As a reader of this blog, and reading this post, I want to get some idea of what you think about things here. If you look you'll notice the "Google Analytics" on the bottom of all my blogs. You'll also notice four cookies in your cookies file for this blog (utma and utmz). These are Google's tracking cookies. They're harmless (for me, I don't know about Google) and you can simply delete them anytime you want.
But that's not my point here. I look at the statistics every Monday to see the numbers of readers, the length of time spent and what individual posts they, or really you, read. It's mostly curiousity than anything else. I only really use them with my Website to track what the hits and time on individual Web pages to assess if the work is useful and helpful.
And to that end I'd like to hear from you. I notice in some of the blogs, some posts are consistently read. Not just hit and scanned but actually read, meaning the average time on the Web pages is significant. But in the hundreds of hits over the years, no one has commented on the post, good, bad or indifferent. Not even a thank you or a, "Wow, how stupid." comment.
You can always read my rules, my perspective and my notes about my blogs on the posts listed in the right column below my profile. It pretty much frames the blogs for myself and readers. The rules are enforced as some blogs are open with review later and some are moderated first. This was imposed on some blogs to catch spammers who were posting ad-filled comments.
I know this blog along with the others I write are mostly for my own amusement to write what I think. My father never talked about his life to us kids, only with his friends from work. And our family didn't talk about "sensitive" issues. I didn't speak up until my last year before retirement when I knew what I said wasn't going to kill my career. It was long killed by my ouspokenness about work over the years.
I started the blogs to think out loud. Not much else. I usually have my best writing in the morning, so by about 8-9 am, my brain is ready for other stuff. I also keep a significant number of drafts in the blog to work on over time. Some posts, usually obvious, are spontaneous thoughts and some sit for a few days to as much as a year or more. Some are just notes to expand later when the thoughts come together.
But in the end. I can't tell if you, the readers, find it interesting or not, useful or not, helpful or not, or just like reading a cereal box, something to read when eating breakfast, or a snack or meal later. It's why some thoughts are what I call cereal box reading, read and forgotten.
Anyway, I'd like to hear from you, either on specific post (post your comment) or e-mail.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Union Speech
Well, all the political pundits and analyists have spoken and will speak at lengh over the coming days and weeks about President Obama's second State of the Union speech to a joint body of Congress, members of the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court (most of them, some opted out), and other guests along with tens of millions of people watching on television or the Internet or listening on the radio or the Internet.
And everyone has an opinion about the President and his speech, and I'm no different to those who reads this blog or my news and opinion blog. I've gone from being a moderate supporter to being a moderate critic of the President. As a staunch liberal-progressive, with some conservatism on some issues, I'm disappointed he has moved to the center, abandoning his liberal and progressive bases.
That's realistic and pragmatic for the President to get re-elected, and he has given us on the left some political bones, but as he moves to the center to appease Republicans, and more so the Tea Party, and get independent voters he got in 2008, the majority of whom didn't like McCain, the Republicans are moving the center to the right. The center isn't center anymore, it's center right and Obama doesn't seem to recognizes it.
But that said, about the speech overall, I liked it it a lot. It was in part a good warm and fuzzy feel good and also a challenge. But more so he made it clear to Congress he expects a lot of cooperation and a lot of results for America and Americans. Not partisanship. Not the Republican's plan for our budget, government and taxes. And not the Democrats who want more public programs.
He put the onus on Congress to address the needs of America and Americans, namely jobs, global competitiveness, corporate and personal taxes (to broaden the base to include all corporations), and education. It was clear to me the Republican agenda, and more so the Tea Party agenda, by House Republicans wasn't acceptable or will be tolerated. It was clear the same applied to the Republicans in the Senate.
What he offered was bipartianship and cooperation when it helps America and all Americans, not the privileged few wealthy and the corporations the Republicans support (and are owned by). This applies to those Democrats to. This means he wants action in the Senate than the party of no (Republicans) and the party of do nothing out of fear (Democrats, and especially the leadership).
But as they say, the devil is in the detials, but more so, the devil is if anything will change. The Republican response was tepid at best and more of the same rhetoric for a budget and deficit reduction plan which isn't more than a sham for increasing both while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.
President Obama made it clear business as usual, like the last two years, is only going to be met with anger, his, but I would add it will also going to be met with voter anger in the voting booth in 2012. Obama set the stage for all of us to expect results from Congress. We also won't accept the same rhetoric, the same agendas and the same results.
And the details? Well, I'll wander first as has been pointed out in the past and was reiterated in some of the op-eds this morning about the Republicans.
First the Republicans have no plan for reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. That's clear in the math. They have no strategy or plan for investing in America and providing jobs for Americans. They have no plan for providing for the needed things in America, like education, infrastructure, unemployment, and so on down the list.
They have a plan for Medicare and Social Security which is simple, privatize it to the Wall Street. They have no plan for Medicaid except moving it back to the states who can't afford it. They have no plan for growing America into the future and in the global economy. They have no plan for anything beyond tax cuts and eliminating government.
Ok, I'm biased, obviously, but just read their interviews and their speeches and look at their record in Congress. Have they done anything in the last two years? Have they done anything in this Congress outside of repealling healthcare we all now like very much? Have they offered anything other than the old agenda and rhetoric rehashed?
And that's what Obama went after in his speech. Let's not forget a very important point. It was President Bush who for eight years never balanced the budget when Clinton handed him a surplus. It was Bush who increased the deficit more than any president in history. It was Bush who pushed through tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations adding $1 Trillion to the deficit.
It was Bush who put two wars on the government's credit card (deficit) for over $1 Trillion. It was Bush who gutted government agency to corporate agenda putting corporate friends in power in the agencies, which precipitated the BP oil blowout. It was Bush and Cheney who used the White House for a political campaigns (Hatch Act violations). It was Bush who oversaw the financial market bubble and bust, and passed the first TARP bill for $700 Billion.
