Top Stories of 2006?

As 2006 closes, different news organization come up with their lists of the top stories of the year. For those who have not been watching Nancy Grace or Glen Beck and still think CNN has an accurate pulse of the nation (I sound like a right-wing Fox News fan but I promise you, I am not; CNN has just really been irritating me the past several years, and Ted Turner agrees with me), CNN ran a poll recently asking readers to vote for the biggest story of 2006. Below were its choices, along with my comments:

• Sago mine disaster: This is certainly a disaster and a horrible situation to endure for those involved, but just because a story is covered nationally doesn't make it a national story, especially if nothing comes from it (for example, legislation to help coal miners) and you can't remember much about it a week later. Since this disaster did not impact anyone outside of those directly involved, it can't be considered a big story for the US in 2006, and shouldn't be on the list.
• Darfur crisis in Sudan: While intellectually and emotionally I know why it is on the list (it was #10 on the AP's list as well), I don't think it should be, because most Americans don't know what Darfur is nor where the Sudan is on a map, let alone the crisis or its impact on them, and I am not sure one exists. The conflict has, unfortunately, been going on for several years. Why is it on the list in 2006, as opposed to 2003? Because it finally got some notice in the mainstream US media and by some famous celebreties. While I agree that is cynical viewpoint on my part, I am not sure what the story is here. The UN passed a resolution, which was rejected by the Sudan government anyway, so if the result is status quo, what is the big story? If the fighting ever stopped, then that would be a huge story.
• Democratic takeover of Congress: The first valid entry. Of course, it really is an overrated story, as nothing of significance will change as the result of this (I hate to break it to you, but both lobbyists control both parties, and the War will still exist in Iraq until Bush leaves office), but it is still a good story and theoretically impacts everyone in the U.S.
• Israeli-Hezbollah fighting in Lebanon: This is an interesting entry on the list, because its impact on the US is questionable, nothing was resolved in the sense that the "treaty" maintained status quo, and the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel is not limited to 2006 (Israel also invaded Lebanon in 1978), but you could argue an impact to the US via continue instability int he Middle East and the domino affect that has on other areas that do impact the US directly.
• Iraq war: Donald RumsfeldÂ’s resignation: This one is certainly a valid choice. The War in Iraq alone could be the biggest story of 2006 in the US, so any significant change in policy for that war would be a big story, and the resignation of its architect fits that description.
• Immigration debate: It is interesting that CNN added the word "debate" to the end of this, as if Immigration isn't capable of standing alone as a topic. I am not sure what "debate" actually took place of any substance or intelligence, but I agree that Immigration was a big story in the US, until it got too cold to parade outside and people got bored with it, and now it is December 2006 and still nothing has changed. But I guess that doesn't mean it can't be on the list,becausee if we only included topics that our government leaders actually solved, there would be no list.
• Nuclear concerns over Iran: By itself, I don't think it is huge story. I don't think too many Americans are too concerned about this. I am not saying they should or should not be concerned, but I think it is pretty clear few care about this... not with the NFL playoffs coming up or New Year's Eve parties to plan.
• John Mark Karr's false confession: At first glance, I thought this was the guy who confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey, but I had to look it up to validate. I was right. The fact I couldn't remember his name, and the fact he confessed to something he didn't do anyway, must make this entry on the list easily the weakest. Who cares?
• Warren Jeffs' capture: Geez.. you'd think this was Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. I think he was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted, but how does this impact my life? I guess you can argue that his capture may save the lives of innocent children who are drawn into a life of manipulation, but this is a weak entry. I am beginning to think nothing happened in 2006.
• Scandals: Congress, the Rev. Ted Haggard: These are news stories only because they are covered by the media, but they aren't new, they aren't surprising, and they obviously have no impact because the scandals of 2006 will quickly be forgotten when replaced by the scandals of 2007 where idiots we elect do the same thing. Good fodder for a future episode of Jeopardy, but shouldn't be on this list.
• North Korea nuclear scare: What was the scare? If you have to ask, then it shouldn't be on the list. The blast was less than one kiloton, smaller than expected, and U.S. officials suggested that it may have been an unsuccessful test. There is also doubt North Korea has the ability to deliver a warhead by any successful means. However, we all know that Clinton and Bush have dropped the ball in the handling of North Korea, which would have been the story I would have put on the list: "US Diplomacy Policy with North Korea is a Joke".
• James Frey's fictional nonfiction: Like the Karr entry, the name didn't ring a bell by itself, but along with the description, I assumed he was the Oprah guy who wrote a fictional book and passed it off as real. I looked it up, and I was right, but this is yet another poor entry. Again, who cares?
• Celebs' bad behavior: I am not even going to talk about this. Pathetic, CNN. Really. And shame on anyone out there who picked this as the top story of 2006.

