Now that Israeli bombs started raining on Hamas in Gaza, the world has sprang into "action": there are condemnations, calls for a "ceasefire" from world leaders, even demonstrations (yes, in Europe, too - big surprise, huh?) in support of the Palestinians. The "world" had been conspicuously silent when Hamas were firing rockets into towns and villages in Israel. Never mind, that those rackets were clearly intended to hit anything and anybody: children, hospitals, schools, homes. Hamas did not even try to pretend, let alone make an actual effort, to aim at military targets. (Of course, the "world" understands that: after all, these are crude rockets, a far cry from the sophisticated weapons in Israel's possessions. The Palestinians can't be held to the same standard, can they? It's like when a maniac runs into a preschool while being chased by police, and starts swinging a chair. He cracks the skulls of a few kids, but then the police open fire trying to kill the guy, and a bullet hits a kid in the leg. Wouldn't you expect the maniac to walk free while the policeman would be dragged through courts and spend years in prison for shooting a child? That's a normal state of affairs in Western societies, the standard way of thinking about such things. )
Just like the US after September 11, Israel is making the grave mistake of responding to terror, of hitting back. That's when the paper-thin veneer of sympathy evaporates, replaced by outrage and by a steady stream of media interviews with assorted "experts", who tell us that this is only going to make matters worse. It will make the terrorists stronger, increase the anger in the muslim world, blah, blah, blah. What's the alternative? The experts don't really say, but one can guess that they would like to say, "Give in, do what they want, and hope for the best. The only way to deal with terrorists is to appease them. They will win, no matter what. Stop wasting your energy fighting them."
In the case of Isreal, giving Hamas what it wants means that the Jews would all have to pack and move out, leaving Isreal to Palestinians. What sane society would agree to follow that kind of advice? This is all the more infuriating that were the Palestinians to overrun Isreal and commit genocide, it would most likely draw only timid verbal condemnations from the world, mild in comaparison to the outrage generated were an Isreali plane to drop a bomb on a school in Gaza by mistake. Now we keep hearing complaints about a "disproportionate" response byIsreal. What would be the "proportionate" response? If the Israel fired rockets indiscrimantely into Gaza, without any pay attention to what they hit? Oh, this would be decried as a barbaric act, a medieval "eye for an eye", so unbecoming of a modern, democratic state. In other words, no matter what you do, you are always in the wrong. Lesson: do what you think is right and don't give a damn about the world's opinion.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Dis-service
It is shocking how much the culture of customer service has deteriorated in some industries in just a decade or so. Sure, the recorded voice will tell you, "Your call is important to us", while placing you on hold, and the person at the other end (once you get connected to a real person) will apologize for the inconvenience you experienced, but in many cases it is just a veneer on a very rotten material. Not in all cases, because there are still examples of great service: recently I had a problem with Amazon.com's website and called the phone number for help. The recording told me that no representatives were currently available and asked me to leave a phone number, so that they could call me back. I did leave a number and a few minutes later received a phone call from a person who then proceeded to resolve my problem. It truly was a very positive experience.
Airlines, on the other hand... My very recent trip was a reminder of why I started to hate flying. From an exciting and somewhat exhilarating experience, flying has transmogrified into this experiment in how much humiliation and bad service can customers endure. For starters, I was shocked to discover that the airline I fly the most is now charging $15 per checked-in bag! I was not warned about that (my last flight had been in June) when I purchased the tickets online. Had I known, I would have packed smaller toiletries and avoided the 5 oz rule. At the airport I was facing the choice between throwing out my toothpaste, deodorant, and a couple other things, or paying the $15. I chose the latter, although mad as hell.
I don't even want to mention this humiliating circus of taking off your shoes, pulling out your laptop, putting all your toiletries into a quart-size ziploc bag, etc. You can't really blame it on the airlines - it was a bunch of mass-murdering fanatics plus an overreacting government, whom we got to thank for this. However, was I really naive to think that maybe these 15 bucks, plus the fact that more people would now try to squeeze their luggage as carry-on, would result in shorter waiting at the carousel? Yes, I was very naive. So, the airlines decided to start taking more of our money, without giving us more in return?Interesting.