When folks talk about the "last ten years" they focus on what Obama inherited without reminding where that came from, a Republican President and most of those years a Republican Congress. They are the very people they argue caused the problems but the Republican conveniently deny it was them. They have all that blood on their hands and it doesn't wash off.
And Obama reminded them of that. But rather than harp on it, he said it's time to move forward. So let's do that. And now the onus is on Congress to follow what Americans already now and the President told you. It's about America and Americans, not politics as usual. And you can bet if you don't we'll remind you if the President doesn't.
And everyone has an opinion about the President and his speech, and I'm no different to those who reads this blog or my news and opinion blog. I've gone from being a moderate supporter to being a moderate critic of the President. As a staunch liberal-progressive, with some conservatism on some issues, I'm disappointed he has moved to the center, abandoning his liberal and progressive bases.
That's realistic and pragmatic for the President to get re-elected, and he has given us on the left some political bones, but as he moves to the center to appease Republicans, and more so the Tea Party, and get independent voters he got in 2008, the majority of whom didn't like McCain, the Republicans are moving the center to the right. The center isn't center anymore, it's center right and Obama doesn't seem to recognizes it.
But that said, about the speech overall, I liked it it a lot. It was in part a good warm and fuzzy feel good and also a challenge. But more so he made it clear to Congress he expects a lot of cooperation and a lot of results for America and Americans. Not partisanship. Not the Republican's plan for our budget, government and taxes. And not the Democrats who want more public programs.
He put the onus on Congress to address the needs of America and Americans, namely jobs, global competitiveness, corporate and personal taxes (to broaden the base to include all corporations), and education. It was clear to me the Republican agenda, and more so the Tea Party agenda, by House Republicans wasn't acceptable or will be tolerated. It was clear the same applied to the Republicans in the Senate.
What he offered was bipartianship and cooperation when it helps America and all Americans, not the privileged few wealthy and the corporations the Republicans support (and are owned by). This applies to those Democrats to. This means he wants action in the Senate than the party of no (Republicans) and the party of do nothing out of fear (Democrats, and especially the leadership).
But as they say, the devil is in the detials, but more so, the devil is if anything will change. The Republican response was tepid at best and more of the same rhetoric for a budget and deficit reduction plan which isn't more than a sham for increasing both while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.
President Obama made it clear business as usual, like the last two years, is only going to be met with anger, his, but I would add it will also going to be met with voter anger in the voting booth in 2012. Obama set the stage for all of us to expect results from Congress. We also won't accept the same rhetoric, the same agendas and the same results.
And the details? Well, I'll wander first as has been pointed out in the past and was reiterated in some of the op-eds this morning about the Republicans.
First the Republicans have no plan for reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. That's clear in the math. They have no strategy or plan for investing in America and providing jobs for Americans. They have no plan for providing for the needed things in America, like education, infrastructure, unemployment, and so on down the list.
They have a plan for Medicare and Social Security which is simple, privatize it to the Wall Street. They have no plan for Medicaid except moving it back to the states who can't afford it. They have no plan for growing America into the future and in the global economy. They have no plan for anything beyond tax cuts and eliminating government.
Ok, I'm biased, obviously, but just read their interviews and their speeches and look at their record in Congress. Have they done anything in the last two years? Have they done anything in this Congress outside of repealling healthcare we all now like very much? Have they offered anything other than the old agenda and rhetoric rehashed?
And that's what Obama went after in his speech. Let's not forget a very important point. It was President Bush who for eight years never balanced the budget when Clinton handed him a surplus. It was Bush who increased the deficit more than any president in history. It was Bush who pushed through tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations adding $1 Trillion to the deficit.
It was Bush who put two wars on the government's credit card (deficit) for over $1 Trillion. It was Bush who gutted government agency to corporate agenda putting corporate friends in power in the agencies, which precipitated the BP oil blowout. It was Bush and Cheney who used the White House for a political campaigns (Hatch Act violations). It was Bush who oversaw the financial market bubble and bust, and passed the first TARP bill for $700 Billion.
When folks talk about the "last ten years" they focus on what Obama inherited without reminding where that came from, a Republican President and most of those years a Republican Congress. They are the very people they argue caused the problems but the Republican conveniently deny it was them. They have all that blood on their hands and it doesn't wash off.
And Obama reminded them of that. But rather than harp on it, he said it's time to move forward. So let's do that. And now the onus is on Congress to follow what Americans already now and the President told you. It's about America and Americans, not politics as usual. And you can bet if you don't we'll remind you if the President doesn't.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thank You Mr. Olbermann
What can I say. I watch your show as often as I can, followed by Racheal Maddow and Laurence O'Donnell, but always starting with you. You speak the truth and reality we all need and want in the world today. I am so sorry the decision has been made that you are leaving on such short notice. You will be missed and no one can replace you.
We need your voice. We need your words. We need your insight. And more importantly We need your wisdom and humor. It's not found elsewhere in the media and especially on television. There's not much more I can say except the obvious. I wish you and your family well and I wish you Godspeed.
It's About People
For the last few years our nation has been facing a financial crisis and it's now where the choices are about people. We're at the point we can't cut budgets, local, state or federal, anymore without cutting deeper into social, educational, medical and other public programs which help the people of this country. All the while we're continuing to increase the budgets for the military, intelligence services and our national security.
This, as some have apply pointed out, can't continue. The Republicans are voicing more cuts to the discretionary federal spending in face of the fact it's less than 15% of the total annual federal budget and expenditures. The rest are the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), interest on the longterm debt, and the military, intelligence and national security programs.
We're at the reality that we have to determine who we are as a nation and a people, the whole of both of those together. What does it mean to live in America and be an American. It's that simple now. We can continue down the road of increased war, military, intelligence and national security spending at the expense of other programs or we can decide to change, to help Americans and help America.
