Priorities

Since our new president took office just a few days ago, the media has been in a frenzy to report on his every move. All of this comes after weeks of postulating on exactly what he would do first, how quickly he would move, and the means by which he would single-handedly reinvent American government. Well, are you disappointed yet? It seems to me that the average American's expectations were just a little high, stoked by overly-aggressive media, and our collective patience a bit too thin.

The vast majority of our presidents (at least all those in the last 100 years, save perhaps Kennedy) were little more than pawns in an increasingly globalized game of chess (actually, chess for the big-guys, cat-and-mouse for the rest of us). Yes, Obama is different, but different flavors of the same product are still the same product, aren't they? While I don't believe that President Obama is the savior of our economy, culture, foreign-policy, or anything else, I do believe that he has potential to make a difference. But consider for a moment his status as a pawn in the game, how much difference can he actually make? Even if he wanted to radically change the system for the better, how much could he actually achieve? 

Believe me, I get it, things are not good out there. The economy is in tatters, what was once shaping up to be a formidable "American Culture" is all but destroyed, unemployment is sky-high (and rising), and many, many of we "The People" are in generally sad shape. Take a look at our inner-city schools and you see what's wrong with this country, and where it's going to go in just a few short years. Yes, we've had recession before, nay even a depression through which we survived, but things are not the same now as they were then. The strength of the American people has waned, we are not united, nor can we be; there is little foundation left on which to stand. 

Some of the key questions we should be asking ourselves include: how did we get here? what caused this? and how do we fix it now? First, we got here due to greed and a growing crisis of our collective conscience. Many of the things that used to matter have lost their importance, replaced by worry and doubt about things of far less note. We "the people" have effectively rubber-stamped torture; seriously? Where's the public outcry on that one? Human life, human rights, civil rights... it goes on and on, we have dented the armor of every moral defense we once held. Our torn and tattered armature is not only an embarrassment, for through the holes come the fiery-darts of our pain and ultimate destruction. Can there be any question why the boat, into which we've drilled so many holes, is sinking?

To fix this, we must first change our thinking and beliefs, and bolster our fortitude for that which is just, true and right. The days of over-the-top liberal tolerance, acceptance and a "wait-and-see" attitude toward injustice must end. If you're looking to a "leader" to do this, you're looking to the wrong man. Instead, look in the mirror. This is not a glimpse of guilt, don't look in order to point the finger at yourself, the time for that has long-passed. Each of us most look in order to assign accountability for that which is to come. Take responsibility. Look to G-d for the true foundations on which you can stand. Don't expect Obama to supplant your role; stand firm and be the agent for change this nation desperately needs. 

Now I can imagine that some may see my apathetic attitude toward government and politics as incongruent with my admonition toward becoming a change-agent in this world. Not at all. I simply don't believe that politics has any answers, neither do the politicians or their supporters. In fact, they largely generate far more pain than they ever salve. You and I, dear reader, are the only ones who can take personal responsibility, and we must. It is not political but personal action for which I hope, for you and for myself. 

On Personal Responsibility

On Monday, the National Safety Council released a recommendation calling for a national ban on the use of mobile phones while driving. It is generally believed that drivers utilizing mobile phones are less safe behind the wheel than those who are not otherwise distracted. Numerous studies exist to support this belief, and of these the National Safety Council makes efficient use.

It is a personal belief, perhaps suspicion, that groups such as the NSC are populated by people who desire to control the actions of others. I have known individuals in similar positions who seem to believe in an invisible, fine line between those who are wise and in-the-know, and the masses in general. It is easy to allow one’s self to believe that those who do not know what you know, or as much as you know, are common and ignorant. This is something of an inevitability--a trade hazard, if you will--often seen with law-enforcement who believe that most people are criminals, psychologists who believe that most people are crazy, and so on.

It would appear that the members of the National Security Council believe that most people are stupid; or perhaps too ignorant of the inherent dangers associated with distracted driving to exercise a necessary modicum of self-control. Their solution: a nationwide ban on use of mobile phones while driving. The last thing I want is another law on the books. There is simply too much bureaucracy in my life as it is, and one more law is not going to improve our society one iota, of this I’m sure. Still, much as I hate to admit it, the NSC may be right. I have personally witnessed scores of people texting while driving at high speeds, and suffering from an apparent disconnect between their brains and right-feet whenever holding a phone in their hands.