There is also this not-so-new idea of no longer serving food on flights, but instead, selling boxes of junk food. At first they were still giving away these tiny bags of pretzels, but that apparently proved too expensive, so no pretzels or peanuts for you, unless you pay $5. Next step - and I'm sure it is coming - charging a buck or two for the sodas. This is going to be a tad problematic, because we've been told that it is crucial to drink enough liquids during long flights, so initially they will get away with this by offering bad tasting water for free. However, that will soon be taken away and you, "our valued passenger", will be on your own.
When I think about it, it is not a terrible idea per se, this charging for everything separately. If I don't like airline "food", why include it in the ticket price? Same with hotels: I don't watch TV, so I actually would be grateful if they took it out of my bill. What I don't like is the sneaky, arrogant way they are doing it. If you fly only a few time a year, like I do, you're going to be shocked by increasing cost and deteriorating service. It's like seeing a patient with incurable, slow-growth cancer every couple of weeks - each time you are shocked by how much he changed.
I know, the times when people dressed up before a flight, when the smiling stewardess brought you food and goodies, and real silverware, are not coming back. But how about bringing back some dignity and choice? If they don't want to offer free food, maybe they can sell decent meals instead of these horrible packages of junk? Let me buy a salad, but don't price it at $25 a bowl, please.
What about leg room? I obviously can't aford (or I am not stupid enough) to pay the horrendous prices for 1st class tickets, but I would probably pay reasonable amount for a little bit more space, so that I don't feel like a sardine in a can for 4 or 8 hours. How is this possible that in a country as entrepreneurial and competitive as ours, nobody has yet come up with an idea to beat the airlines at customers service? It's gotten so bad, that I would not really take a lot. Not even real silverware.
Airlines, on the other hand... My very recent trip was a reminder of why I started to hate flying. From an exciting and somewhat exhilarating experience, flying has transmogrified into this experiment in how much humiliation and bad service can customers endure. For starters, I was shocked to discover that the airline I fly the most is now charging $15 per checked-in bag! I was not warned about that (my last flight had been in June) when I purchased the tickets online. Had I known, I would have packed smaller toiletries and avoided the 5 oz rule. At the airport I was facing the choice between throwing out my toothpaste, deodorant, and a couple other things, or paying the $15. I chose the latter, although mad as hell.
I don't even want to mention this humiliating circus of taking off your shoes, pulling out your laptop, putting all your toiletries into a quart-size ziploc bag, etc. You can't really blame it on the airlines - it was a bunch of mass-murdering fanatics plus an overreacting government, whom we got to thank for this. However, was I really naive to think that maybe these 15 bucks, plus the fact that more people would now try to squeeze their luggage as carry-on, would result in shorter waiting at the carousel? Yes, I was very naive. So, the airlines decided to start taking more of our money, without giving us more in return?Interesting.
There is also this not-so-new idea of no longer serving food on flights, but instead, selling boxes of junk food. At first they were still giving away these tiny bags of pretzels, but that apparently proved too expensive, so no pretzels or peanuts for you, unless you pay $5. Next step - and I'm sure it is coming - charging a buck or two for the sodas. This is going to be a tad problematic, because we've been told that it is crucial to drink enough liquids during long flights, so initially they will get away with this by offering bad tasting water for free. However, that will soon be taken away and you, "our valued passenger", will be on your own.
When I think about it, it is not a terrible idea per se, this charging for everything separately. If I don't like airline "food", why include it in the ticket price? Same with hotels: I don't watch TV, so I actually would be grateful if they took it out of my bill. What I don't like is the sneaky, arrogant way they are doing it. If you fly only a few time a year, like I do, you're going to be shocked by increasing cost and deteriorating service. It's like seeing a patient with incurable, slow-growth cancer every couple of weeks - each time you are shocked by how much he changed.
I know, the times when people dressed up before a flight, when the smiling stewardess brought you food and goodies, and real silverware, are not coming back. But how about bringing back some dignity and choice? If they don't want to offer free food, maybe they can sell decent meals instead of these horrible packages of junk? Let me buy a salad, but don't price it at $25 a bowl, please.