We don't have to throw the other spending on the budget scrape heap. We're in two wars and we have international military obligations with perceived military threats from global terrorism and other nations. We can't change that much now, but we can slowly and incrementally change the direction along with the money. We have to ask the people with those programs to sacrifice for us as we have sacrificed for them.
We're in this together. And like it or not, there are no choices of doing both anymore, or at least for a few more years when we can get out of this recession and moving in a better direction where the social, educations, environmental, medical and other prgrams aren't robbed to pay for unwinnable wars, overzealous security and needless intelligence. But that's down the road.
For now, it's time Congress and the President decided to cut all discretionary spending, especially the Department of Defense and the Homeland Security Administration. They need to do more with less, a lot less. There is more savings there than the rest of the discretionary spending. It's time they stepped up and acted responsibly for America and Americans.
Otherwise, what's the alternative? Keep robbing the social and other programs which help Americans for more DOD and HSA spending? For what? How does those agencies help Americans here at home with their lives? They don't. They don't help Americans pay their bills, stay in their homes, keep their jobs, pay for health insurance and healthcare, pay the education for their children, and so on.
That's the choice we face now. Between a better America for Americans or a worse one at the expense of the military-corporate industry. Eisenhower was right and would be angry today at the extent of the budget for the industry at the expense of people, ordinary Americans who need the help far more than our global military and political efforts. Over one trillion dollars of our national debt is for two unwinnable wars.
We'll exit Iraq with nothing achieved except the ouster of Saddham Hussein. Nothing else. The Iraqis will determine their own fate now and we didn't help by allowing Al Qaeda to get a foothold there and allowing the Sunni-Shia civil war. None of our real goals, as promised by President Bush, were met or will be met under President Obama.
We'll leave as we left Vietnam, quietly and with no winner, only losing for the damage in human lives and a country in ruins. And we'll do the same in Afghanistan. We knew it a few years ago, we know it now, and we'll know it in a few years. Nothing will be significantly different then as now and was. There won't be a winner, certainly not us, and eveyone will lose from the damage in human lives.
And that's the choice we have to make. A lesson we haven't learned. To stay out of wars which have nothing to offer beyond an endless hole to pour money and lives, American money and lives, our money and lives. For nothing for us here. That's the choice we have before us now. It's about here or there. And we can't keep paying for there with money for here.
This, as some have apply pointed out, can't continue. The Republicans are voicing more cuts to the discretionary federal spending in face of the fact it's less than 15% of the total annual federal budget and expenditures. The rest are the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), interest on the longterm debt, and the military, intelligence and national security programs.
We're at the reality that we have to determine who we are as a nation and a people, the whole of both of those together. What does it mean to live in America and be an American. It's that simple now. We can continue down the road of increased war, military, intelligence and national security spending at the expense of other programs or we can decide to change, to help Americans and help America.
We don't have to throw the other spending on the budget scrape heap. We're in two wars and we have international military obligations with perceived military threats from global terrorism and other nations. We can't change that much now, but we can slowly and incrementally change the direction along with the money. We have to ask the people with those programs to sacrifice for us as we have sacrificed for them.
We're in this together. And like it or not, there are no choices of doing both anymore, or at least for a few more years when we can get out of this recession and moving in a better direction where the social, educations, environmental, medical and other prgrams aren't robbed to pay for unwinnable wars, overzealous security and needless intelligence. But that's down the road.
For now, it's time Congress and the President decided to cut all discretionary spending, especially the Department of Defense and the Homeland Security Administration. They need to do more with less, a lot less. There is more savings there than the rest of the discretionary spending. It's time they stepped up and acted responsibly for America and Americans.
Otherwise, what's the alternative? Keep robbing the social and other programs which help Americans for more DOD and HSA spending? For what? How does those agencies help Americans here at home with their lives? They don't. They don't help Americans pay their bills, stay in their homes, keep their jobs, pay for health insurance and healthcare, pay the education for their children, and so on.
That's the choice we face now. Between a better America for Americans or a worse one at the expense of the military-corporate industry. Eisenhower was right and would be angry today at the extent of the budget for the industry at the expense of people, ordinary Americans who need the help far more than our global military and political efforts. Over one trillion dollars of our national debt is for two unwinnable wars.
We'll exit Iraq with nothing achieved except the ouster of Saddham Hussein. Nothing else. The Iraqis will determine their own fate now and we didn't help by allowing Al Qaeda to get a foothold there and allowing the Sunni-Shia civil war. None of our real goals, as promised by President Bush, were met or will be met under President Obama.
We'll leave as we left Vietnam, quietly and with no winner, only losing for the damage in human lives and a country in ruins. And we'll do the same in Afghanistan. We knew it a few years ago, we know it now, and we'll know it in a few years. Nothing will be significantly different then as now and was. There won't be a winner, certainly not us, and eveyone will lose from the damage in human lives.
And that's the choice we have to make. A lesson we haven't learned. To stay out of wars which have nothing to offer beyond an endless hole to pour money and lives, American money and lives, our money and lives. For nothing for us here. That's the choice we have before us now. It's about here or there. And we can't keep paying for there with money for here.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
When Bookstores Suck
I love bookstores. Always have and until lately always thought I would. But of late I'm beginning to believe almost all of them suck. And suck royally. We have a Borders in our small town (~50,000 in the surrounding area) and another about 10 miles away in Tacoma. Not bad, or wasn't bad. But with the book buying public habits and the recession, they've changed.
The local one has reduced in stock books about 10%, maybe more. They're almost out of CD's anymore as I understand Borders is getting out of the music side of the business, only selling top selling or popular CD's and slowly depleting the inventory of other CD's. But with books they're also reducing the numbers, cutting the size of sections, like photography, computers, etc. and keeping popular ones, mysteries, self-help, fitness, etc.
