tolerating this kind of abuse in our city."

Never mind the fact that the investigation is still underway and that it appears that the victim in this shooting was behind the wheel of a stolen vehicle that he was backing towards the officer who fired the fatal shots. Let's set that aside for a moment and deal with the outrage of these community leaders.

Where was their outrage in the case of Burley Lewis Dixon and Gregory Sims Dixon, who were shot in their front yard at 3:30 in the afternoon by an unidentified African-American male? The brothers were shot multiple times and Burley Lewis Dixon, aged 31, died of his wounds. This was less than one month ago and only 3 miles from the location of the shooting that has Ms Waters' knickers in a twist.

Where was and is the outrage over the 50 homicide victims within the city limits of Los Angeles thus far in the year 2005? That's more than one per day. The police trumpet a reduction in overall violent crime stats but the fact remains that thus far in this year, someone in the city has been murdered every 18.72 hours. Is Ms Waters going to shame the establishment into doing something about that? She isn't concerned about black on black crime, or black on white crime or any kind of crime unless it is a criminal act where the police may have violated the rights of the suspect in the crime. Perhaps if she were to direct some of her outrage towards the victims of crime, rather than making political hay out of cases like this most recent police shooting, she might accomplish something positive for a change.

I know, I know, it's asking too much. But can we at least wait until the investigation of this officer involved shooting has concluded before people climb on the political soapbox and demand the officer's head?

NAACP Finds Bond Speech Quite Taxing

2005-02-06T22:43:00.000-08:00

During last year's NAACP convention, Julian Bond gave a speech in which he was quite critcal of President and then candidate George W. Bush Jr. and that speech has come back to haunt the NAACP as it has apparently triggered an IRS audit of the organization. An audit that the NAACP says is politically motivated and that they are not cooperating with.

The problem with the argument of the NAACP is that as a non-profit organization organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, there are certain forms of political actions and behaviors that they simply cannot take part in and Bond's speech appears to have crossed over that line. Why else would the IRS want a copy of the speech and the NAACP refuse to provide it? In fact, there was, repeat, was a link to the speech on the NAACP website, but that link no longer works.

There is a very good and logical reason for non-profits to be prohibited from engaging in political behavior, that reason being that donations to non-profits are tax-deductible to the donors. Quite the opposite from the treatment of donations to political organizations, which cannot be deducted as a contribution in any way, shape or form. To allow contributions to political organizations to be tax deductible would be to provide tax subsidies to political activities and that would be a serious gaffe on a societal level.

There is nothing wrong with Mr. Bond making speeches as a private citizen and making them as political as he pleases. But when he speaks on behalf of a IRS recognized non-profit, he needs to either follow the rules, or suffer the consequences. It would be a terrible shame if the NAACP lost its non-profit status because of Mr. Bond's speech, but it wouldn't be unfair, politically based, or a racist action. It would simply be justice for a violation of the rules. Mr. Bond needs to stop whining about this being a partisan witchhunt, cooperate with the IRS probe and get it over with.

Apparently Burger King Can't Tell Time

2005-02-02T08:43:00.000-08:00

The text below is copied from a letter I mailed today:

February 2, 2005

Mr. Greg Brenneman
CEO
The Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, FL 33126

Re: Customer Service (or lack thereof)

Dear Mr. Brenneman:

Your biography on the Burger King webpage indicates that you are a turnaround expert. I am sure this is true in business and in the corporate world, but my recent experiences indicate that what may be needed in your company is a turnaround in the level of customer service.

There is a BK location on El Segundo Boulevard in Hawthorne California. It is on my way home from my current job which involves working evenings as the manager of an H&R Block tax preparation office. Last week we were there later than usual on Wednesday and I suddenly realized that it was getting close to 11, the time that your location mentioned above is scheduled to close. So I rushed to get there ahead of 11 and arrived at around 10:55. The place was already closed. I called your consumer relations office and was told that if the posted hours of a Burger King location say it is open until 11 then it should be open until then. The woman on the phone apologized and promised to send me some coupons as a way of apologizing.

The next night, the same thing happened. Now I should have known it would take more than 24 hours to deal with this kind of issue, but I was still upset and called your consumer relations office again the next day to express my displeasure at again being forced to go elsewhere to eat when I had arrived in advance of the closing time.

In my life I've worked at both McDonalds and Jack-in-the-Box and at both of those fast food companies, when a store is scheduled to be open until a certain time, it does stay open until then. We may have done some advance closing work, but we served customers who arrived prior to or even at the appointed closing time. Perhaps those companies, like the one I am working for presently understand something that Burger King apparently doesn't. Without our customers, we have no reason to exist.

So, last night, after a very long and trying day I was really in the mood for a Whopper, because it does taste better than any other fast food burger (in my humble opinion) and I got to that aforementioned location even earlier, at 10:52. But once again, the lights were dimmed, the chairs were up on the tables and the drive through board was darkened. When I pulled around to the window, the young lady inside shrugged and said "Sorry, we're closed."

Right then and there, Burger King lost a customer. Not just for a night, but for a lifetime. Oh, there's another Burger King that is open later within a 20 minute drive but I'm not driving 20 more minutes out of my way no matter how much better a Whopper might taste. It isn't worth it. It especially isn't worth it when one has gone to the trouble to point out to a business that it has a problem and the business isn't doing anything to solve that problem.

Now I am sure that losing one customer is no big deal to someone at your level, but it should be. It is indicative of a fatal flaw in your corporate philosophy. Particularly when one analyzes just how much of the fast food business is repeat business. Perhaps someday you'll add to that huge list of Senior Vice Presidents on your executive team page a Senior Vice President of Customer Service and put that person to work educating your employees on just how valuable an asset your customers are. As fierce as the competition is for the fast-food client, I don't think you can afford to just let your lowest level employees continue to achieve their goal of walking out the door earlier at the expense of losing business.

Ray Kroc (I'm sure you know who he was) expected his employees to practice QSC and it seems like the S in that equation has been lost at Burger King. Then again, that's why they are who/what they are and why they are number one.

Sincerely,

Good-bye Johnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

2005-01-23T15:29:00.000-08:00

He is quoted as having said "Married men live longer than single men. But married men are a lot more willing to die." Johnny Carson, king of late night television died today at the age of 79 and I feel like a small part of me died with him.

He was the best when it comes to hosting alate night talk-show and no one before or since has managed to approach his brilliance. He was the master of the monologue, the sultan of the skit, and while Leno and Letterman attempt to carry on in his stead, it just hasn't been the same since Ed McMahon last said those famous words "Here's Johnny."

The characters that Carson and his brilliant staff of writers created never failed to make me laugh, no matter how bad my day had been, no matter how depressing the news was on the newscast that always preceded Carson's Tonight Show. Take Carson's redneck everyman, "Floyd R. Turbo", who once said of nuclear reactors "And what's all this fuss about plutoniium: How can something named after a Disney character be dangerous?" Or that turban-wearing know-it-all Carnac the Magnificent who could spout off the answers to questions hermetically sealed in envelopes held by Ed and then opened by Carnac after giving the answer. An example: Answer - Ovaltine. Question: Describe Oprah Winfrey in high school. Another: Answer: - The Moonies. Question - What religion requires members to drop their pants?. You didn't dare boo Carnac either, or he might come back with something like "May the bluebird of paradise molt in your cornflakes". I won't even go near Art Fern or the Mighty Carson Art Players.