The real US top stories of 2006, were, in my opinion:
1. War in Iraq
2. Transfer of political power from Republicans to Democrats in House and Senate
3. Bush declining in Popularity
4. Illegal Immigration
5. Axis of Evil (Iran and North Korea) Moving Ahead with Nuclear Weapons Development

In case you are interested, these were the top 10 stories of 2006, as voted by the AP. They were pretty much aligned with mine, and much more closer to reality than CNN.

Book Review of "The Betrayal of America"

The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi

Most Americans have forgotten, but in November 2000, we did not know who our President was after the election. There were issues with the ballots in Florida, and with the electoral college so close, the winner of Florida would become the winner of the election. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of the ballots in question, so that a clear winner could be decided.

At the start of the recount, Bush held a slim lead over Gore. As the days went on, Gore gained ground. Either Gore was going to overtake Bush, or Bush's claim to the presidency would be validated. Either way, it seemed logical to wait and have it play out. The US is, after all, a democracy, and one of the foundations of a democracy is that the people decide. Of course, Bush predictably sued to have this recount stopped, on the basis that he would suffer "irreparable harm" should the process continue. Incredibly, the Supreme Court overruled the Florida court and agreed.

This book is about the Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000 to stop the recount, and the author's outrage over the decision he argues was not based on any legal precedence or foundation in law or ethics. Bugliosi, who was a DA in LA in his previous life (and is most known for the conviction of Charles Manson), pulls no punches in his claims that the five members of the Supreme Court who authored the decision (no one knows for sure which justice authored it, as amazingly none put his or her name on it) did so out of pure selfish interests in wanting Bush to get the presidency over Gore.

The books is a disturbing look into how fragile the whole process is that we rely on for justice in America, even though most Americans think highly of judges and think a Supreme Court justice is above such petty motivesm, which may be misplaced. Most people have very negative opinions of lawyers and politicians. "Conventional logic would seem to dictate that since a judge is normally both a politician and a lawyer, people would have an opinion of them lower than a grasshopper’s belly," he said.

In the book, Bugliosi goes into great detail explaining the flaws with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision from a moral, legal, and political perspective, to paint a very compelling picture to anyone looking at it objectively that the election was given to Bush by the Supreme Court.

I personally don't blame Bush nor would say he is an illegitimate President (the Supreme Court says he is legit, and they are the ones who decide legitimacy in this country), but there is little doubt that the Supreme Court undermined the Constitution, the will of the people, and acted in purely selfish interests. "That an election for an American president can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country," Bugliosi wrote.

And for those of you who want to dismiss Bugliosi as a die-hard liberal who is just sour that Bush is President, he addresses those thoughts directly in the book as well, and Bugliosi is equally critical of the lawyers who represented Al Gore and argued to the Supreme Court, saying they "simply could not have been any worse."

This book is a reminder that even in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, a few powerful people in well-placed positions can undermine everything right in front of our noses. Shockingly, most Americans supported the decision and have no problems with it, because their guy Bush got in, and that is all that matters (Bugliosi has some interesting comments about human nature being corrupted by personal self-interests).

Given the mess we are currently in with Iraq, one has to wonder what the course of history would have been if the state of Florida had been allowed to count every vote, as it legally and logically should have been allowed to do.

The book is based on an article Bugliosi wrote for The Nation in 2001. After this article, says Bugliosi, "came an unwelcome confirmation of something I had already concluded about the vast majority (not all) of human beings: They simply do not have sufficient character to rise above their own self-interests."

I completely agree.

http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-America-Undermined-Constitution-President/dp/156025355X

Why I stopped listening to Bill O'Reilly

I know what all of you are thinking: Why did you bother to listen to him to begin with? What did you expect? But that line of questioning, particularly from someone who has never bothered to listen to Bill O’Reilly on the radio, is exactly why I did. My seven-year-old won’t try food he has never tasted because it is different and thus must be bad. It would be good advice to an adult to use better logic than a seven-year-old. Whether you like him or not, O’Reilly is dominating cable news and the radio talk circuit, and has multiple best selling books. You can either ignore him, as CNN did, you can check it out and decide for yourself.

For $50 and a 12-month subscription to an archive of commercial-free MP3 files of his shows, I decided it would be more productive to listen to O’Reilly talk about current events during my workouts than listen to the same music.