In short, they're trying to survive in a market where e-books are the trend and they can be downloaded from the company's or other Websites. The local store hasn't caught on to this because they only offer one small space for e-readers and little help to those who want to get them or download books. They're missing an opportunity to add customers with service.
Anyway, my complaint is that I like to shop for books. I always walk in with a list of ones I want to see, maybe sit down and puruse some, and probably buy one. I would in the past have either bought them without reading or buy 2-3 after reading. Now, on an annuity, I buy one. But I can't buy that one if it's not there.
I don't buy books anymore without looking at them (scanning it) or reading parts of them to see if it's worthwhile. I can't do that if it's not there. And the on-line inventory these days sucks. Borders' on-line inventory is rarely accurate, and only for popular books. Barnes and Noble's isn't, meaning they don't offer a way to see if the local one (about 20 miles away) even has it.
This is what I don't understand. The technology is there to provide near-realtime on-line inventory. Most national chain businesses have done this for years if not a decade or more. Hell, even the big department stores have been doing this where you can find any merchandise anywhere in their chain of stores. And they can get the latest inventory to replenish or add items sold the day before.
But apparently not Borders or Barnes and Noble, at least not for customers. They clearly have it for the managers to order. If you want to see a book that isn't there, you have to order it, but when you order it, you have to buy it. That's my bitch with this. I only want to see if I want to buy it, I'll buy it if it's worthwhile. I don't want to order and buy a book I won't use or don't want.
And that's what's sucks. Both do this as do most small bookstores. When you pay $30-50 for a book, you certainly want to know if your buying a book you need or want. But anymore you can't do that. You have to buy it. That's it. Nothing else. The odds are good I'll buy it, but only after holding it, scanning it and reading parts to know it's one I want.
I know I could easily order the book on-line from almost any seller and even the publisher as almost all of them offer on-line sales. But what happened to bookstores having the book for you to hold, see and read? I like going to the local Borders, partly because they have a good cafe, but over this last year or two, I don't go as much because they it's not a place to wander and shop for books anymore.
That's because they don't add new books beyond the popular titles. They're slowly reducing their inventory and becoming an order first, buy second and then puruse the book. You want to hold it, you buy it. That's their new policy. And that sucks.
The local one has reduced in stock books about 10%, maybe more. They're almost out of CD's anymore as I understand Borders is getting out of the music side of the business, only selling top selling or popular CD's and slowly depleting the inventory of other CD's. But with books they're also reducing the numbers, cutting the size of sections, like photography, computers, etc. and keeping popular ones, mysteries, self-help, fitness, etc.
In short, they're trying to survive in a market where e-books are the trend and they can be downloaded from the company's or other Websites. The local store hasn't caught on to this because they only offer one small space for e-readers and little help to those who want to get them or download books. They're missing an opportunity to add customers with service.
Anyway, my complaint is that I like to shop for books. I always walk in with a list of ones I want to see, maybe sit down and puruse some, and probably buy one. I would in the past have either bought them without reading or buy 2-3 after reading. Now, on an annuity, I buy one. But I can't buy that one if it's not there.
I don't buy books anymore without looking at them (scanning it) or reading parts of them to see if it's worthwhile. I can't do that if it's not there. And the on-line inventory these days sucks. Borders' on-line inventory is rarely accurate, and only for popular books. Barnes and Noble's isn't, meaning they don't offer a way to see if the local one (about 20 miles away) even has it.
This is what I don't understand. The technology is there to provide near-realtime on-line inventory. Most national chain businesses have done this for years if not a decade or more. Hell, even the big department stores have been doing this where you can find any merchandise anywhere in their chain of stores. And they can get the latest inventory to replenish or add items sold the day before.
But apparently not Borders or Barnes and Noble, at least not for customers. They clearly have it for the managers to order. If you want to see a book that isn't there, you have to order it, but when you order it, you have to buy it. That's my bitch with this. I only want to see if I want to buy it, I'll buy it if it's worthwhile. I don't want to order and buy a book I won't use or don't want.
And that's what's sucks. Both do this as do most small bookstores. When you pay $30-50 for a book, you certainly want to know if your buying a book you need or want. But anymore you can't do that. You have to buy it. That's it. Nothing else. The odds are good I'll buy it, but only after holding it, scanning it and reading parts to know it's one I want.
I know I could easily order the book on-line from almost any seller and even the publisher as almost all of them offer on-line sales. But what happened to bookstores having the book for you to hold, see and read? I like going to the local Borders, partly because they have a good cafe, but over this last year or two, I don't go as much because they it's not a place to wander and shop for books anymore.
That's because they don't add new books beyond the popular titles. They're slowly reducing their inventory and becoming an order first, buy second and then puruse the book. You want to hold it, you buy it. That's their new policy. And that sucks.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Honest Talk about Guns
In the wake of the shooting in Tuscon which left 6 people, including one 9-year old girl, dead and another 12 in serious to critical condition, can we now have an honest discussion about guns? Not calling it a senseless act (it made sense to him) or the act of a deranged, angry young man. We can't keep dismissing violence with guns like that and it's time we face the reality about guns.
This young man had legal access to guns and more than enough rounds to express his anger. We can't keep saying it's those who are the problem. It's that guns are so easy to get and so easy to use. The violence along the US-Mexican border more than proves this, when almost all the guns and other weapons the Mexican drug cartel have and use come from us, the US. That's more than documented and proven.
And we know the ATF is hamstrung by Congress not to do their job as they easy could had the legal right and funds. That's the fault of Congress bowing to the NRA which threatens the lives of all of us, as we saw in Tuscon where innocent people were gunned down on a quiet Saturday morning. They deserve the right to prevent undesrving people, and not just from violent people but from anyone getting and using guns, because they can.
And we know the rhetoric of the 2010 election campaigns only incited violence with guns, such as when Sharron Angle said, "...maybe people should exercise Second Amendment rememdies", against people who they disagree with. Not words, but violence and more so violence with guns.