Johnny, you may have reached that fork in the road where we part ways, but know that we will miss you, your humor and your mastery of the microphone. You were unique.

Dreams of the Everyday Blogger

2005-01-19T09:50:00.000-08:00

I was thinking on Monday, as I mailed some things at the post office, all closed up to honor the late Dr. Martin Luther King, that while his dream survives today, it hasn't become reality.

We (here in the U.S.) live in a society that according to newsradio reports on Monday that is divided along a color line. A green line. Money is what separates the races these days, according to these reports. The ability to earn it, the opportunities to invest it, and so on.

Larry Elder, noted radio and television talk show host often disputes that view and as I stood there outside the post office I thought that there is some merit to some of what he has said in the past. There is unlimited opportunity in this country, if you are know where to find it. You can be anything you want to be, within certain limits. So far, the presidency has been limited to white males, but who knows, that may change someday. Same with the vice presidency and at least there's been one nominee for that post from one of the two major political parties who wasn't a white male. Of course, she was part of one of the biggest losing tickets in history.

I have my own dreams, nonsensical as they are. I dream of the day where someone other than a Negro will be the head of the NAACP. After all, with the exception of Caucasians, all other races are supposedly people of color and the organization's acronym does stand for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I dream of the day when NOW will be headed by a man. Can't a man be in favor of equality for women and support an organization that has this goal as its mission? I dream of the day that a Muslim will become chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Strange vision, isn't it? I agree. I don't really dream of those things. What I dream of is a society where we aren't so polarized along so many different lines that we no longer need a NAACP and a NOW and a SCLC and a MALDEF and an American-Arab Anti-Defamation League and I could go on endlessly here, but I hope the point is coming across. We are neither a melting pot or a salad bowl or any other metaphor for a meshed society that you may want to use. We have become a fractured, broken society, divided along so many different lines that it can get downright confusing. I dream of a society, indeed, of a world, where these dividing lines can be done away with, and we can learn to treat everyone, no matter their race or creed, their age or gender, their religion or even lack thereof, with the same respect and dignity that we ourselves want to be treated with. Sadly, I doubt my dream will ever become reality.

Aspiring to Rip-Off the Credit-Challenged

2005-01-12T13:11:00.000-08:00

I've heard of offers too good to be true; however, I just finished reading an offer so bad it's tough to believe it is true, but it is.

Aspire Visa has a credit offer it mails to those who are "credit-challenged" which is a polite way of saying they have some negative data on their credit report and they have recently applied and been refused credit. No problem folks, Aspire Visa is there to meet your credit needs. No security deposit required. You are pre-approved. No application fee. Sounds great, considering that there are many sub-prime credit card offers out there involving security deposits and/or high application fees. At least it sounds great until you read the fine print.

Because buried in the fine print you discover that there is an annual fee of $150.00 for this wonderful credit card and if that isn't bad enough, another $6.50 per month ($78.00 annually) in account maintenance fees to get this credit card and on top of that, an account opening fee of $29.00. Assuming you get a $300 line of credit, you'll pay $257.00 the first year for that credit line and $228.00 per year thereafter.

This isn't just a lender charging high fees in order to lend money to risky borrowers. This is a lender profiteering from the stupidity of anyone silly enough to accept the offer. There are secured cards with lower annual fees out there and if all you're going to get is a $300 line of credit unsecured at a cost of almost $300 in the first year, there's no point in opening the account anyway.

If you are ever among the credit-challenged, or even if you aren't, if you find an offer from Aspire Visa in your mailbox, you better read every word of the fine print before accepting the offer. Otherwise you might be surprised at how much that offer is going to cost you.

A Delay in Enforcing Ethics

2004-11-25T20:19:00.000-08:00

The Republican Party leadership in Congress has me confused. I can't tell if they are bent on committing political suicide or if they just swallowed the entire bottle of stupidity pills now that they have control of both the House and Senate.

There is no other possible explanation for the decision by the Republican leadership to reverse a decade old rule that any member of the House leadership who is under indictment must relinquish his or her leadership position until such time as the indictment is resolved one way or another. Originally designed to embarrass former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski who was indicted for corruption and forced to step down, this rule would have required current House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to step down from that post if an ongoing investigation of him results in an indictment. Seems that DeLay may have violated fund-raising laws and he may be indicted for it. Or maybe not. In any event, his fellow Republicans don't want him to be forced out of his leadership role if he is indicted.

I am beginning to think that these people have lost touch with reality and are thinking that Bush is going to be crowned King, not inaugurated for a second term come January. Changing rules to ignore ethical standards, after making names for themselves back during the Clinton years by pushing those same ethical standards is the epitome of stupidity.

DeLay should do the ethical thing by voluntarily relinquishing his leadership post, temporarily while the questions that are swirling around his fund-raising activities are investigated, and once any alleged improprieties have been investigated and been proven to be just allegations, then he can resume his position with no further tarnishing of his reputation. That is what a wise, ethical man would do. That is not what Tom DeLay will do. Like many Texas politicians, he thinks he is not just above the rules, but as an author of the rules, he is completely and totally exempt from them and they exist only for others and not for himself.

There is an old story told about former President Lyndon B. Johnson that may help to illustrate just how powerful Mr. DeLay thinks of himself as. One of President Johnson's staffers was talking to another, lamenting over the conditions under which they both toiled and the other staffer said "You know, sometimes I wish that LBJ was the Pope." The first staffer looked up and asked "Why in the world would you wish that?" The second staffer smiled wryly and replied "Because then we would only have to kiss his ring."

Facing The Toughest Foe

2004-11-23T06:35:00.000-08:00

When I awoke this morning, I looked the toughest foe I've ever faced in the eye and he almost stared me down.

I was of course staring at myself, in the mirror and that foe was and is me. It was just before five in the morning and I was getting ready for my first day back in the gym. I have had a number of first days back in the gym since recovering from knee surgery last year, but for some reason this one feels different. Maybe because I stared down my foe and actually got out the door and went. Perhaps because I am slowly but surely realizing that this is a battle about making a choice where I have everything to lose and everything to win and no one else is going to influence the outcome but me.

Oh yes, the doctor is involved here and her lectures have had some effect. I did lose 30 lbs over the summer without exercising in order to reduce the stress on my enlarged heart, but that is not enough and I know it. If I want to live the quote long and healthy life unquote that I still can have, then I have to make the right choices and one of them is to do the exercise work that is required.

It was cold outside. My bed was warm. There were good things to watch on television. Any one of a number of excuses would have done the trick. Or even just that old stand-by, postponing the start for just one more day. After all, what is one more day against the rest of your life? The answer is that it could cost you your life if it isn't just one day but an indefinite series of one day postponements. I told you that the foe in the mirror was a tough one and it is.

My goal was to do 30 minutes on the stationary bike and I managed to crank out those minutes and five more for cooldown to boot. Then, after stretching out my now very tired and sore legs, I drank some more water from my water bottle and headed for the door.