What about leg room? I obviously can't aford (or I am not stupid enough) to pay the horrendous prices for 1st class tickets, but I would probably pay reasonable amount for a little bit more space, so that I don't feel like a sardine in a can for 4 or 8 hours. How is this possible that in a country as entrepreneurial and competitive as ours, nobody has yet come up with an idea to beat the airlines at customers service? It's gotten so bad, that I would not really take a lot. Not even real silverware.
Tipping point
I'm out of town, staying in a hotel, eating out, and so once again I'm confronting the issue of tips. There is something about this convoluted scheme of handing out "gratuities" to some people that irks me. Now, I'm not a bad tipper. I usually give more that 15% in restaurants, and leave 2-3 per day for cleaning my hotel room. I'm kind of used to it, so it doesn't irritate me very much, although it's the whole idea I'm really against. First of all: why do we tip some people, and not others? Is it because they provide "direct service" to us, like the waiter who interrupts my meal three times asking cheerfully, "How's everything?", and refilling my Diet Coke, event though I never asked for it and still have three quarters of it left? Well, how about that kid in the store, who bags groceries and wishes everyone a good day? As far as I know, nobody's giving him tips...
Is it becuase they have such lousy wages that we have to give them tips, so that they can make ends meet? There is some thruth to it, of course. I worked as a waiter myself, and the salary I drew was about half the minimum wage. The tips more than made up for it. But heck, if we did not tip the waiters, the restaurant owners would have to pay them better wages, not? I know that many waiters would not like it, becuase some are taking home pretty good wages in those tips, most of those tax-free.
Again, what about other people who are gettig shitty wages, like security guards or supermarket cashiers? Why are the waiters, taxi drivers, and hotel maids more deserving of our generocity? Or is this becuase in our egalitarian society we now consider the act of serving us, taking our hair out of the shower drains, making our beds, wiping our tables, bringing our food, somewhat demeaning? And the tip is supposed to take the edge off our guilt somewhat? But aren't there other, even more "demeaning" jobs that are not to receive gratuities?  Say, the lady at the cleaner's, who takes our sweaty, smelly shirts to wash and iron them?
I can't see good logic behind it, and so it irritates me, like one more annoying social convention without merit. I frankly try to avoid places and situations where I might be expected to tip. For eating out, I prefer the self-serve places, where you order and pay at the counter. Some of them are actually nicer than many restaurants, like the Wildflower Bread Company I found in Sedona, AZ. However, and this pisses me off to no end, in many of thes places you can spot jars with a label "Tips" at the counter. (Some try to look lighthearted with their "Feeling tipsy?" labels, and those are especially annoying. What, you put a shot of whiskey in my coffee??) This is really no different than panhandling, except that it happens indoors. What am I supposed to tip for? I will stand in the damn line, will pay for the coffee myself, will take it to my table, will put sugar and cream in it, will put the cup in the wastebasked when finished... Hell, maybe I should get a tip for all this serving I'll do??
I don't mind paying for things, even giving money away for charitable causes, but this tipping charade I'd much rather do without.
Is it becuase they have such lousy wages that we have to give them tips, so that they can make ends meet? There is some thruth to it, of course. I worked as a waiter myself, and the salary I drew was about half the minimum wage. The tips more than made up for it. But heck, if we did not tip the waiters, the restaurant owners would have to pay them better wages, not? I know that many waiters would not like it, becuase some are taking home pretty good wages in those tips, most of those tax-free.
Again, what about other people who are gettig shitty wages, like security guards or supermarket cashiers? Why are the waiters, taxi drivers, and hotel maids more deserving of our generocity? Or is this becuase in our egalitarian society we now consider the act of serving us, taking our hair out of the shower drains, making our beds, wiping our tables, bringing our food, somewhat demeaning? And the tip is supposed to take the edge off our guilt somewhat? But aren't there other, even more "demeaning" jobs that are not to receive gratuities?  Say, the lady at the cleaner's, who takes our sweaty, smelly shirts to wash and iron them?