It's time to bring the issue of guns into the 21st century for the people and the nation, and not sit on the Second Amendment as an absolute answer to it. We need reason, and we need realistic answers and laws. We don't need mor rhetoric we commonly here from the NRA and most members of Congress. We don't need intransigience.
We need to consider the larger view that regulating guns is good for the safety and security of all of us. It's not an individual right anymore. We've seen how far that will go too often. It's about the rights of all to live in a free society without the fear of someone openly carrying a gun has a different agenda and goals.
We can do this by ensuring guns are registered with local law enforcement and that information is corrdinated through the ATF. We can do this by freeing the ATF to get the newest information and technology tools to monitor guns manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers and individuals. We can do this be properly enforced background checks.
We can do this by allowing state and local governments to enact laws controlling the public display of guns. We're not living in the wild west anymore and any citizen openly carrying a gun is unnecessary in the daily lives of citizens. We can do this by allowing state and local governments controlling and registering the sale of guns and ammunition. The police need this information to know who has or is getting guns.
We can do this by ensuring everyone has the right to own a reasonable number of guns to protect their home and property from criminals. We can do this by ensuring gun collectors store their guns in a safe and secure manner to prevent anyone, especially children, from easily accessing them. We can do this, as we do know, by allowing people to carry concealed guns for their own protection or in their line of work with a permit.
We need to hold gun sellers accountable for all their sales to both local law enforcement and federal agencies. We need to ensure gun sellers are properly licensed and operating legally. We need to routinely review their sales and operation to ensure they're not selling guns illegally. And we need to shut down those who do sell guns illegally.
Those are good, fair and right answers to the sheer numbers of guns being produced and sold in this country. Those are good common sense answers to ensuring all Americans live safely in this country and not fear being in public because someone has and will use a gun to vent their anger or rage. We've seen what that does this last weekend in Tuscon.
A nine-year old girl died senselessly and needlessly not just because one angry young man expressed his Second Amendment rights, but because our society allowed it to happen. We fostered his anger and rage. We allowed him to get a gun. And we allowed him to carry it to the event and use it.
The answer to this event is not having people there with more guns, but ensuring this young man didn't get one in the first place, and if he did, then ensure we act to remove them and act to ensure he faces consequences should have try to buy one or actually gets one illegally.
We can protect the rights of individual to own and use guns properly and safely and we can protect the rest of us when those people decide a different course of action to their problems and their hate and rage against others. It's time the NRA and gun-rights folks acknowledge responsibility, with the rest of us, for this tragic event. Just saying no anymore isn't helpful or useful.
We as a society allowed this to happen. It's time we as a society grew up, stood up and took action to ensure we're all protected in public without sacrificing our rights in private. That's fair and reasonable, and life-saving.
This young man had legal access to guns and more than enough rounds to express his anger. We can't keep saying it's those who are the problem. It's that guns are so easy to get and so easy to use. The violence along the US-Mexican border more than proves this, when almost all the guns and other weapons the Mexican drug cartel have and use come from us, the US. That's more than documented and proven.
And we know the ATF is hamstrung by Congress not to do their job as they easy could had the legal right and funds. That's the fault of Congress bowing to the NRA which threatens the lives of all of us, as we saw in Tuscon where innocent people were gunned down on a quiet Saturday morning. They deserve the right to prevent undesrving people, and not just from violent people but from anyone getting and using guns, because they can.
And we know the rhetoric of the 2010 election campaigns only incited violence with guns, such as when Sharron Angle said, "...maybe people should exercise Second Amendment rememdies", against people who they disagree with. Not words, but violence and more so violence with guns.
It's time to bring the issue of guns into the 21st century for the people and the nation, and not sit on the Second Amendment as an absolute answer to it. We need reason, and we need realistic answers and laws. We don't need mor rhetoric we commonly here from the NRA and most members of Congress. We don't need intransigience.
We need to consider the larger view that regulating guns is good for the safety and security of all of us. It's not an individual right anymore. We've seen how far that will go too often. It's about the rights of all to live in a free society without the fear of someone openly carrying a gun has a different agenda and goals.
We can do this by ensuring guns are registered with local law enforcement and that information is corrdinated through the ATF. We can do this by freeing the ATF to get the newest information and technology tools to monitor guns manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers and individuals. We can do this be properly enforced background checks.
We can do this by allowing state and local governments to enact laws controlling the public display of guns. We're not living in the wild west anymore and any citizen openly carrying a gun is unnecessary in the daily lives of citizens. We can do this by allowing state and local governments controlling and registering the sale of guns and ammunition. The police need this information to know who has or is getting guns.
We can do this by ensuring everyone has the right to own a reasonable number of guns to protect their home and property from criminals. We can do this by ensuring gun collectors store their guns in a safe and secure manner to prevent anyone, especially children, from easily accessing them. We can do this, as we do know, by allowing people to carry concealed guns for their own protection or in their line of work with a permit.
We need to hold gun sellers accountable for all their sales to both local law enforcement and federal agencies. We need to ensure gun sellers are properly licensed and operating legally. We need to routinely review their sales and operation to ensure they're not selling guns illegally. And we need to shut down those who do sell guns illegally.
Those are good, fair and right answers to the sheer numbers of guns being produced and sold in this country. Those are good common sense answers to ensuring all Americans live safely in this country and not fear being in public because someone has and will use a gun to vent their anger or rage. We've seen what that does this last weekend in Tuscon.
A nine-year old girl died senselessly and needlessly not just because one angry young man expressed his Second Amendment rights, but because our society allowed it to happen. We fostered his anger and rage. We allowed him to get a gun. And we allowed him to carry it to the event and use it.
The answer to this event is not having people there with more guns, but ensuring this young man didn't get one in the first place, and if he did, then ensure we act to remove them and act to ensure he faces consequences should have try to buy one or actually gets one illegally.