For those who only know him from the cable show on Fox, which is nothing special and an array of topics that are short and sensational enough to capture the attention of the American who doesn't want to think about a topic longer than two minutes, the radio program is a better format for critical thought. The radio program is two hours long, devoting one topic to each hour, allowing ample time to discuss a topic in pretty good detail from several angles. O’Reilly’s method of operation is to start the discussion with his take on a topic, go to a commercial, come back with a guest who may or may not disagree with him, then come back and answer phone calls the rest of the hour. He takes about 8-12 calls an hour, and often includes about 3-5 people who completely disagree with him and think he is nuts. Granted, he has the last word and never concedes the big point, but he will acknowledge the occasional caller who makes a good counterpoint, which alone differentiates him from his peers.

But O’Reilly has several flaws as a journalist and a person that are cause for dislike, and his viewpoints on issues can be, in my opinion, intelligently countered via the same logic he uses and thinks is foolproof, but the irony is that criticism of O’Reilly is not about that but on reputation.

David Letterman told him that “60% of what he says is crap,” then later admitted in the same show that he never watches O’Reilly. Genius. Which person is worst? That one spouting “crap” or the one who hates someone he knows nothing about? I argue the latter. Letterman has been told that O’Reilly was evil and ran with it, and it is hard to find nobility in that approach through life. But when it comes to people’s view of O’Reilly, Letterman’s thoughts are very much the norm. I would guess 99% of the people who hate O’Reilly have never bothered to listen to him.

Many people hold the belief he is another Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, a guy who loves all things Republican and hates all things Democrat. But this is a lazy argument and simply not true. You don’t have to listen to more than a week of his radio show to come up with several examples of where he contradicts the Republican party line. For example:

- He is against the death penalty
- He is a libertarian when it comes to your personal life… be gay, watch porn… O’Reilly doesn’t care, as long as you don’t hurt anyone or break the
- Thinks the war in Iraq is a mess and horribly managed by the Bush administration
- Is very anti-oil companies and wants them regulated
- Has said repeatedly that Clinton had a successful presidency and doesn’t care about the Lewinski stuff (other than it took place in the Oval Office and that he lied about it)
- He is for gay rights in terms of economic equality, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.

There are several more examples, but these alone are enough to demonstrate he is not Rush or Sean Hannity. Yet he is often referred to as a conservative columnist, which I think is lazy journalism. There is no doubt that the majority of his beliefs align with Republicans, but this is not because he is pro-Republican by default but because O’Reilly is a traditionalist, and a traditionalist is aligned with the Republican platform on most issues. He no doubt votes for mostly Republicans (although he says Democrats JFK and Robert Kennedy were great Americans), but that doesn’t make him one, and it is wrong to identify him as such. Some of his ideals are clearly not aligned with Bush.

With this premise, I started working out listening to Bill O’Reilly. I listened to about 80% of O’Reilly’s daily two-hour radio shows for an entire year as part of a premium membership. I found him different than the preacher types of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Air America, who do nothing but support their guy (the one with the “D” or “R” next to the name). As such, they are predictable. And being predictable, they are boring.

I initially found O’Reilly very refreshing, because while I didn’t always agree with him, I didn’t find him predictable, and that made him tolerable to listen to, even when I disagreed with his thesis. I also appreciated how he took phone calls from people who disagreed with him, and had some guests from the opposite viewpoint. Rush and Hannity would never do that.

After a year, however, I am not renewing my membership. The main reason? It took me several months to get to the core of his agenda, but I did eventually find it, and once known, I find O’Reilly is predictable, and thus boring. I can tell you what O’Reilly will say on any issue you can come up with.

On the positive, O’Reilly has a breadth of topics on his show, and it took me several months to start hearing the same responses (compared to about 20 minutes of listening to Hannity). However, because he is more agenda-driven and “spins” much more than he will ever admit, his viewpoints never wane and he is easy to predict, once you take get to that point, just like any other radio talk show host, regardless of political leaning.

As stated previously, O’Reilly is not a conservative Republican preacher, like many in radio talk, but he is a self-proclaimed traditionalist “culture warrior”, and his new book (which he can’t go four minutes without plugging), defines what all of this means and how the secular progressives (SPs) are bad and destroying America with its “San Francisco values.”