Today, I won the battle. The first skirmish. Oh, the day is hardly over and that foe of mine has other skirmishes and battles in mind. He will tempt me with fried foods at lunch and dinner. He will tempt me with sweets throughout the day. He will tempt me to skip the afternoon constitutional that I know will needed if my legs are to be able to make it through tomorrow's ride on the stationary bike on day two in the gym.

For from this point forward every day is a new day of battling that toughest foe. What makes today and the days from this point forward is that I have a better idea of the foe I face and that better idea is going to make it just a little easier to win the battles and skirmishes that will lead to an ulimate victory. The victory won't be when I fit into a pair of jeans I haven't been able to wear for years, or when I can shop for clothes without having to visit the "Big Man" aisle.

Victory will come when I no longer stare into the mirror and see an opponent. It will come when I look into the mirror and just see myself. A self I can be happy with. Until then, I will do battle, and seek victory in each and every skirmish. I will not cry or berate myself when I lose a battle. I will pick myself up and move forward, ever onward.

To those of you fighting the same fight, I wish you strength, courage, and victory!!

What does NBA stand for, really??

2004-11-22T13:20:00.000-08:00

After the "basketbrawl" in Detroit this past Friday evening, perhaps the meaning of the acronym NBA needs changing.

You've heard the jokes. The National Football League, better known as the NFL referred to as the National Felony League, due to the proliferation of criminals among its player ranks. A Los Angeles area sportscaster on radio makes reference to his "Athlete Arrest of the Day" during his afternoon drive-time sportscasts and we all chuckle at hearing which overpaid professional athlete has screwed the pooch this time and gotten himself or herself arrested. But with the actions of Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson going into the stands to chase fans who definitely crossed over a line, professional athletes have sunk to a new low. A low that can be found somewhere beneath the belly of a pregnant slimeworm.

Until last Friday, my joke about NBA was that it stood for National Babymaking Association, referring to the proclivity of a number of NBA players to find time to father children out of wedlock, often to more than one woman. An April 29, 1998 issue of Sports Illustrated took an in-depth look at this problem, pointing out that then New York Knick Larry Johnson was supporting five children by four women, including two he had with his wife. The same article made reference to Shawn Kemp who at that time had fathered seven children although he was not married. Patrick Ewing, Jason Kidd, Juwan Howard, Scottie Pippen, Stephan Marbury, Hakeem Olajuwan, Gary Payton, Larry Bird and Isiah Thomas are all NBA stars, and all were mentioned in that article as having been the subject of paternity lawsuits. Not much has changed with the passage of time. The league's newest star, LeBron James is only 19 years old and he already has fathered one child.

But the plethora of paternity suits will no longer be at the forefront of the media's mind after what happened Friday. Instead we will all wonder what in the world went wrong that sent Ron Artest into the stands to chase after a fan who had doused him with a beverage. Imagine the temerity of that horrible, awful Detroit fan. Ron Artest, star player of the Indiana Pacers had just backed down from a confrontation with Detroit Piston star Ben Wallace and had chosen to lay down on the scorer's table and this fan chose to throw his beverage at Artest.

The real problem here is that the NBA's response isn't going to solve a thing. The league has suspended Artest for 73 games, and others involved for lesser amounts of games. This will probably ruin the Indiana team's chances of reaching the post-season. It will cost Ron Artest some $5 million in salary. Oh, the Players Union will appeal and an arbitrator may reduce the suspensions, but the damage is done to the season of the Pacers.

Worse yet, the overreaction of the NBA reached an even lower point last night. In Detroit security was tightened and a fan who was voicing his displeasure was told by a security guard that doing this was a "no-no." Now I can understand that it was wrong for fans to dump their beverages onto the players. Totally wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that the purchase of a ticket doesn't mean that the fan has abrogated his right to freedom of speech. He or she has every right to shout at the players, criticize the players and even insult the players and David Stern and the rest of the NBA have no basis on which to try to restrict or reduce that right.

When all is said and done, Artest and the others will be back. The fan who was punched will sue and win some kind of cash settlement. But the game of basketball, and the real fans are the losers here, as we watch the game we love sink lower and lower into the sunset of its declining years.

I is for Infernal or Infuriating or what?

2004-11-16T21:52:00.000-08:00

The letters IRS strike fear into the heart of even the mightiest of men and women. I am sure that even Superman himself would tremble while opening an envelope containing a certified letter from the IRS, as I did this past Monday morning.

Now I knew that I owed them money, back taxes from 1997 and 1998. It had been a much larger amount, but my 2002 and 2003 returns had been filed earlier this year, both of which contained substantial refunds that would greatly reduce the balance I owed to the IRS, or the "service" as it is referred to by those in the know. I even had a plan. I would be getting an even larger refund from my 2004 return, which I would file in early February of 2005 (I've been preparing the 2004 return now, while I am out of work) and that refund would more than satisfy the rest of what I owed the IRS, bringing my balance to zero and ending my fear of receiving certified mail from them.

Instead I stood there in the post office, reading that worst of bad possibile pieces of mail from the IRS, notice of a lien. What that means is that the IRS is placing a "hold" on any and all property, including bank accounts that a person owns, and they have the absolute right to seize any and all of that property in order to satisfy the debt owed to them.

But I wasn't worried. I have 12 years of experience preparing tax returns, I've dealt with the IRS before, I'll call them and work it all out. I will set up an arrangement, they will wait until the 2004 return is prepared and processed and everything will be fine.

Unfortunately it didn't happen that way. I got on the phone, and waited on hold for an hour without getting through to anyone. So I hung up and dialed the number again, in spite of the warning that you shouldn't do that, it will prolong your wait. But nineteen minutes later, I was on the line with a revenue agent (known as an assistor, although considering how little assistance she provided, using that label is ridiculous) who told me she'd be happy to help me set up an arrangement, but that the lien couldn't be lifted until the balance was paid in full and that the service might seize my bank accounts at any time, even though I had worked out an arrangement with her. I shook my head and asked how I could go ahead and pay the balance in full, and she told me that I should call the Official Payments Corporation where I could pay my balance by credit card.

One little problem. The nimrod I spoke with either didn't know, or completely forgot that the Official Payments Corporation's contract with the IRS limits them to accepting payments for only the 2003 and 2002 tax years and the balance I owed was from a year before 2002. So I couldn't pay by credit card. Thusly I had to call the Infuriating Revenue Service yet again, spend another 23 minutes on hold before I reached yet another revenue agent who told me to go get a cashier's check from the bank and take it to the nearest IRS office, a 35 minute drive from my apartment in traffic.

The cashier's check cost me nothing, thanks to a sympathetic teller. Parking at the Federal Building where the IRS office I had to go cost me six bucks. But the big cost will come in the near future. I had to use money from my retirement plan rollover to pay this balance. Because of that fact, unless I find some way to replace that money before the rollover period expires in December, I will pay an extra $4,000 in income taxes and penalties in 2004. They were and are holding a large refund that I will get in 2005 and I had to use my retirement plan rollover to pay them now, instead of in February? You bet I'm infuriated.