I can't see good logic behind it, and so it irritates me, like one more annoying social convention without merit. I frankly try to avoid places and situations where I might be expected to tip. For eating out, I prefer the self-serve places, where you order and pay at the counter. Some of them are actually nicer than many restaurants, like the Wildflower Bread Company I found in Sedona, AZ. However, and this pisses me off to no end, in many of thes places you can spot jars with a label "Tips" at the counter. (Some try to look lighthearted with their "Feeling tipsy?" labels, and those are especially annoying. What, you put a shot of whiskey in my coffee??) This is really no different than panhandling, except that it happens indoors. What am I supposed to tip for? I will stand in the damn line, will pay for the coffee myself, will take it to my table, will put sugar and cream in it, will put the cup in the wastebasked when finished... Hell, maybe I should get a tip for all this serving I'll do??
I don't mind paying for things, even giving money away for charitable causes, but this tipping charade I'd much rather do without.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Quote of the month
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." - Barack Obama, presidential candidate 2008. Could he really be that honest?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Fearmongers
How long we have been subjected to the incessant talk about recession? A year? More? I have this unfortunate habit of listening to NPR in the morning, while eating breakfast, and then at dinnertime, so I have had plenty of exposure to the not-so-subtle message that we should all be very afraid. They have been laying it pretty thick, really. They've brought in economists, who confirmed time and again that things are so bad, they hadn't seen it that bad in their lifetimes... If it's not a recession yet, it's for sure just around the corner. Heck, they've been feeding us stories about the Great Depression! (So it's not about Recession anymore... It's the Great Depression we're staring in the face!)
What's with this fear-mongering? I know that the US economy is not doing great at the moment, and that the housing crisis is very real. But why do I hear glee in the voices of NPR reporters emphasizing the negative? Whenever there is good economic news, it's always followed by "but.." or "however..." It's approching parody, like the recent headline that read: "Gas prices are falling and why this not such a good thing." Sweet Jesus! We've been talked to ad nauseam about how the high price of gas is straining the economy, with SUVs clogging the dealearships, carmakers laying off workers, food prices going up, etc, etc. Now, when the oil prices seem to be showing a downward trend, we ought to be worrying that it is not a good thing after all! What the bloody hell?
The naive explanation is that "good news is no news" and that the media simply has to feed on bad news, and if there isn't any, it'll create it. However, I think that there is a deeper layer to it, and his name is Barack Obama. The media is so invested in having him win the presidency that it uses all tricks at its disposal to promote his candidacy, short of telling us straight to vote for him. I'm certain the talk of recession is a part of it. The more we're scared, the more we will be willing to embrace the "change" Obama is promising. There is very little doubt in my mind that, should he win, the word "recession" will quickly disappear from the media's coverage of the economy.
There is a precedent: remember the 1992 election, when George Bush the Elder was defeated with "It's the ecomomy, stupid!"? Back then the media whipped up the bad news about the economy, to almost immediately change its tune after Clinton's victory. It's as if the election magically cured whatever was ailing the US stock market. It's the same screenbook, different actors.
However, I do wonder if they are not going to overplay their hand this time. I can't be the only one who's noticing the pattern here. And there is also a different pattern that manifested itself in past elections: the media thinks that the American electorate is stupid and can be easily manipulated. Yet time and again they've been proven wrong on that score. I'm fairly positive it will repeat itself as well. Unlike the media, I have quite a bit of trust in the voting public.
What's with this fear-mongering? I know that the US economy is not doing great at the moment, and that the housing crisis is very real. But why do I hear glee in the voices of NPR reporters emphasizing the negative? Whenever there is good economic news, it's always followed by "but.." or "however..." It's approching parody, like the recent headline that read: "Gas prices are falling and why this not such a good thing." Sweet Jesus! We've been talked to ad nauseam about how the high price of gas is straining the economy, with SUVs clogging the dealearships, carmakers laying off workers, food prices going up, etc, etc. Now, when the oil prices seem to be showing a downward trend, we ought to be worrying that it is not a good thing after all! What the bloody hell?