Here is where I begin to tire of O’Reilly. I found his arguments, at first, to be logical and valid, even if I disagree with them, because they seemed to be thought through. The problem though, and you have to listen to him awhile to find the patterns, is he is inconsistent with how he applies his logic, and I belief that his agenda drives his conclusions more than logical critical thought, counter to what he says. Some examples:

- View that the world is black and white: O’Reilly basically says those who think the world is grey don’t get it. I couldn’t disagree more. One example: He says an SP is for income redistribution (taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor), such as the estate tax. I personally am against this tax, as I don’t think the government should be able to tax you on stuff you’ve already paid taxes on after you die. (But I also know the estate tax only applies to 2% of all Americans and kicks in only after you first million, so I am not that concerned about it because it will never apply to me). So, if income redistribution is defined as estate tax and a higher tax rate for rich people, I am against income redistribution. But that is not true. Income redistribution also takes place in the form of taking more in social security than you put in (a 7-year-old collecting SS checks when a parent dies, for example), college grants, Medicare, paying taxes into schools when you have no children attending school, etc. Most people are okay with that. So, I guess I am for some forms of income redistribution but not for others. Put another way, the world is not black and white.

But O’Reilly constantly mocks SPs as those who always see the world as grey and live in a “kool-aid world” that needs clear answers. Unfortunately, I don’t see the world as black and white, and as such, I can’t live in O’Reilly’s world.

· Iraq War: He says the war is mess. He says on Oprah that he probably wouldn’t support it knowing what he knows now. Yet, he is against pulling out. Why? Because it will be worse, as millions of people will die in civil war. This is likely true and what happened in Vietnam that most Americans don’t know about (about 3 million Vietnamese were slaughtered after the US left Vietnam), but what is the alternative? Stay in Iraq and continue to have people picked off daily and spend billions each month and have American soldiers kidnapped and tortured? I don’t know the answer, and I am very glad it isn’t my call, but the fact is O’Reilly doesn’t know it will be worse any more than I know it can be better, which is the problem with preemptive wars: their value can never fully be proven or even known. My issue? O’Reilly never admits that. He just says his way is right, and Democrats and others are insane to think otherwise.

· Endless self-promotion: Every entertainer, and O’Reilly is an entertainer (he calls himself a news analyst, which thus makes it okay for him to provide commentary and speculation), self-promotes to some degree, but my god: enough with the book you just wrote and its sales and place on the NY Times best seller list, and enough about your book signings, and enough about your appearances on TV shows, and enough with your name droppings of celebrities that you have met or know (why do I know that he lives next door to Happy Gilmore? Why do I need to know that?).

· Double-standards: He constantly rips people who don’t appear on his show, such as Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Stephen Colbert (why does he care if that guy comes on his show or not?), but meanwhile Dick Cheney has several times refused to appear on the show despite saying he will in the future, yet he never gets ripped. A caller once asked O’Reilly about that, but O’Reilly said he wasn’t ready to give up on the VP just yet (read: O’Reilly doesn’t want to tick off the Bush administration).

· Insecurities and vendettas: O’Reilly is a very insecure person. I know this, because he talks for a long time about things he says he doesn’t care about. He says he doesn’t care if no one reviews his books, because they will rip it anyway, then talks about how no one will review his books at some point in every show for two weeks straight after the book comes out. He also gets on people who don’t want to appear on his show, which of course is always because they are afraid of O’Reilly and have something to hide. But isn't it possible they don't want to appear on O'Reilly's show because they don't like him nor want to give his audience the story? Some people don’t like Letterman and only go on Leno, or Fox News but never CNN. It isn’t always about Bill O'Reilly. Get over it.

· Calling for boycotts: O’Reilly won’t go to France, won’t go to Vermont, won’t buy oil from one company, clothes from another, vacation here, won’t shop at that store there, this judge has to go, this senator can’t stay… a modern day J. Edgar Hoover. Enough with the lists. And what is the foundation of all these boycotts? Anecdotal evidence: O’Reilly is the master at using a random events (albeit true) to justify his viewpoints, but the fact 1% of a sample size is doing something doesn’t mean everyone is buying into it. I am willing to bet I can find people in the South who still want slavery, but I am not going to write a book talking about the threat of slavery returning to America, because the majority of people won’t tolerate that thought, and it will never happen. And just because one store says Happy Holidays isn’t going to keep me from saying Merry Christmas, and it doesn’t mean that Jesus will be boycotted from all churches across the land. Enough with the slippery slope arguments. We couldn't even make it to December before O'Reilly had to take an hour talking about a store not saying "Merry Christmas" (11/29, hour 2). Enough.