There’s no way around it: the NSC has a point. But I can tell that I for one am perfectly capable of utilizing my mobile phone while driving. I do not suffer from any inability to speak, listen, and operate the pedals in my car all at the same time. The last thing I would ever attempt is to text while driving. The bottom line is that some people do asinine things; I try not to be one of them, and when it comes to use of my mobile phone, I’m not. So why should I be subject to a restrictive law such as that recommended by the National Security Council?

The more I think about it, the more absurdly obvious the solution. It all boils down to personal responsibility. In fact, so many of our social ills could be cured by little more than a smattering of common sense and personal responsibility. If you can’t talk while you drive, don’t. There is no way to govern or enforce common-sense, it just can’t be done. Historically, those who have tried to enforce common-sense have failed, and are usually remembered as nothing more than tyrants. So, it’s up to you, America, and it’s up to me! Let’s learn, grow, and make our country better.

25 Things

1. There isn’t enough toilet paper in the world to truly satisfy my desire to “TP” certain peoples’ houses.
   
2. There is no correct answer to the question: “How much weight do you think I’ve lost (or gained)?”
   
3. Blind-dates might be kind of fun if you didn’t always have to report back to the person who set you up.
   
4. Never try to hard-boil an egg in the microwave.
   
5. Nobody is impressed with the books you have on display; if you haven’t read them, give them away.
   
6. The best-ever comedy movie has yet to be made; but I am sure it will be a Mel Brooks film and star Ben Stiller.
   
7. Anybody who gossips about their other friends to you, is gossiping about you to them. 
   
8. If she asks, “Is she prettier than me?” run.
   
9. Learn to identify the forthcoming questions in numbers 2 and 8 so that you can change the subject before they are asked. 
   
10. The people who see no wrong in turing right from the left lane are the same people who leave their shopping cart in the middle of the aisle and walk away to make love to the produce section (they may also turn left from the right lane).
    
11. Parents who use public-embarrassment to correct their children suffer from a total lack of creativity.
    
12. “Uncle Buck” is the best John Candy movie.
    
13. Bottled water is likely to cost more than gasoline.
    
14. People with vanity license plates are trying to compensate for something. 
    
15. Really large people tend to drive really tiny cars.
    
16. If you’re an idiot, I really can’t stay mad at you for long, because you don’t even know that you’re an idiot.
    
17. War is never about what they say it’s about. 
    
18. Many “Evangelical Christians” use the Bible as a weapon, but have probably never read it. 
    
19. Your mother was right. 
    
20. You can learn everything you need to know about a city at the grocery store.
    
21. If one of your coworkers is a whore, it’s probably not a good idea to call them that, plus I’m sure they already know.
    
22. The law is not on your side, no matter how right you are.
    
23. Everybody is not out to get you, don’t be silly, there are two or three of us left who just don’t care.
    
24. Apathy is the solution for whatever ails you. 
    
25. There are some things you can never have too much of, among these are: printer ink, RAM, hard-drive space, chocolate, and the forbearance of good friends.
    

Unemployment in Arizona

Unemployment in the State of Arizona rose 2.2% in 2008, bringing the state’s preliminary 2008 (November) unemployment rate to a whopping 6.3%. As a matter of fact, Arizona’s jobless rate rivals that of California, and the State’s percentage of job-losses in 2008 were significantly higher than those of The Golden State. I guess we can be sure that all of those penalty-revenue traffic laws aren’t helping to save jobs in Arizona; they just add insult to injury, heaping additional fines and taxes upon an already over-burdened and unemployed population.

I tried to apply for unemployment in Arizona. Since August of 2008 I have wrestled with the mega-bureaucracy from Phoenix with no success. I have called, written, faxed, even messaged my state representatives, all with not only zero success, but no response. In order to receive unemployment benefits, an Arizona citizen completes an unemployment application (which, as in my case, may be done online). The citizen then waits for the State to process their application and mail additional documentation and requirements via standard US Post. While I found this first part fairly quick and painless, the story changed almost immediately. What followed was a series of un-sendable faxes (busy signals and “down” lines), unanswered calls (“We’re experiencing unusually high call volume and unable to take your call...”) and other standard, government-issue run-arounds.