The naive explanation is that "good news is no news" and that the media simply has to feed on bad news, and if there isn't any, it'll create it. However, I think that there is a deeper layer to it, and his name is Barack Obama. The media is so invested in having him win the presidency that it uses all tricks at its disposal to promote his candidacy, short of telling us straight to vote for him. I'm certain the talk of recession is a part of it. The more we're scared, the more we will be willing to embrace the "change" Obama is promising. There is very little doubt in my mind that, should he win, the word "recession" will quickly disappear from the media's coverage of the economy.
There is a precedent: remember the 1992 election, when George Bush the Elder was defeated with "It's the ecomomy, stupid!"? Back then the media whipped up the bad news about the economy, to almost immediately change its tune after Clinton's victory. It's as if the election magically cured whatever was ailing the US stock market. It's the same screenbook, different actors.
However, I do wonder if they are not going to overplay their hand this time. I can't be the only one who's noticing the pattern here. And there is also a different pattern that manifested itself in past elections: the media thinks that the American electorate is stupid and can be easily manipulated. Yet time and again they've been proven wrong on that score. I'm fairly positive it will repeat itself as well. Unlike the media, I have quite a bit of trust in the voting public.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Evil DRM
I have always believed in paying artists for their work. This included, of course, music. Except for a short-lived "lets give it a try and see what the fuss is about", I did not participate in peer-to-peer sharing. Early on I signed up for the subscription-based Musicmatch, and was pretty happy with it, occasionally buying songs and creating compilations for listening in my car. Obviously, I did not expect that I will end up feeling like a total sucker, thanks to that evil scheme that must have been concocted in the devil's head: DRM (Digital Rights Management).
I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.
I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...
A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system. What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.
Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you". If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...
So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned.Â
Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.
I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.
I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...
A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system. What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.
Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you". If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...
So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned.Â
Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.
Monday, August 4, 2008
On blogging
It's been a long while since I've posted to this blog... Primarily because it was spring, and now it is summer, with so many better things to do than sit in front of a computer. Or worry about politics, for that matter. I've been going back and forth about whether to pick this up at all, trying to answer a seemingly simple question: why am I doing this? I am not a compulsive writer, so I don't really have to write. I also know that what I'm writing here can come back to haunt me. After all, I work at a university, where views like mine are probably in minority, or at least not openly expressed. Someone had already complained about my views, or so I heard... So I probably shouldn't write. Yet these are some of the reasons why I do post things on my website and on my blog: I want to try to find my voice and I don't want to succumb to fear, which seems to be permeating this society. (Note: I'm planning to cover this particular issue in a subsequent post).
I do a lot of thinking, and sometimes in a way too fragmented a manner, and writing helps me slow down, formulate my thoughts, think about something for a while, instead of jumping from one issue to another like a dragonfly on speed. I also want to assert my right to speak my mind. It's a basic human right, dammit! If what I write disturbs you, don't read it. There are mllions, perhaps billions other pages on the Web - go and find something you like. Disagreement is OK, it's even welcome. I don't claim that I know everything or that my views are not subject to change. They are, and I can be persuaded that I was wrong and someone else was right. What are really hate are people who think that views different from theirs should be supressed, and people who hold them, punished. There are depressingly many such people in the United States. Perhaps fewer than in most (all?) other countries, but still...
I do a lot of thinking, and sometimes in a way too fragmented a manner, and writing helps me slow down, formulate my thoughts, think about something for a while, instead of jumping from one issue to another like a dragonfly on speed. I also want to assert my right to speak my mind. It's a basic human right, dammit! If what I write disturbs you, don't read it. There are mllions, perhaps billions other pages on the Web - go and find something you like. Disagreement is OK, it's even welcome. I don't claim that I know everything or that my views are not subject to change. They are, and I can be persuaded that I was wrong and someone else was right. What are really hate are people who think that views different from theirs should be supressed, and people who hold them, punished. There are depressingly many such people in the United States. Perhaps fewer than in most (all?) other countries, but still...
Monday, March 3, 2008
Presidential address
I got this in e-mail today, and I think it's quite good.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? (Oh yes, it would.)
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'LL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON'T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America. Thank you and good night.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? (Oh yes, it would.)