We can protect the rights of individual to own and use guns properly and safely and we can protect the rest of us when those people decide a different course of action to their problems and their hate and rage against others. It's time the NRA and gun-rights folks acknowledge responsibility, with the rest of us, for this tragic event. Just saying no anymore isn't helpful or useful.
We as a society allowed this to happen. It's time we as a society grew up, stood up and took action to ensure we're all protected in public without sacrificing our rights in private. That's fair and reasonable, and life-saving.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Apple's App Store
Update III.--Ok, more walking through and reading some blogs and Websites. I'm beginning to dislike and like the App Store, but more dislike. I hate that some vendors are selling their applications exclusively through the App Store, which means all your free updates they offered when you bought the app from them will now cost you the price of the app again.
Update II.--Ok, walking through it, some notes. First, the catagories are different and confusing, less specific as the old Websites and harder to find good ones (tool showy). Second, the automated update tool doesn't work if you already have the app and an update is available from the vendor. You have to buy it through the App Store app. That sucks for many who have the apps.
Update.--Ok, after updating OS-X to 10.6.6 and Apple App Store app icon appeared on my desktop and I found all the apps available. And ok, it's better than the worst I thought, because it's not a Website but a separate app. It's an iTunes-like app. It still sucks because it's a lot of show and takes more time to browse and find things. But I'm open to being wrong.
Orginal Post.--I own a new Mac Pro, bought after having a Power PC G5 for almost 5 years. I like Mac's and my 3 month old iPad. After using a PC with various flavors of Microsoft's Window system for that last 3 year of my government work I retired and decided I would never use a MS-based PC or a MS software package or application ever again. And I haven't and never missed it.
Before I used a PC at work I used main frame and Unix workstation systems for almost two decades I found MS the most onerous, dumbed-down, user-unfriendly system anyone could create for a personal or work computer, and ended up making it emulate a workstation since 90+% of my work was with a Unix system. I simply made the PC be a Unix-clone as much as possible and only used the PC parts when outside forces required.
But after almost five years with Mac's, and still liking them, I have to say Apple has done a worse thing than Microsoft. Really? Yes, really. But then probably not since Microsoft would screw this up too. And that's Apple App Store. First the iPad Website and iTunes interface really sucks for efficiency and user-friendliness. Great to look at, but don't expect to actually find anything easily.
Apple made the App Store look neat but forgot useability. For Mac's they had the download Website which I really liked and used frequently. It was relatively easy to use, to find updates and the occasional surprise. But they dropped it in early December for the new App Store which opened today, except there's nothing there except a few apps. What's the story?
All those apps from the old Websites couldn't be transferred for some content? Reading the backstory, not. It seems Apple also changed the rules for application developers which eliminated the use of undocumented Application Programming Interfaces (API's). That pretty much busted most of them until they can be converted to comply with Apple's new third-party applications rules, if the company has the resources and interest.
And that sucks too. So, Apple has two strikes. One, the presentation and useability sucks. And two, far fewer good apps and too many lost to dumb rules. Did users complain about these API's? No. Did developers complain? No. So, it's an Apple unilateral decision to rob users of good applications. Like we don't already have the previous version and we can't go elsewhere to find apps? Care for a third strike, less customers and more complaints?
What don't you understand you screwed the customer? Not smart. And clearly made going there less inviting or necesary. I liked visiting the old Website and I hate the new ones, the iPad/iPhone one and now the Mac one. The opening day I saw all of 15 apps for Mac's. Gee, comparted to hundreds on the old, non-defunct, Website? That's an improvement for the customer?
I will keep checking back, albeit reluctantly, but so far both app stores are disappointments, especially from Apple. All show and not much else, especially from a company known for good, user-friendly computers.
Update II.--Ok, walking through it, some notes. First, the catagories are different and confusing, less specific as the old Websites and harder to find good ones (tool showy). Second, the automated update tool doesn't work if you already have the app and an update is available from the vendor. You have to buy it through the App Store app. That sucks for many who have the apps.
Update.--Ok, after updating OS-X to 10.6.6 and Apple App Store app icon appeared on my desktop and I found all the apps available. And ok, it's better than the worst I thought, because it's not a Website but a separate app. It's an iTunes-like app. It still sucks because it's a lot of show and takes more time to browse and find things. But I'm open to being wrong.
Orginal Post.--I own a new Mac Pro, bought after having a Power PC G5 for almost 5 years. I like Mac's and my 3 month old iPad. After using a PC with various flavors of Microsoft's Window system for that last 3 year of my government work I retired and decided I would never use a MS-based PC or a MS software package or application ever again. And I haven't and never missed it.
Before I used a PC at work I used main frame and Unix workstation systems for almost two decades I found MS the most onerous, dumbed-down, user-unfriendly system anyone could create for a personal or work computer, and ended up making it emulate a workstation since 90+% of my work was with a Unix system. I simply made the PC be a Unix-clone as much as possible and only used the PC parts when outside forces required.
But after almost five years with Mac's, and still liking them, I have to say Apple has done a worse thing than Microsoft. Really? Yes, really. But then probably not since Microsoft would screw this up too. And that's Apple App Store. First the iPad Website and iTunes interface really sucks for efficiency and user-friendliness. Great to look at, but don't expect to actually find anything easily.
Apple made the App Store look neat but forgot useability. For Mac's they had the download Website which I really liked and used frequently. It was relatively easy to use, to find updates and the occasional surprise. But they dropped it in early December for the new App Store which opened today, except there's nothing there except a few apps. What's the story?
All those apps from the old Websites couldn't be transferred for some content? Reading the backstory, not. It seems Apple also changed the rules for application developers which eliminated the use of undocumented Application Programming Interfaces (API's). That pretty much busted most of them until they can be converted to comply with Apple's new third-party applications rules, if the company has the resources and interest.