So now it has been five months since I was laid off, no luck finding gainful employment here, and I am still working to get assistance from the State. Today I visited the local unemployment office in which I found a posted sign which read, “Unemployment office has been moved to: Call Center.” That’s a joke! They’re staffing an actual brick-and-mortar office with people who can do nothing but refer to me to the call center; that’s the same call center that’s not answering their phones because of a call-volume that’s too high! I wonder, since our representatives have never had any trouble allowing, nay pushing for, our jobs to be “off-shored,” why the State of Arizona hasn’t farmed out their call center business to any number of available specialty companies in India and elsewhere?

For the record, I have never before been, “on the public dole,” nor have I ever received any type of government assistance, in fact I still haven’t to this day. I pay my taxes, lots of them, and have never asked for anything; now that I need help, it is simply not available. I understand that the economy is bad, I get that the State is overwhelmed, and I know that there are lots of people who are much worse-off than I. I can only hope that the people who really need help are getting it, somehow, but without the resources to “work the system,” how can they? I’m a smart cookie. I have a home office, computers, a fax, phone, etc. If I can’t get help, what of the suddenly unemployed single parent with mounting bills, turn-off utilities, and hungry mouths to feed?

The Audacity of Truth

Soon-to-be President of the United States, Barack Obama, has written a hugely popular book titled, The Audacity of Hope. While it may certainly be true that hope is running a little thin in this country, I don't think it is the characteristic of the American spirit that most needs to be bolstered. 

There is a palpable apathy for truth in this country; it seems to me that many people don't want to know it, aren't capable of hearing it, and simply don't care. The truth is untidy, shameful and brash. Moreover, truth is often abhorred for its ugliness and inconvenience (Al Gore had that part right, at least). In terms of its audacity, the truth itself is often viewed as a galling, bad-mannered table-guest hosts are obligated to invite, but secretly hope won't show. 

The truths about which I speak are not the esoteric beliefs held by members of the "fringe," or the seasoning ingredients of life one only discovers over time; the truths to which I am referring are the fundamental facts that reveal themselves to us each and every day. Sadly, there is a growing population of people in this country who will passionately argue that the sky is not blue, only because they have never seen it. More and more our fellow citizens take that which is doled-out to them, stamp it with a label corresponding to its perceived importance, and file it away for future reference. There's no research. There's not even any thought. People Magazine says that the sky is (enter color here), so there you go.

Those of us who do care to research that which is slopped onto our plates, and refuse to consume it without a bit of investigation, are shunned and derided. While we are forced to choke down a mystery meat of sorts, fashioned to look like mother's meatloaf, but clearly nothing even close, to question its freshness is inconvenient, intolerable. This mess is a hodgepodge of lies and half-truths, seasoned with just enough passion and enthusiasm to barely cover the stink. Yuck! 

Okay, okay, enough metaphor. But what is one to do when the truth becomes inconvenient? Is there hope for a society hell-bent on consumption without investigation? How can one protect themselves if they don't even care to check the date on their cottage-cheese? How can your neighbor help you if he doesn't even care to help himself? There's a rumbling coming from the other side of the mountain. It's the sound of doom; for the people have learned to love what's on their plate, and hate the truth.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: An Arizona Embarrassment

Many people around the nation have heard of Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio; if you believe the sheriff himself, "...There isn't anybody in the world who doesn't know who this sheriff is." Seriously? Somehow I suspect that there are, in fact, billions of people in the world who not only don't know who he is, but don't care either! Still, the fact that the man would make such an outrageous claim is proof of his indefatigable ego. It is his ego and knack for shameless self-promotion that have surely helped secure him a whole new level of stardom: reality TV star. One of the Fox networks is now running a reality TV series starring the erstwhile sheriff, titled "Smile, You're Under Arrest."

Where do I begin. The obvious place to start is by assessing the known character of "Sheriff Joe." Here we have a man who kicks dirt over the line between appropriate treatment of prisoners, and human-rights abuses. This is the sheriff who makes male prisoners wear pink underwear, and houses convicts in tent cities in the desert (where temperatures can reach well into the triple-digits). As Sheriff Arpaio rightly points out, he is not forcing prisoners to endure anything our troops don't already in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. So, is it wrong? I think so, and on both counts; I am ashamed at the State of Arizona, and grieved that our troops should be made to endure those conditions. 