· Hates the media, but he is that which he hates: this is a whole article in of itself (is the media liberal?), but in short, he uses the fact that most newspaper editorial boards are liberal to extrapolate that all journalist can’t cover any news anymore, as if a kid out of j-school trying to be the next Bob Woodward is going to ignore the parking ticket scandal at city hall if the guy is a Democrat. The fact most journalists vote Democrat doesn’t mean they are giving a pass to Democrats (was he alive during the Clinton administration?), and the reason journalists attack the system is because journalists are supposed to be a watchdog of the other three estates, which is typically rich white males, who tend to be conservative Republicans. It isn’t personal. If suddenly Democrats owned all the wealth and power in the US and were the CEO of every big corporation, the Fourth Estate would be looking very closely into liberals as well. If you have no power or wealth, you can’t do much damage, and your scandal isn’t worth the media’s time.

· Hates the Internet: He admittedly knows nothing about computers, and they always say you fear that which you are ignorant of. I disagree with him on this topic, but I understand why he hates the Internet: Web sites list his mistakes (and I agree with him, when you talk 3-4 hours every day, you are going to say something stupid… I know I would), it takes power away from the central journalism core and allows people like me to publish ideas. I understand where his coming from. But he is wrong.

· Personal life choices: This is admittedly the weakest part of my whole critique of O’Reilly, but I just feel he did something he shouldn’t have, and it is hard for me to support him when I think he has some issues. I think this is why he is quick to forgive those who are caught publicly messing up (most recently Mel Gibson, which got a lot of air time on his show), because he has been there. Again, this is my opinion and not based on facts submitted into a court of a law, other than the lawsuit filed by the female who sued O’Reilly and is found here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html. Only those two and God know what really happened, but I do know the female claimed to have tapes, O’Reilly was going to counter sue to get the tapes, and then suddenly the case was settled out of court. If I didn’t do anything wrong, and the tapes would prove it, I know I wouldn’t have settled. You can say that the settlement saved O’Reilly money in the long-run, but the guy is loaded with more money than he can possibly spend (he is a self-admited frugal guy) and has a huge ego: You really think he would have forked over millions if he were innocent? I don’t.

Obviously I don’t know the man, but O’Reilly seems to me like someone who is very insecure and has an anger-management problem, especially when challenged, and he is not someone I would want watching my kid (which is the barometer I use to judge people). He admits that he gets very angry sometimes (I remember one time he spoke about how he killed a phone), and I just get the feeling that he would not be a lot of fun to hang out with or work with, unless you agreed with him. Again, I admit this is a weak thesis on my part because I don’t know him, but sometimes you have to go with your gut. And I don’t want to financially support his empire, if I believe there is something amiss here.

For the reasons above, I no longer am listening to Bill O’Reilly. Not because I hate him, or because I am a “left-wing idealog bomb-thrower”, or because I am a registered Democrat, a person with “San Francisco values”, anti-American, a “secular progressive” or a terrorist. I no longer listen to O’Reilly because he has nothing left to say I haven’t heard before, and he has been reduced to a preacher talking to his choir, and preachers are entertainers with agendas. And I don’t find him entertaining anymore.

Most Overrated Topics in the US News

1. gas prices

You don't like the high gas prices? Too bad. You insist on driving the F-870 4x4 truck or SUV that gets 8 miles a gallon, won't take public transportation, and you want to live in the suburbs an hour from work and drive 15 miles out of the way for Starbucks every morning, so deal with it. Until I see you change your lifestyle and elect officials who are not bought off by lobbyists from the oil companies and auto unions (which is just about everyone), I don't have any sympathy or respect for your whining.

In addition, even with the recent increase in gas prices, the cost of gas, when adjusted for inflation, is the same now as it was in 1939 (click here). In the US, gas has been remarkably cheap for a long time, but instead of taking advantage of that and developing alternative fuel, all politicians, Democrat and Republican, have maintained the status quo and done nothing, while countries like Brazil have managed to figure it out.

No one cares that housing, college tuition, and health care is going up significantly above inflation and causing an economic divide in the US that will have far more of an impact decades from now than your cancelled trip to Yellowstone, but gas goes up 10 cents a gallon and all hell breaks lose (by hell, I mean a lot of whining but no actual behavior change). Go ahead and blame the oil companies, as that deflects the blame from you, the American who continually elects government officials at local, state, and federal levels who do nothing to remove our dependence on oil and put us in this mess. Legislators approved oil mergers that made this business a monopoly, and so many regulations exist that you and I could not start our own oil company down the street to provide competition and lower prices, as you would see in any other industry or product.