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'LL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON'T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America. Thank you and good night.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Quotes of the week
There are numerous great quotes in the fascinating and much needed bestseller by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism", but here are two good ones I just remembered to copy:
Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn't literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright--they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency.
But if there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Dying with dignity
 Although "struggle" is not a good choice of a word here, considering that Morrie didn't seem to be "fighting" the illness so much as accepting it, even learning from it. From the vantage point of a man with an irrevocable death sentence, Morrie is dispensing wisdom on everything: from culture, to marriage, to emotions, to money, to death. This book moved me and annoyed me.  It moved me because I could not help but admire his nearly stoic attitude toward his terrible physical deterioration and the suffering that came with it - not that it would necessarily have been my choice in similar circumstances. Â
The sense of annoyance came from many angles. Only a small part was caused by the fact that a lot of the wisom being passed onto the reader was pretty trivial and terribly cliché: money doesn't buy happiness; we will all die eventually; having a sense of purpose in life makes it worthwhile; family and friends are very important; we are living too fast; ours is a materialistic society; etc. After all, having had these pearls of wisdom repeated ad nauseam doesn't make them less valid.
What frustrated me the most didn't even have to do anything with Morrie himself, or what he said. It was this: here's a sweet, smart, old guy, who made the choice of waiting for his death, of enduring whatever pain and indignity were thrown his way. He also made a decision to be increasingly dependent on others, including having his ass wiped. (He feared that moment, considering this a kind of a threshold of humiliation, and yet he quickly adjusted to it, even... enjoyed it to some extent, comparing his dependence to that of a child...) He was celebrated for it - NBC's Ted Koppel interviewed him three times, at different stages of the disease. Scores of people came to visit him, many more wrote him letters. Obviously, he inspired a lot of people. That's great. But what about the people who want to make a different choice?
 There are those of us, who don't want to follow Mr. Schwartz's path, passively waiting for nature to take its course, in whatever cruel manner it chooses. Those, who would prefer to choose the moment and maner od their death themselves. Isn't it a legitimate and noble choice, worth celebrating? The book talks about the kind of dying that allows to say final good-byes, and be surrounded by one's loved ones while doing so. If that's so desireable - and it is - what is then wrong with saying good-byes and then quietly and peacefully taking one's own life?
People who help a dying person by adjusting his pillows, tending to his sores, dulling his pain with potent painkillers, and  yes, wiping his ass, are admired as persons of compassion. Rightly so. At the same time those who would help that person die with dignity by committing suicide are treated as villains, threatened with jail. Why is one kind of compassion better than the other? Why isn't it considered an inalienable human right to refuse to endure the pain and indignity of a terrible illness? We have laws against torturing people, and would applaud if someone helped a victim of torture run away from his tormentors. We would condemn a doctor working alongside the torturers, who is making sure that the victim doesn't die prematurely and will be able to endure more pain. Why is then OK for nature to torture people and for doctors to be enablers, who prolong the agony?
I know, there are guns, and rope, and poison, and sharp blades, and plastic bags, and tall buildings, and myriad other ways by which people can kill themselves if they want to. But what if they can't? What if they are paralyzed and unable to pull the trigger, unable to get to the top floor of a parking structure to jump off from? And what about the dignity? There is nothing dignified in a wife coming home to find her terminally ill husband with his head blown off. Or hanging from the rafters in the garage.
Of course, there is the "slippery slope" argument: if we make dying nice and easy, will we start nudging at first, and then pressuring ill people toward that easy way out? And what about those suffering from depression, who would now find it so much easier to act on their impulses? Those are legitimate concerns, but shouldn't our advanced society be able to address them? Shouldn't we at least start talking about ways of addressing them?
Tellingly, even Morrie had his limits of acceptance. In his final interview with Ted Koppel he mentioned
 "other people who suffered from ALS [...], some of them famous, such as the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking [...] He lived with a hole in his throat, spoke through a computer synthesizer, typed words by batting his eyes as a sensor picked up the movement. This was admirable, but this was not the way Morrie wanted to live. "
 What if he was dealt this kind of card? Would there still be a bestseller about Morrie Schwartz, the mild-mannered professor who stoically endured to the end?