So why is Sheriff Joe now a reality TV star? In a word: sensationalism. Americans clearly don't care about human rights or civil liberties (so long as they're not their rights or liberties being trampled). Look at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, we know the government is torturing people in deep dark dungeons around the world, and we just don't care. Where's the outrage? Sadly, fervent, vigorous debate has been replaced in this country by countless numbers of mind-numbing televisions shows staring Sheriff Joe and his ilk. Now days, not only do we tolerate "mild" abuses, we elevate them to stardom because of the shocking, entertaining sensationalism they provide. It's no wonder we find places like Guantanamo Bay at the bottom of that slippery-slope. I can't help but wonder when our evening news will be followed by a daily-dose of The Running Man. 

If you consider yourself to be a right-thinking person, a compassionate humanitarian, or socially-conscious American, you must not watch Sheriff Joe's new show. In fact, we would all do well to eliminate this kind of rubbish from our lives. If you believe, as I do, that viewing acts of violence, aggression and inhumanity desensitizes us to the reality of such acts, don't allow them into your mind. I'm not suggesting that one should be uneducated about the issues, nor ignorant of the facts, but don't allow them to use these facts to entertain you. If you would never violate the civil or human rights of another person, I implore you, don't allow yourself to watch someone else do it on TV just for a cheap giggle. 

Oh, and one more thing. If you live in Maricopa County, the time has come for you to do the right thing. You have been responsible for one of Arizona's most protracted embarrassments for long enough. It's time for Arizona to be associated with a truly uncompromising Sheriff, a true public servant with a deep understanding of human rights. (By the way, have you looked at your crime statistics lately?)

DRM-Free iTunes Store a Huge Win

Much has been said and written about Apple's new DRM-Free iTunes strategy since the company's announcement this Tuesday. (DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, a scheme whereby digital music is electronically protected, and its use thereby limited.) Essentially, customers will now have the ability to purchase music from the iTunes store, and then utilize that music without limitation. Until now, DRM-encoded music could only be played on certain authorized machines, which made it difficult to share or distribute; this irked many customers (not just Apple's) who wanted to make legitimate, personal use of the music they had purchased, but were limited by the technological barriers inherent in the DRM schema. 

Apple has long held that DRM is bad for the music industry, and bad for consumers. Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, has even made personal statements about the nature of DRM and why he believes it should be abolished. Now that DRM is gone from iTunes, or at least almost gone, what does that mean for the average music consumer? What does it mean for Apple? The answers will become evident in the months ahead, but I believe this is a good move for the music industry, for Apple, and for the consumer. Sales may go up, recording-company and Apple profits along with them, and the consumer benefits from a more flexible, usable, and valuable product. 

Chalk one up for Apple. They have essentially won a huge battle with the big-4 music giants (Universal, Sony, Warner and EMI). Nobody in technology or consumer-advocacy circles really wants DRM, but it was seen as a necessary evil put in place to protect music company profits. Now that Apple has shown that a-la-carte music-buying is a recipe for success, and that record companies can thereby have their cake and eat it too, they have successfully changed a staunchly founded paradigm. 

Many will say that this is a disastrous move that Apple will come to regret. According to Dan Resiniger (The Digital Home) Apple's advantage in the marketplace has been it's tight integration between the iPod and iTunes Store. The elimination of DRM may break or weaken this link since customers can now more easily load music from iTunes onto non-Apple hardware devices (non-iPod music players). The fear is that Apple will suffer from a depleted revenue stream in either it's hardware (iPod) or digital music sales divisions. I disagree, and the reason is simply this: Apple is the pioneer in both music-playing hardware and digital music sales; they have already secured their position in the marketplace and offer products of unparalleled ease-of-use, functionality and overall value. Since Apple patiently poured and waited for the foundation to dry before finalizing their DRM-Free deal with the big-4, I think they'll be just fine. 

Personally, I look forward to buying DRM-free music. It will be nice to share songs with friends, or play my music on their computer (without having to lug my laptop around, or use an iPod-to-Stereo adapter). Any increase in cost, which it appears will be zero to marginal, is worth it. I will not, however, spend the hundreds of dollars it would cost me to upgrade my current iTunes library in order to remove DRM restrictions. I'll settle for making my future digital music purchases without DRM limitations, knowing that I'm getting just a little bit more bang for my buck.