And stop this madness of comparing the cost of gas in different states- it is apples and oranges. Gas costs more in New York than in Montana because of state and local taxes added to the gas at the pump, so stop visiting me from out of state and commenting about how it is more or less expensive where you live. I don't care. So leave me alone while I run the car for thirty minutes to get the AC going.

2. al-Zarqawi killed

President Bush hailed the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a "severe blow to al Qaeda," and an opportunity for Iraq to "turn the tide" against the insurgency that has plagued the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Yes, it is good news. Yes, it is an opportunity. No, it won't change anything. Iraq is still a mess, there are still no weapons of mass destruction, and somehow I think al Qaeda will find someone to take his place. Overrated.

3. gay marriage

Why are we talking about this? If I had to list the thousand biggest issues facing Americans, the inability for gays to marry and lack of legislation at the federal level to prevent would not only be behind assholes who own dogs that bark all night- it wouldn't even be on the list. I have friends who are gay, and I have no problem with it. But at the same time, don't tell me this is an issue so important that I need my elected officials discussing an amendment to the constitution.

Let's peruse the US Constitution: freedom of religion, no soldiers allowed in your house without consent, the right to face your accuser in court, abolishment of slavery, women's rights, and abolishment of gay marriage? Guess what topic doesn't quite fit in with the others in social significance?

If anything, it is a state issue. You want to be gay and marry, move to California or Washington. You want to be free of married gays, move to Idaho and Utah. Regardless of what side you are on, I don't want to hear it. If you are against gay marriages, relax: The fact Joe and Joe got married doesn't invalidate the quality of your infidelity in your third marriage. If you are for gay marriage, be reasonable: 95% of the world is not gay, so it stands to reason you will get a lot of resistance, and the fact Ted and Stacey in Nebraska think you are going to hell doesn't mean they are right- you can still love your significant other.

The real issue here, of course, is not official recognition of gay marriage but legal protection for companions. If the geniuses running the gay platform would tone down the marriage talk and focus on that, I think most Americans would support them and agree that two gays living together deserve the same legal protection of married spouses should one die, become sick, etc.

But you throw in the word "marriage" to a population that is 95% heterosexual and votes more for the next American Idol than its President and thinks "Deal or No Deal" is all about strategy, you suddenly have Ted and Stacey calling the local radio station and the President talking about constitutional amendments. My advice to gays: drop the marriage talk and focus on getting legal protection for companions, and be happy with that. As someone who is married, I promise- you aren't missing anything.

4. steroids in baseball

The only thing worse than Congress talking about an amendment banning gay marriage is any activity in Congress investigating steroids in baseball. I understand business and corporations are within their federal jurisdiction, and baseball is interstate commerce. What I don't understand is why anyone cares. We all know some of them cheated. It is a game. It doesn't really matter in life if your team wins or loses. You have no job, you have no health insurance, your brother is going through hell in Iraq, and all you can talk about is if Barry Bonds cheated? Get some perspective, already, and go watch the World Cup.

5. World Cup

I could write a whole blog on soccer, but for now, I will say this: The only reason it is the most popular sport in the world is because the rest of the world has no money, is unemployed, and has nothing more to look forward to in life than being able to blow off work and family for a month every four years and drink alcohol all day, chant songs, and watch el futbol (A similar but less intense ritual takes place in the US for five months every year, where men pretend to care about life by going to church for an hour on Sundays before abandoning the kids and wife to watch the NFL all day).

Why is the World Cup not popular in the US? Lack of money and the environment (safe transportation methods) to use it. If the rest of the world had our disposable income, highways, and technology, and they could travel freely and safely, they too would skip soccer to do more important things, such as go to the mountains or beach, watch Oprah, play video games, surf porn on the Internet, or write a letter to the local newspaper about banning gay marriage.

6. alligator attacks

Three fatal alligator attacks in one week in Florida. Cable news can't get enough of it, along with experts telling you how to stay safe. Call me cocky, but I am not too worried about it. The alligators in Idaho are very tame, and I think that is the case for the other 99% of the US.

7. sensational murders and trials

The Duke Lacrosse Team is accused of rape, a minister's wife is murdered... why is there a cable news show always talking about the young white girl who is missing or dead every single moment of the day? A girl disappears in Aruba in 2005, and they are still giving updates on it (and by update, I mean nothing new is presented). In the same way that I assume all black males are in jail or in gangs by what I see on TV, I am shocked every time I see a young white girl at the mall, because I assumed they were all dead, either at the hands of perverts or alligators.