And that sucks too. So, Apple has two strikes. One, the presentation and useability sucks. And two, far fewer good apps and too many lost to dumb rules. Did users complain about these API's? No. Did developers complain? No. So, it's an Apple unilateral decision to rob users of good applications. Like we don't already have the previous version and we can't go elsewhere to find apps? Care for a third strike, less customers and more complaints?
What don't you understand you screwed the customer? Not smart. And clearly made going there less inviting or necesary. I liked visiting the old Website and I hate the new ones, the iPad/iPhone one and now the Mac one. The opening day I saw all of 15 apps for Mac's. Gee, comparted to hundreds on the old, non-defunct, Website? That's an improvement for the customer?
I will keep checking back, albeit reluctantly, but so far both app stores are disappointments, especially from Apple. All show and not much else, especially from a company known for good, user-friendly computers.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Two very important things
With the new Healthcare Reform Act (or the official name Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - PPCA Act) now law, and much to the chagrin of the opponents on both sides, those who falsely call it government run healthcare - it's not by any stretch of the imagination and those who, like me, wanted more - like the public option, it will be with us for years to come, albeit with some tinkering down the road.
Like it or not, it's here to stay and I will argue for it to be more inclusive and more mandatory with ways to help those who can't afford good health insurance or healthcare pay for it. It's good government and good public service. I still want the public option to compete with companies. Without it, they'll only charge more for more coverage with more rules to lessen the financial burden on them.
And as we're seeing with the mandate in a legal war with the opponents and with the states opting out of the "risk" pools, the Act didn't go far enough to impose mandates to the states to comply and provide common rules for these pools. Several states, those with Republican governors, have said they won't plan to consider it let alone offer it.
And so in the end still a significant percentage of the American people won't get health insurance and will get their healthcare from hospitals and emergency clinics at public expense. That's not good government or good public work. We need to ensure everyone has access to good affordable healthcare whether it's a private or government insurance plan. Spread the financial burden where it belongs than the public.
But that's not my point here. It's two things I want to see expanded, women's healthcare and end-of-live care. Both of these are essential to Americans. The first isn't just for women, but their family and friends. The effects of an unwanted pregnancy last a long time but an unwanted child last a lifetime. Women need all the available help and services with the reproductive system and healthcare.
And eveyone will die, many at the end of a long period of illness and disease which only leads to one thing, death. They need all the available help and service to ensure the decisions about their live and the end of life is humane for them and their family and friends. End of life effects everyone around them, let's make sure it's the best care for them and eveyone around them.
That's it. We all have our issues with the new Healthcare Reform Act. Now rather than repeal it or undo, let's work to make it better for everyone. We've started down the road to that goal, let's keep going.
Like it or not, it's here to stay and I will argue for it to be more inclusive and more mandatory with ways to help those who can't afford good health insurance or healthcare pay for it. It's good government and good public service. I still want the public option to compete with companies. Without it, they'll only charge more for more coverage with more rules to lessen the financial burden on them.
And as we're seeing with the mandate in a legal war with the opponents and with the states opting out of the "risk" pools, the Act didn't go far enough to impose mandates to the states to comply and provide common rules for these pools. Several states, those with Republican governors, have said they won't plan to consider it let alone offer it.
And so in the end still a significant percentage of the American people won't get health insurance and will get their healthcare from hospitals and emergency clinics at public expense. That's not good government or good public work. We need to ensure everyone has access to good affordable healthcare whether it's a private or government insurance plan. Spread the financial burden where it belongs than the public.
But that's not my point here. It's two things I want to see expanded, women's healthcare and end-of-live care. Both of these are essential to Americans. The first isn't just for women, but their family and friends. The effects of an unwanted pregnancy last a long time but an unwanted child last a lifetime. Women need all the available help and services with the reproductive system and healthcare.
And eveyone will die, many at the end of a long period of illness and disease which only leads to one thing, death. They need all the available help and service to ensure the decisions about their live and the end of life is humane for them and their family and friends. End of life effects everyone around them, let's make sure it's the best care for them and eveyone around them.
That's it. We all have our issues with the new Healthcare Reform Act. Now rather than repeal it or undo, let's work to make it better for everyone. We've started down the road to that goal, let's keep going.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Capture versus Create
I was reading about the demise of Kodak's Kodachrome film, that last rolls produced earlier this year and the last film processing ending this week (Kodak stopped producing the necessary chemicals also earlier this year - sign of bad corporate decison to pursue profits over customers). While you still capture images with digital cameras, it's not the same as capturing a film photograph, and it's the difference between capturing and creating an image.
I distinguish between images which are captured digitally and photographs which are captured with film, mostly because I'm a curmudgeon and like the clear distinction to identify the differences between film and digital capture. It's purely semantic on my part, but while many confuse to mix the two, you understand the difference with me.
I also distinguish between a print and a digital image on the Web or elsewhere viewed by monitors. A print from any medium is still a print, whether printed traditionally with an enlarger or digitally with a printer. I'm now entirely digital print. All of that is just to keep it straight in my head what's what according to the source of the photograph or image and the final product.
But what crossed my thought (damn synapses keep firing) is that film is a capture and present format and digital is a capture and create format. Yes, photographs are created in the darkroom with the print process (long taught in photography schools) and created from digital images of scanned film (now taught in photography schools if/when film is used). But digital images are created from the moment of capture.
Film is absolute in that once captured, the film photograph is. It can't be changed except through scanning or printing. Digital images are, while captured in raw format, created from the camera through the photo/image editors. It's all open to manipulation by the photographer or editor. You can't print a raw file, you have to create a printable version. You can print a film slide or negative but you can't print a digital raw image.
And that's the difference to me. I use both, and sadly have some rolls of unshot Kodachrome which will never see the light of day. My mistake. But I won't stop shooting other black and white film and color slide film. It's a different mindset to capture with film than with digital cameras, one I like with digital capture. I'm a film curmudgeon to some extent and hope I never see the day I can't be one.