Who will benefit from this? My clients this coming tax season. Because I will be taking a little extra satisfaction this year in saving them money on income taxes.

Permissible Bigotry

2004-11-16T21:37:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the era of permissible bigotry, where there is still one group that is fair game for bashing from all sides even in this era of ever-increasing political correctness.

That group is of course Born-Again Christians, and they are considered even more of a target after President Bush's reelection earlier this November. The host of "Prairie Home Companion", Garrison Keillor gave a speech the day after the election and he took his shots, some of which he repeated on his weekly broadcast the following Saturday.

"I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where there citizenship is, is in heaven, it's not here among us in America."

He also said, "If born-again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?"

Now while he may have meant these comments with his tongue in cheek, all in good humor, they are completely inappropriate and that inappropriateness is simple to illustrate. Re-read those quotes again, but substitute the words born-again Christians with Hispanics, change heaven to Mexico and Canadians to Mexicans. All of a sudden, those funny little jibes just don't seem so funny, do they?

Keillor's ability to make people laugh is well-known and he need not stoop to this kind of vile garbage slinging in order to elicit chuckles from an audience, either in person or on-air. That he is a very liberal Democrat who is unhappy with the results of the election is obvious. But does it give him the right to take cheap shots like these? Particularly on National Public Radio? I guarantee you that if he had made these same comments directed toward any group other than born-again Christians, there would have been a loud, long protest heard all over this land. For some reason, that protesting doesn't go on when liberals attack conservatives. This is definitely permissible bigotry and it needs to be exposed for its true ugliness.

An Offer I Could Easily Refuse

2004-11-02T20:50:00.000-08:00

So, here it is election night and I was taking a break from the election coverage and early speculation about who was going to win which state by tuning into AMC which is showing "The Godfather", which I consider one of the best movies ever made. Then the phone rang and it was definitely an offer worthy of refusal.

The caller had a very pleasant, perky voice and she was calling to let me know that I was going to be entered into a sweepstakes because I just happen to carry a Visa card. My internal scam alarm went from stand-by to red-alert immediately, but I continued to listen. Then she asked me some survey questions about my interests and hobbies.

When the survey was complete, she told me that I was going to be the lucky recipient of three free magazines "Computer Gaming World", "Playboy" and "Premiere" and all I had to do to get these free monthly magazines for the next 60 months was to pay for the subscription to U.S. News and World Report I was going to also receive as part of the package, and all for the low, low price of only $3.84 a week.

That seemed odd, so I went quickly to the website of U.S. News and World Report to check their subscription rates and found that for $20.00 you can get 53 issues (4 free and 49 paid). Assuming that you can renew for $20 per year over the four years that follow, you can get five years of U.S. News and World Report from their website for $100.00 instead of paying $199.68 a year for five years, or almost ten times the actual cost.

I was almost incredulous that someone had the nerve to make this kind of offer to me and try to make it sound as though this was a great offer that I shouldn't turn down, but not wanting to sound impolite, I said "Thanks, but I think I'll pass." Ms Perky replied "Well, what part of the offer are you uncomfortable with? Tell me and maybe I can help you work through the problem."

When I told her that my problem with the offer was that I refused to pay almost ten times the actual cost of something, just because someone with a cute voice happened to dial my phone number, she thanked me for my time, wished me well in the upcoming sweepstakes and then said "good night".

It was indeed a good night. Good, because I said, "No thanks".

The Problems of the California Ballot

2004-11-02T05:26:00.000-08:00

Voting is difficult enough when your choice at the top of the ballot is between the two worst choices in any presidential race in the history of our nation. It gets much harder if you live in California.

That is because of California's obsession with the legislation via Proposition method of enacting law. Back in 1973, the first Proposition, Prop 1 was an iniatitive to lower state income taxes. Ironically, it failed because of a well-run opposition campaign.

Twenty-five years later, in 1998, the elections held that June included propositions numbering as high as 227 and a decision was made to start re-using the numbers beginning again at 1 in November of that year. That was six years ago today and on the ballot I will fill in later this morning, I must decide on Propositions 59 through 72.

For the mathematically challenged, that means an average of a dozen new ballot propositions each and every year. Petitions must be circulated in order to get these propositions on the ballot, and this is almost always done by paid signature gatherers. That means money and money means special interests. It also means that if you want to be an informed voter in California, you have some reading to do. The official 2004 voter's guide for today's election is 162 pages of small text.

Some of these are easy decisions. Prop 59 is nothing more than an attempt to prevent government agencies from holding meetings in secret when sunshine clauses in laws allow them to do so. That's an easy "Yes decision. So is the Yes on Prop 62 and No on Prop 60, which will attempt to fix the stupid primary election and district drawing systems currently in existence that were created by incumbent politicians to make holding onto their current offices easier.

Other decisions are tougher. One proposition on the ballot is a surtax on millionaires specifically to fund mental health programs. It sounds good on the surface but raiding the treasury for single-issue purposes is bad public policy on a basic level (as proven by a former proposition, Prop 98). A proposition to fund stem cell research has the Gubinator breaking ranks with the conservative members of his own political party.

I will end up spending a couple of hours in total having studied the issues and the various candidates I have to made decisions on (President, Senate, Congress, State House, Judges, Propositions) before I can go to the polling place and make an informed decision. It shouldn't be this way. The attempt to legislate by proposition is nothing more than a clear indication that the State Legislature has failed in its job to represent the needs of the people in passing laws. The special interest groups that can just spend money to get their proposition onto the ballot should have to go to the Legislature to present their ideas, so that the people's elected representatives can do just that, represent us.

What we end up with is a broken system, where the person with the most money is able to enact legislation by proposition, as long as what they want to do isn't too far over the top and they are willing to spend the money to finance the advertising campaign it will take to convince enough of the apathetic voting populace that their idea is sound, and in the best interest of those voters.

California. Best propositions money can buy.

Parking Lot Wars

2004-10-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

If you think it is difficult to park at the mall during the holiday season, try to find a parking place anytime at the West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Medical Center. Now that's difficult.

I am a veteran, proud of my ten years on active duty and as the result of a service-connected disability, entitled to free medical care from the V.A. However, I have not availed myself of that medical care for 14 or 15 years, due to the wonderful health insurance benefits provided by my employer of almost 17 years.

I had no plans to go back to the V.A. for care either, but I recently quit that aforementioned job and next summer my employer will stop paying for my health insurance benefits. So, unless I find another job with benefits in the interim, next July I will once again need that free medical care the V.A. provides me.

That is why I drove over to the West L.A. facility the other morning. I went by to visit the two Veterans service organizations that I am eligible to join, to get information on what steps I need to take to get my V.A. coverage turned back on.

The last time I had been to that facility, parking had not been a problem. Well, times have changed. In the main lot, there were at least seven cars circling around like vultures, waiting for someone to emerge from the big building and get into a car and vacate a space. I was almost afraid to try and join the circling mob, for fear one of the other drivers would take exception to my presence. So instead, I headed for one of the overflow lots.