Nancy Grace on CNN does nothing else but discuss these topics in true National Enquirer fashion (where did she come from by the way, and who was the marketing genius who greenlighted her show?). Larry King is right behind her with his reunion special on Elizabeth Smart. If you count new host Glen Beck discussing American Idol every night and laughing at his own jokes as he stumbles around the studio, the question begs to be asked: What the fuck happened to CNN? Remember when this was a respected news source? It now is just a mature presentation of MTV news, and I hate to say it, but Fox News is better right now (cnn.com though is still much better than foxnews.com).

Ted Turner agrees. Turner said recently that he regretted losing control of CNN, which he founded in 1980, to Time Warner after its merger with America Online. "There is an awful lot of superfluous news, the pervert of the day and someone that shot seven people," he said. "Who needs it all?'"

I grew up on CNN. There are still great people at CNN. Please put Ted back in charge before Rupert Murdoch gets Fox News in every airport and hotel, which is the last stronghold for CNN, and the only reason CNN has any relevance. Enough with the trials and stories that have absolutely no impact on my life or anyone's else's (outside of the people directly involved, and those people should be too stressed to be watching).

8. celebreties and babies

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had a baby in Namibia. Brittany Spears is going to do the same. In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC Today, Spears said:

"Kevin (her husband) has always been a fan of African-American culture," she replied. "I'm sure he'll feel at home there, rapping with all the natives. Besides, there's lots of quiet unpaved roads where Sean Preston and I can go driving." Ah, yes. This helps explain why Wyoming is the hip place to deliver a baby- its high volume of quiet unpaved roads.

Spears also said that Namibia reminds her of California "because it's on the ocean and there's lots of sand. So if Sean Preston fell off his swing and landed on his head, there's less chance he would be hurt and we'd have those snoops from child welfare up our butts all the time."

I guess I am contributing to the problem by talking about this, but can it stop already? Why do Americans care about this?

9. Ann Coulter

Coulter has a new book out. In it, she argues that Democrats use messengers who get a free ride because of their tragic backgrounds, including four 9/11 widows who have criticized the war in Iraq. This actually is an interesting argument, and one that could be debated intelligently. Unfortunately, Coulter is not about intelligent dialog but selling herself, so she takes it to another level.

She wrote that Kristen Brietweiser is "Miss Va-Va Voom of 1968". She referred to the four women as "weeping widows", and the "Witches of East Brunswick". She asked "how do we know their husband's weren't planning to divorce these harpies?", and wondered "now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

My question to people is: Are you surprised? It is Ann Coulter. Enough said. There is nothing to see here.

10. Da Vinci Code

Putting aside the obvious responses on this controversy, which is Dan Brown's book is fiction (I was too young to remember, but did religious people get this upset when Planet of the Apes came out?), I don't understand what the problem is.

Jesus was married and had a kid, Brown says in the book. So what? I did too. It happens. If anything, this draws me closer to Jesus, because now I think on judgment day, after knowing I too was married, he will completely understand and sympathize with my sins, and I may have a chance of getting in to heaven.

Feeling secure?

I had a hard time writing this blog. I have no desire to undermine national security, but since I am not impressed with our national security, I felt compelled to speak. So, in a compromise that makes me feel I am not hurting anyone, I won’t use names of airports or museums. This allows me to speak out but still be the patriotic American that would make Sean Hannity proud (sort of like the guy who cheats on his wife on Tuesday but goes to communion on Sunday… it is all good in the eyes of God, right?).

I don’t travel much, but it doesn’t take much to notice what is going on, should you care to look. At one airport, every freaking time, they come after us wanting to wipe down our backpack because our Sony video camera set off the sirens, but this same airport lets you walk through the metal detector wearing shoes. In comparison, another airport pays no attention to the video camera but makes everyone, including the six-year-old, take off shoes.

I asked the woman who was managing the stripping of the shoes (she has a badge that says she is security, but I was skeptical): Why are my shoes allowed in airport x without a second glance but not in this fine establishment? Her response: “We can’t let the terrorists know what we are doing, can we? So we do it differently at each airport, to keep them guessing.” Oh, yes, this is certainly fooling them. There is no way one could remember that four hours ago he had to take his shoes off but was not forced to here.

If I, Joe Infrequent Traveler, has figured out in my four trips a year which airport checks for what, I have a sneaking suspicion that the unit that paid for jumbo jet training is going to shell out a couple of thousand in round-trip tickets to look for any patterns that exist in airport security… and avoid them.