Anyway, that's the thought.
I distinguish between images which are captured digitally and photographs which are captured with film, mostly because I'm a curmudgeon and like the clear distinction to identify the differences between film and digital capture. It's purely semantic on my part, but while many confuse to mix the two, you understand the difference with me.
I also distinguish between a print and a digital image on the Web or elsewhere viewed by monitors. A print from any medium is still a print, whether printed traditionally with an enlarger or digitally with a printer. I'm now entirely digital print. All of that is just to keep it straight in my head what's what according to the source of the photograph or image and the final product.
But what crossed my thought (damn synapses keep firing) is that film is a capture and present format and digital is a capture and create format. Yes, photographs are created in the darkroom with the print process (long taught in photography schools) and created from digital images of scanned film (now taught in photography schools if/when film is used). But digital images are created from the moment of capture.
Film is absolute in that once captured, the film photograph is. It can't be changed except through scanning or printing. Digital images are, while captured in raw format, created from the camera through the photo/image editors. It's all open to manipulation by the photographer or editor. You can't print a raw file, you have to create a printable version. You can print a film slide or negative but you can't print a digital raw image.
And that's the difference to me. I use both, and sadly have some rolls of unshot Kodachrome which will never see the light of day. My mistake. But I won't stop shooting other black and white film and color slide film. It's a different mindset to capture with film than with digital cameras, one I like with digital capture. I'm a film curmudgeon to some extent and hope I never see the day I can't be one.
Anyway, that's the thought.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Words don't change facts
One thing I keep hearing from politicians are apologies, explanations, excuses and so on down the list of reasons to justify their view of the facts, or more to simply, as they say, cover their ass. They make the same mistake with these words they make when they mistake opinions for facts. Their opinion, it seems, is the truth and reality despite nothing being farther from it.
I read when New York City mayor Bloomberg called the city's response to the snow storm "unacceptable." Ok, but that's just an opinion, even if by a mayor. It didn't and doesn't change what happened. And you can bet nothing significant will change. Whatever caused the folks in the various city services not to respond quickly or extensively enough is up for grabs, mostly by politicians, but then everyone has an opinion there.
I won't be surprised if in the end and after the review they discover it was a series of small errors of judgement which caused the delay to start the response and the insufficiencies during the snow storm to adequately remove the snow. And no single person or event will stand out, just a bunch of small ones in sequence which added up to something larger than themselves. And once there, it was obvious what was wrong.
This situation isn't new or news really, just another in the way our lives are becoming. The supposed better technology and systems we use the more complex the social system becomes and the more prone it is to human failures, small one adding to larger problems where the whole thing just doesn't work right, if very much at all. We haven't learned to balance human systems with technology well enough yet where it's needed the most.
And often this is due to technology folks not understanding social system and vice versa. And today with so many people and companies working in all the different fields, there are simply too many "solutions" to human problems and social systems that few work together or with other systems. It's capitalism at its finest, make a product no one else sells and make it unique to you so it's not useable by others.
It's found everywhere, from our homes to corporations and more so government which keeps buying new system replacing old ones taking more resources (time, money and people) to install, convert and use, only to be replaced again when it's operational as being obsolete. Corporations do this with their products, sell us stuff they won't fix (can but intentionally don't make parts) and require replacing.
I gave away the best coffee grinder I had a number of years ago because the grinding wheel had worn down where it didn't work. I could have easily replaced the two parts with a screwdriver (3 screws held each) and clearly was made to be repaired. But the authorizied repair shop said the grinding wheels in that model were unique and the company refused to sell new ones.
Designed obsolesence is the word they use. It what drives our world and economy anymore. If it breaks, just buy a new one. But it doesn't change the fact a good product is useless. And all the words don't and won't change that fact, nor the reality of the snow in New York that sits in piles waiting for someone to remove, despite all the words of mayor Bloomberg.
I read when New York City mayor Bloomberg called the city's response to the snow storm "unacceptable." Ok, but that's just an opinion, even if by a mayor. It didn't and doesn't change what happened. And you can bet nothing significant will change. Whatever caused the folks in the various city services not to respond quickly or extensively enough is up for grabs, mostly by politicians, but then everyone has an opinion there.
I won't be surprised if in the end and after the review they discover it was a series of small errors of judgement which caused the delay to start the response and the insufficiencies during the snow storm to adequately remove the snow. And no single person or event will stand out, just a bunch of small ones in sequence which added up to something larger than themselves. And once there, it was obvious what was wrong.
This situation isn't new or news really, just another in the way our lives are becoming. The supposed better technology and systems we use the more complex the social system becomes and the more prone it is to human failures, small one adding to larger problems where the whole thing just doesn't work right, if very much at all. We haven't learned to balance human systems with technology well enough yet where it's needed the most.
And often this is due to technology folks not understanding social system and vice versa. And today with so many people and companies working in all the different fields, there are simply too many "solutions" to human problems and social systems that few work together or with other systems. It's capitalism at its finest, make a product no one else sells and make it unique to you so it's not useable by others.
It's found everywhere, from our homes to corporations and more so government which keeps buying new system replacing old ones taking more resources (time, money and people) to install, convert and use, only to be replaced again when it's operational as being obsolete. Corporations do this with their products, sell us stuff they won't fix (can but intentionally don't make parts) and require replacing.
I gave away the best coffee grinder I had a number of years ago because the grinding wheel had worn down where it didn't work. I could have easily replaced the two parts with a screwdriver (3 screws held each) and clearly was made to be repaired. But the authorizied repair shop said the grinding wheels in that model were unique and the company refused to sell new ones.
Designed obsolesence is the word they use. It what drives our world and economy anymore. If it breaks, just buy a new one. But it doesn't change the fact a good product is useless. And all the words don't and won't change that fact, nor the reality of the snow in New York that sits in piles waiting for someone to remove, despite all the words of mayor Bloomberg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