Of course, there were drivers circling in that lot too, but not as many. Only two and one of those thought he was quite clever, parking at the end of a long row of vehicles in a space that was clearly painted "No Parking". I wonder how clever he thought he was when he eventually returned to his car and found the parking ticket that a V.A. Police Officer left on the windshield about five minutes after the car had been parked there illegally.

I did eventually find a space, in yet another lot on the far side of the building, in the row furthest from the building. As I pulled into the slot, I felt as though I had just won the lottery. I got out, locked the door and went into the building, sure that everything was downhill from there. It wasn't.

I was there to see two different people, in two different offices that fortunately for me are located right next to each other, and are quite easy to find. When I arrived at those offices, both were closed and locked. Both of the doors had notes on them that indicated that the occupants were out and would be back later. One, an hour later, the other, two hours later.

There were comfortable chairs there, and a cafeteria down the hall and I could have just waited, or gone and eaten. For a brief moment, I even pondered the possibility of leaving and returning in an hour, after running a much needed errand. Then I realized that returning in an hour would mean having to try once again to find a vacant parking space and there was no way I was going to deal with that nightmare again anytime soon, let alone again on that day.

So I wrote down the phone numbers of the people I was there to see and decided that I would try to get them on the phone and get my questions answered that way, even though it may take weeks to finally get through.

Then I walked back to my car. Of course, someone circling in the lot saw me emerge from the building and followed me back to my car. In fact, two different cars followed me back to my own vehicle, from two different directions. As I got into my car, the two drivers sat there, glaring at each other. Both were waiting to see which way I would back out, each waiting for the slightest opening to race forward into the newly vacant parking spot and cut the other off in doing so.

Not wanting to witness a parking lot accident, I backed out slowly and deliberately, blocking one of the two cars from moving forward into the now open space. Maybe I was unfair and should have just let the two of them fight it out. But I had seen enough fighting among veterans for one day. So, for that one brief moment, I forced peace into the parking lot wars. Then, mission accomplished, I headed home.

Why No One Remembers Allie Brandt

2004-10-12T16:39:00.000-07:00

We all tend to think of technology as a good thing and it almost always is. But there are exceptions and I believe that bowling is one of them. It is the advancing technology of bowling and bowling equipment that has caused people to forget who Allie Brandt was.

My father started my career in bowling when I was only four years old and I had to roll the ball with both hands and if I was lucky enough to hit the pins twice a game I considered myself fortunate. Of course, this was long before one of the good technological advances of bowling, today's "bumpers" that allow kids of small size and age to bowl without ball after ball going into the gutter. But as my career advanced into junior and ultimately adult competition, I was there as the technology advanced as well.

When I returned from a tour of duty in South Korea in the mid 1980s, I was greeted by the first revolution, the urethane bowling ball. Prior to that, bowling balls were made of rubber or plastic. Urethane, a new age material, was better. It hit the pins harder, grabbed lanes better and made for higher scoring. It was soon followed by something called reactive resin, and then a change in the pattern of oiling the bowling lanes known as "short oil" and nowadays the bowling scores are out of sight.

To verify this one only need take a quick look at the record book maintained by the American Bowling Congress (ABC). The four highest season averages for league competition were all set after the development of reactive resin and short oil, and are averages of 261, 256, 251 and 250. Those are season averages for a game in which a perfect score is 300.

That same record book shows that six men are tied for the record high game series of 900, three consecutive perfect games. All six were accomplished after 1997, long after reactive resin and short oil hit the scene. There are other recorded examples of the 900 series being accomplished, but the ABC refused to sanction those scores. To Mr. Glenn Allison, wherever you may be, you deserved to have your achievement of 900 acknowledged. You were robbed sir, and the ABC should right this wrong.

Another example of the astronomical scoring that technology has created can be found in the record books having taken place on April 1, 2004 at New Castle, Delaware. A team called Limo Exchange with 5 players on it shot 3,934 for three games. Let's do the math. That's 1,311.3333 per team game, divided by five players equals 262.2666 per game per player. Now this may be a team with five really good bowlers on it. Hell, it may have five members of the Professional Bowlers Tour on it. But I submit that without the technological advances like reactive resin and short oil, scores like that just would not happen.

I was a pretty good bowler back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before technology changed the game. My friends and family wonder why I won't bowl anymore. The answer is simple. Technology has ruined the game. It has taken the skill element out of it. Anyone can buy a great ball, learn to take advantage of the easy, high scoring conditions that lane owners are putting out there and learn to average 200. I averaged 200 and over before short oil, before reactive resin and before urethane. I see no point in continuing and scoring higher using this new technology. The challenge and therefore the fun are gone.

As to the legacy of Allie Brandt, back in 1939, he did something amazing. He bowled a three game series of 886, games of 297, 289 and 300, setting a record that would stand for more than 50 years. It was an incredible accomplishment and it is a shame that technology has caused his fine achievement to be overshadowed by these artificial records.

Around two years ago, AMF Bowling Centers went into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. At the time, people were saying that bowling was dying. Now they are out of bankruptcy and have recently sold off their centers in the United Kingdom to focus on their core operations in the United States. Maybe bowling is dying and maybe it isn't. I don't know for sure. All I know is that for me, it isn't what it was and never will be again.

RIP Allie Brandt. RIP Bowling.

Do I Feel A Draft In Here?

2004-10-10T21:11:00.000-07:00

The goal of registering voters, particularly young ones is a worthwhile one but Rock the Vote is using fearmongering to do so.

Next April will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and yet if there is one word that can frighten people, that word is "draft". President Bush and Senator Kerry have both made it clear that they have no plan to reinstitute a draft, if elected. Yet the non-partisan Rock the Vote organization is promoting the idea that the return of the draft is a likely possibility and their campaign is working.

And, for the most part, until this morning, I felt that there was nothing to the notion that a draft would return. Until I read the story of John Doe. That's the name attached to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by a California National Guard soldier who is being forced to remain in the Guard beyond his contracted period of service.

The soldier in question, who is not being identified while his suit proceeds through the legal system, had enlisted in the Guard in a program for veterans where they can join for one year, bypass basic training and immediately begin serving and receiving the benefits of service on a one year trial period. However, before his one year trial period ended, the soldier was called up to active duty for an eighteen month period of training and deployment to Iraq under a program called "Stop-Loss".

Since the end of the draft, the United States military has been an all volunteer force. The question I have, and which will be examined by the courts, has to do with the enlistment contract that John Doe signed. Does that contract contain language that allows the military to force him to remain on active duty beyond the one year trial period? If it does, then John needs to do his 18 month tour and be done with it. If not, then the military needs to live up to the terms of the agreement and release Mr. Doe from service.

I can clearly remember my recruiter rolling his eyes as I sat there reading my own enlistment contract word for word. Those rolling eyes widened as I asked about the section of the enlistment contract that required me to serve for a total of eight years, four years longer than what I had thought I was enlisting for. The recruiter explained that the added years were in the inactive reserve and that the chance that anyone in that group would be called back to serve were remote. Remote back when I served in the all volunteer force, not so remote now.

However, even if the contract that John Doe signed would allow the military to keep him on active duty beyond the one year trial period, there is the moral question of a Commander-in-Chief who left the Guard prior to the end of his own commitment using such contracts to force the men and women he commands to serve longer than they believed themselves committed.

Yo Ho, Yo Ho, Pirates Vie With the FCC

2004-10-10T14:13:00.000-07:00

Free Radio Santa Cruz's transmitter and other equipment was taken by the FCC in a recent raid and the operators of the Pirate Radio station are claiming their free speech rights were taken as well.

Sorry, but the operators of FRSC are wrong. The FCC and the Federal Marshals who seized the FRSC equipment were doing the lawful and correct thing. No one's free speech rights were violated because nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else is the right to seize a radio frequency and use it without first going through the proper legal channels given to anyone.

Skidmark Bob, whose real name is Robert Duran disagrees with that notion. In a story in the Los Angeles Times, Duran is quoted as saying "We decided to take this frequency because we felt the public airways belong to the people." They do. The problem for Mr. Duran is that the representative government of the people has established a process for licensing the use of these public airways and if you want to make use of them, you need to utilize that process. Now that process is time consuming, expensive and not easy. But those factors do not excuse seizing the property of the public for your personal use and then crying "Free Speech Foul" when you are caught violating the law.

Free speech is not absolute, particularly when it comes to the platform for said speech. Never mind the tried but true example about how you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Think about it this way. You can go to the park, mount the stage and give all the speeches you want to. As long as you haven't seized the stage when someone else happens to have a permit to use it, go for it.

Now move the location to the sidewalk outside of a department store. Give the same speech. As long as you don't block traffic, everything is just fine and dandy. But try and step inside the store, step up on the menswear counter and interrupt the shopping to give your speech. You'll be in handcuffs before the rack of ties you knocked over on your way up hits the floor, and rightly so. Your right to speak freely ends where the rights of the owners of that store to conduct their business free from your interference begins. It is exactly the same with the public airways. The regulations that require licensure for usage of the public airways exist to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with a desire to speak and the willingness and technical ability to buy and set up a transmitter.

The station is still available to its listeners, as long as they have access to the internet. They are streaming audio on the net, which is a form of broadcast that is not subject to FCC regulation and so their free speech rights seem remarkably intact. Only their ability to hijack the 101.1 FM frequency has been inhibited.

Their website has audio of the raid and they describe the Federal Marshal in charge as a "Feminzai". Hard to believe that a liberal bastion of broadcasting would borrow a term from the lexicon of Rush Limbaugh, but perhaps they were hard-pressed to come up with a better epithet for the woman who led the attack on their studio. The station's supporters certainly weren't at a loss as to how to respond to the attack when it comes to government property, the tires of five federal vehicles were reportedly slashed while agents were inside the home that housed the equipment. The federal agents complained of a lack of support from local law enforcement, butis that a surprise? The mayor of Santa Cruz, Scott Kennedy called the raid "...a gross distortion of priorities" and a member of Congress, Sam Farr, wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, expressing his regrets at the FCCs actions in the raid.

Well, the FCC has my support. I think it is just great for a group of people, in Santa Cruz, or anywhere, that wants to get together and spread a message is a wonderful thing. But if they want to do it on the public airways, they need to get a license first.

My Kingdom for a Source

2004-10-10T08:41:00.000-07:00

Is the Bush Administration attacking the press by having a federal judge hold New York Times reporter Judith Miller in contempt for failing to reveal a source?

That's the spurious allegation raised in Saturday's Los Angeles Times by Tim Rutten. Let's be fair and quote Mr. Rutten accurately. "When a federal judge Thursday held New York Times reporter Judith Miller in contempt for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity, the Bush administration's war against the press entered a chilling new phase."

The problem with this silly allegation is that it makes no sense. The Bush administration has been under fire since the day that the story that leaked the covert CIA agent's identity was printed. Everyone within shouting distance of the Beltway is convinced that the leaker is a key member of the administration. So, how can the Bush Administration be attacking the press by having the Justice Department pursue an investigation when if the investigation is successful in revealing the identity of the leaker it can only harm President Bush?

Now when it comes to Mr. Rutten's argument that the need for a free press to be able to protect its sources is of more importance than the needs of this investigation to move forward, I am in total agreement. The right of a journalist to be able to offer confidentiality to a source is critical and protected by law in a number of states. Unfortunately, such protection doesn't exist at the federal level.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't attack the Bush administration for leaking the woman's name and then attack them again for pursuing an investigation to punish the leaker.

Stolen Honor or Stolen Access??

2004-10-09T09:05:00.000-07:00

If you happen to live in a television market with a tv station owned by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, sometime later this month you will have an opportunity to view a documentary film titled "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal". Question is, should that film be beamed into your home on the public airwaves in the weeks before an election?

In a story in today's Los Angeles Times, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group stands accused of planning to force its 62 stations, 14 of which are in key swing states, to broadcast this documentary film which is a scathing attack on Senator John Kerry's anti-war activism following the end of his service in Viet Nam. Until this upcoming broadcast, the documentary, produced by Pulitzer and Peabody award winning journalist Carlton Sherwood was only available via internet download or on DVD.

I haven't seen this film. I don't know if this is truly a documentary, unlike the docutainment films of Michael Moore, and so I cannot comment on the factual content of "Stolen Honor". But that isn't important, the issue here is that what Sinclair Broadcasting is doing is a violation of its responsibility as a trustee of the public airwaves. The very television frequencies that it has been issued licenses to broadcast over belong to the people of this nation and not the executives of Sinclair and their politican agenda.

The Times article says that Sinclair claims that they will classify the broadcast as "news" which would relieve them of their responsiblities under the infamous Equal Time Doctrine. In case you've forgotten about that little rule, it's the reason we didn't get to see any of Der Gubinator Scharzenegger's movies on television during the recall election campaign here in California. Not that I minded the pre-empting of yet another airing of "Terminator", but when they put "Hudson Hawk" on in its place, for a moment I almost wished that Der Gubinator wasn't running in the recall. However, I digress.

Sinclair is wronging the public in showing this documentary and classifying it as news. It is attempting to do the same thing that Michael Moore is doing in showing his "Farenheit 9/11" film anywhere and everywhere that someone will allow him to show it. The difference is that Moore isn't showing his film on the public airways. Now it is true that he is attempting to negotiate a pay-per-view cable deal for his movie to be shown just before the November election, but that still isn't the same thing. Cable is not the public airwaves. Plus if people are lemming-like enough to want to put even more money in Moore's pockets, why should I speak out to stop them. Even if he isn't totally factual, he is entertaining.

There is a simple, easy answer to Sinclair Broadcasting's attempt to hijack the public airwaves for their own political purposes. Protest. If you agree that this is wrong, take a moment to sit down and write a letter. Then email it to the link below (that's the email address for the FCC Chairman, Michael Powell).

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_email.html

If you want to complain to Sinclair directly, their President and CEO is named David D. Smith. Contact information for him follows.

Corporate HeadquartersSinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)

If "Stolen Honor" is aired by Sinclair, someone should file a protest against the renewal of Sinclair's licenses for broadcast, every time they come up for renewal. Good thing for them I don't live in a market they serve, or that would be one license down the drain.

Baby You Can Drive My Car, Or My SUV

2004-10-08T15:24:00.000-07:00

Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" becomes "To Own or Not to Own" when it comes to vehicle ownership and Presidential hopeful John Kerry.

I am not going to criticize Senator Kerry for flipfloping political positions, at least not in this particular blog. I can certainly understand the need to change positions on major issues. What I can't understand and would love to have explained for me is the Senator's flipflopping on whether or not he owns an SUV.

This is a story that has been beat to death, but I'll regurgitate the facts here anyway, before making my point. In the Congressional Record, Senator Kerry said "My wife drives an SUV. My stepson drives an SUV. My daughter is currently driving an SUV." 3/12/2002, pS1758. At a Michigan campaign stop in February of this year, the Senator bragged of owning several SUVs. But during an April 2004 conference call to reporters discussing a jobs tour through key swing states, including Michigan, Kerry said "I don't own an SUV". Later on he modified his statement by saying "The family has it, I don't have it."

Never mind his other statement about the importance of buying American made cars which was made about 12 hours before some smart newsie pointed out that his wife drives an expensive foreign purchased Audi. I think a man who wants to sit in the Oval Office should know whether or not he, and/or his family owns a gas guzzling SUV before, not after he goes on the record about the importance of raising fuel economy standards.

Saying you don't own something after you say you own it and justifying your earlier misstatement by saying that your family owns it sounds awfully familiar. It reminded me of a claim by someone that he "...did not have sex with that woman..." a claim that later turned on the fact that he didn't define a particular act as sex. Never mind that 99.444444% of the world disagreed with his interpretation of the act of fellatio not being a sexual act, but we are talking some serious prevaricating here.

Therein lies my point in raising this issue. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other about the two stumblebums who are unfortunately the only two men who have any chance of being elected President on the first Tuesday in October. The point is that Kerry is like the last Democractic President, a serious prevaricator.

Proof of this can be found on his website. In his biography, it says "John Kerry served two tours of duty". A seemingly harmless statement, even though it is buried in the middle of a paragraph that begins by saying "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam, because...". Now when you read that first line about two tours of duty following that first line, it makes it sound like he served two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he didn't. His first tour of duty was on board a ship that never got within 150 miles of combat.

However, the real prevarication here is far worse. In the aforementioned paragraph from Senator Kerry's bio on his website, it claims that he volunteered for service in Vietnam because "it was the right thing to do." The truth of the situation is much, much different. After graduating from Yale, John Kerry petitioned his draft board for a fifth student deferment. His request was to engage in post-graduate studies in Paris, France. His request for a fifth deferment was denied by his draft board. So, he joined the Naval Reserves in order to avoid ground duty, hoping that this would avoid him having to serve at all. In point of fact, his original enlistment in the USNR was in an INACTIVE status. Unfortunately for then Mr. Kerry, his reserve unit was activated.

By the way, in yet another interesting prevarication, the Democratic National Committee has omitted any reference to the fact that both John Kerry and George Bush received four student deferments during their attendance at Yale. President Bush's deferments are mentioned by the DNC in their chart, but Senator Kerry's are not. That is just plain silly.

I strongly suspect that the reason that Senator Kerry refuses to sign Standard Form 180, to allow the release of his entire military record, including his military medical records, is directly related to his prevarications about his military service record. I don't doubt for a moment his accomplishments in combat and his bravery. What I do wonder about are all the unanswered questions. Questions like why did someone who was wounded three different times, seriously enough to receive three Purple Hearts never spend the night in a military hospital in Vietnam? Why does Senator Kerry continue to allow others to attack President George W. Bush's military record when Kerry himself is on the record as saying this should not be an issue?

Wait a minute you say? How in the world can Kerry be on the record saying that Vietnam service should not be an issue? The following are excerpts taken from a speech Senator John Kerry made on the floor of the United States Senate:

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?"

"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country"

The man who spoke those words should not let others attack the service record of George W. Bush in his stead without vehement protest. Unless of course, he was prevaricating even then, in defense of an even greater prevaricator, in the form of Bill Clinton.

For those of you who want to question or attack the military service record of George W. Bush, whether or not you yourself served, bear in mind that your attacks are on behalf of a man who refuses to take a step that the man you're attacking did. He signed SF Form 180. Kerry didn't. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself why not?

A Bad Gamble for Everyone

2004-10-08T13:17:00.000-07:00

Der Gubinator Ahnold has won half of the gambling proposition battle as the backers of Prop 68 will spend no more money on advertising for their proposition.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the backers of Proposition 70, the second of the two really bad idea gambling propositions on the typically overcrowded California ballot. Indian tribes are advancing this idea to lock the State of California into a 99 year long vise grip that prevents the state from trying to negotiate a better deal in order to get a "fair share" of the huge revenues being realized from casino gambling on Indian Lands.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been working hard to get more tax revenue from Indian tribes since he first won the recall election that changed him from actor to politician. It isn't a bad notion either, even though technically the Indian tribes are sovereign nations by Federal Law and not subject to state regulation or taxation. But with the huge amount of revenue being realized by the California Indian tribes from casino gambling, it is in their own best interest to find a way to pay some amount of those revenues to the state in order to remain popular with the citizenry upon whom they depend when it comes time to negotiate pacts with state government.

How big are those revenues? An Associated Press review of court documents shows that at least 1,160 people are fighting to retain membership in some 14 different tribes. The Pechanga Indian tribe recently ousted 11 members from their roles and those 11 have pursued legal action, claiming the tribal council violated tribal law in ousting them. Their claim also points out that each of the 11 stand to lose $120,000 per year that is their individual share of casino revenues.

$120,000 per person?? Holy Eagle Feather Batman, this puts a whole new spin on the concept of impoverished Indian tribes and poor Indians living lives of poverty on the reservation, doesn't it. If those casinos on the Indian lands are generating so much profit that every member of the tribe is earning more than $100,000 as their share, then they are doing quite well indeed and it is no wonder that a budgetarily challenged Governor is looking at Indian Gaming to help balance California's books.

Prop 68 was and is a bad idea and even its backers and supporters now realize it. Poker dealers at California Card Rooms in those cities that permit poker are probably happy about this, as maybe now they can stop getting into trouble for not wearing the "Vote Yes on 68" buttons.

Prop 70 was and is still a bad idea and I urge everyone to go out and vote No.

I received no funds for this blog, although if der Gubinator wants to send me a check, he can email me for my snail-mail address.

Vote Early, And Often!!

2004-10-08T13:14:00.000-07:00

The biggest debate in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Debate series appears to be about who was the winner of each session. After the one debate between Vice-President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards, it appears that someone may have been trying to prematurely influence the outcome.

In yesterday's Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section they printed three letters to the editor on the debate, from Andy Taylor, Peter Blue and Shay Enan. All three, along with several dozen others among the more than 1,500 emails the Times received on the debate made it clear that they felt Edwards had won the debate. Nothing unusual there. But all three, along with the aforementioned several dozen others were all sent to the Times BEFORE the debate actually began.

The Times made it clear that all of the "early" emails favored Edwards. Interesting that none of the Bush/Cheney fans felt it necessary to send in their emails until after they'd actually viewed the debate. Now, if the emails had all originated from Chicago, the origin of the mantra "Vote Early and Often" as witnessed during the presidential election of 1960, one could just easily dismiss it as some political machinery at work. I doubt it is anything as sinister. It was probably nothing more than some fans of the Kerry ticket who had already decided in their minds that their candidate for Vice-President was going to win the debate no matter what happened. So they chose to weigh in with their opinions without actually viewing the debate. Maybe there was a movie on cable they wanted to see and they do not yet have Tivo at their disposal. Maybe they were going out to dine and felt they would not return home in time for their email to the Times to have any influence in deciding who the debate winner would be.

Whatever the reason, they gave their opinion about an event before seeing the event. Kind of like an umpire calling the runner safe at first before either the ball or the runner arrives at the base. A very bad call. Should you offer an opinion about a specific performance in a specific event before the event takes place? I think not.

History offers a great, now mostly forgotten example of why you don't do this. The late Ralph Pearl, author of "Las Vegas is My Beat" was a show business columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He went to the New Frontier Hotel to cover a concert by famed singer Mario Lanza. The beginning of the show was delayed several times and finally, with a promise from management that Lanza would be on stage in fifteen minutes and a hard, fast deadline due before those fifteen minutes would tick off of the clock, Pearl dictated a glowing review of Lanza's performance to his editor for printing in the following morning's edition. Problem was, Lanza was too drunk to go on and didn't show up fifteen minutes later, or ever.

Let's hope, as we wait for President Bush and Senator Kerry to take to the debate podiums again tonight, that those on both sides of the political aisle can wait until after the debate before they start their email campaigns on behalf of their candidates.

Has Rathergate Been Quietly Closed?

2004-10-08T06:36:00.000-07:00

It Looks Like Someone Swung the "Rathergate" Closed While No One Else Was Looking

As a former broadcast journalist who once used the lockout "...for CBS News", I felt a sense of shame when I saw the fiasco now commonly referred to as Rathergate.

But the story isn't the swarm of conservative based websites (www.ratherbiased.com or www.rathergate.com) or the fact that Dan Rather is a liberal who has time and again let his bias show through in his management of the network newscasts at CBS in his role as "Managing Editor". The story here is what happened to the investigation and why all of a sudden, other news outlets have lost interest in covering the story. The question is, why?

The answer may well be found in the support offered for Rather by his colleagues Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings during a recent panel discussion in New York City. Jennings said "I don't think you ever judge a man by one event in his career". Brokaw called the internet discussions of Rather a "kind of demagoguery".

What can we make of this? I think the answer is quite simple. All of these other news organizations who have stopped giving us coverage of Rathergate aren't doing so because they share a liberal bias. They may or may not, but that isn't why they've stopped covering the story. They've stopped because the people in charge are thinking something along the lines of "There but for the grace of God, go I".

The news biz, as it is referred to is just like every other business on this planet, at this point in our evolution, run by humans who by nature are imperfect. Humans make mistakes. What those news outlet managers are failing to realize in refusing to continue to cover Rathergate is that it wasn't just a mistake in running the story. Rather and the producer involved, Mary Mapes were clearly duped by the forged documents and by Bill Burkett, who has his own axe to grind against the Texas Air National Guard. All they had to do was to admit their mistake in rushing to air a story without first having verified their sources and the authenticity of the documents.

But they didn't, and herein lies the real story. Rather's feet of clay are found here, not in the error in judgment in airing the story. Mr. Rather, for all of his claims of impartiality has a bias here and it impacts his decision making. CBS News was the only network that refused to run the story of the disappearance of Chandra Levy, because it involved a Democratic Member of Congress. Their defense at the time was that it was a non-story, too involved in a tawdry mix of sex and politics that was all too reminiscent of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But I have a funny feeling that if the late Ms Levy had been working for a Republican Congressmember, Mr. Rather would not have engaged in a refusal to run said story.

Another example of Mr. Rather's bad decision making and his bias was his attendance in March of 2001 at a Democratic Party Fundraiser in Texas. The event, held in Austin, raised around $20,000 for the Travis Democratic Party and Mr. Rather said afterwards that he was "...responsible and I'm accountable." Of course, CBS News never did tell us publicly how he was held to account for this total mockery of impartiality.

Finally, in looking at Rathergate, one cannot overlook the documentary film "The Wall Within", a CBS News Reports one hour special aired on June 2, 1988. Mr. Rather interviewed several men who claimed to be combat veterans of the Viet Nam conflict who told tales of civilian massacres, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and in one horrific claim, the skinning alive of 50 Vietnamese men women and children in one hour. Great documentary reporting, except that Mr. Rather and the other psuedojournalists working on the project never bothered to take any action at all to verify the claims of their interviewees. They should have, because it turned out that those men they interviewed were lying. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by one B.G. Burkett, author of "Stolen Valor: How the Viet Nam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History" (www.stolenvalor.com if you want to know more) revealed that the men Rather interviewed for "The Wall Within" did not do the things they claimed to have done when they spoke on the record for Mr. Rather.

I make no judgment of Mr. Rather, but offer these facts so that the reader can make up their own mind about whether or not Rathergate is a story that is worthy of continued coverage. I think it is. But I also think it needs to be covered by other media organizations and journalists, not by bloggers and websites with their own biases.

The stupidity of baseball fans

2004-10-07T22:24:00.000-07:00

Will all of you idiots who insist on calling post-game DodgerTalk and being critical of Manager Jim Tracy for the failure of the Dodger offense to produce more runs do us all a favor and just shut up already??????

I was on my way home tonight after watching yet another in the seemingly endless series of post-season playoff losses by my beloved Los Angeles Dodgers and dialed into their radio post-game programming just in time to hear some nimrod criticizing Jim Tracy for playing Alex Cora even though Cora has been struggling a bit at the plate lately. Never mind the FACT that Cora tripled in one of the three Dodger runs in Game 1's losing effort on Tuesday morning.

Tonight's loss had nothing to do with Tracy's managing and everything to do with the Dodger players and their inability to make key plays and good decisions at the critical junctures. Milton Bradley, who is already in trouble for temper issues, and who according to today's Los Angeles Times called Dodger beat writer Jason Reid "...an Uncle Tom" made a bad decision in the second inning. Rather than let a ball drop in front of him for a single, he dove for it when he had no chance to catch it, in a vain attempt to look good in trapping it. The ball got by him and a routine single became a double. Pitcher Jeff Weaver, after throwing away a pickoff throw, later hit a lead-off batter with a pitch. Simply unforgivable. You don't hit the lead-off batter in an inning..., nor should you be walking him.

Steve Finley swung from his heels at a 3-1 pitch, trying to hit another heroic grand slam home run. Wonderful, except that if he'd just driven the ball into play, a clean single would have scored two very big runs and kept the inning alive for Adrian Beltre. Meanwhile, Beltre, who has carried the Dodger club on his 48 home run hitting back all season popped out in a key two man on, two out situation.

All those things had nothing to do with Jim Tracy's managing and that's why the idiots who call in and rant about his shortcomings need to catch a clue and just shut the hell up.