If you haven’t visited Washington D.C. post-911, you are missing quite the show in security. For one monument, you go through a metal detector that security said (unsolicited, as they were worried about pregnant woman walking through it) is stronger than the ones at the airport. Putting aside philosophical questions over what is more valuable to protect, a granite structure that can be rebuilt or people’s lives 30,000 feet in the air, I kept wondering why a terrorist would even bother to bring the bomb inside the monument and risk getting caught by security. I mean, I know nothing about bombs, but if you can blow up entire buildings, I would imagine placing a backpack at the base of the monument would do the trick.

In each of the museums and government buildings (even the pathetically outdated and overpriced National Aquarium where security outnumbered visitors), including the food courts, you have to go through security and metal detectors.

I walked into one of the Smithsonian museums just after it opened that morning, and security obviously didn’t get to its Starbucks coffee yet, because they were not very alert.

Guard 1 (to Guard 2): “Did you check that lady?”
Guard 2: “What lady?”
Guard 1 (pointing to a woman): “That lady!”
Guard 2: “No.”
Guard 1: “Go grab her. She said you did. Check her bag!”

Meanwhile, as Guard 1 checks my bag, he complains that they don’t have the sticks they use to poke the bags without sticking their hands in, as it is common for terrorists to use mouse-traps in camera bags, and they don’t want to get their fingers snapped. I look up and notice Guard 2 just let the woman go on without pursuit.

Solid effort by security.

In one building there is a very popular food court in the basement, which most tourists don’t know about but the people who work in the building and nearby certainly do. My family (myself, wife, 6-year-old son) went there twice, on two different days, for lunch.

In full disclosure, I should reveal that if one were to profile my family, we certainly would be marked by computer software and pulled aside… if that software were tracking people who have never been involved in terrorist activities in the history of earth. But since profiling is very wrong and can never be done in America (it is just wrong!), we were stopped by security on both occasions.

Day 1: In addition to the bag and metal detector, I had to show my driver’s license, a new twist to the D.C. security screenings. After providing it, they let my family through to eat at Subway and a pizza stand.

Day 2: Remembering yesterday, this time I had my driver’s license in hand as I approached the checkpoint. I show it, and we start to walk away, but not so fast. Today, they call out to my wife to come back. She needs to show ID as well. Fortunately, I had my wife’s ID on me, or we would not have been allowed in that day… at least at that entrance. I secretly wanted to walk out and around to the other entrance and test my theory, but I was too hungry. I mentioned to the security female that my wife didn’t need ID yesterday to eat at Subway, but she wasn’t impressed.

On both days, they didn’t bother to card my six-year-old for ID, when he easily was the most obvious threat in the entire lobby, due to his pretending to be a Jedi in Star Wars, jumping around and making explosion sounds repeatedly and loudly. Of course, the reason they did not card my son is they were profiling and admitting that 6-year-old blonde-hair blue-eyed Caucasian boys of American citizens rarely are terrorists (at least outside of Montana). Despite the fact profiling is wrong (very wrong!), it seemed to make sense in this case, be more efficient, yet still accurate, as indeed, my son did not cause any destruction. Why strip-search the lad if he is very unlikely to be a risk, bomb-sounding noises aside?

The bottom line is that security is fooling no one with its inconsistent ways, and the whole point of federalizing security is to provide a high-level of standard that will protect us. I have no problem taking my shoes off, getting strip-searched, or reciting patriotic songs by Celine Dion- if it helps catch the bad guys. But if it does help catch bad guys, then why isn’t every security checkpoint doing it? And if they aren’t doing it because it doesn’t really work, then stop wasting my time by making me do it, because I am obviously not a terrorist.

If I were trying to hurt America, I would not bomb a building in D.C. that the average American cannot identify in a picture, other than to say it was in the movie Independence Day and looks really old.

I would instead do something that would really bring pain and anguish to Americans, like create a computer virus that would rig the American Idol voting, legalize gay marriage, take NASCAR off the air, or force Americans to eat less than 3500 calories a day. That is how you bring a world power to its knees- hit them below the belt in their sensitive areas.

Uncovering Guantanamo Bay

Shortly after 9-11, when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to find Osama Bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban regime, US troops found themselves with approximately 500 enemy combatants that they didn't know what to do with (the number has since grown to over 700 as of 2006).

President Bush received advice, from then Attorney General John Ashcroft and then White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez (now the Attorney General), to send the prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay (sometimes called Gitmo) in Cuba, which is a large military base that the US leases from Cuba (interestingly, Cuban president Fidel Castro has refused to cash all but the very first rent check in protest).

Why Gitmo? The Bush administration, for reasons that will be explained later, felt that the prisoners were not protected under the Geneva Convention. Since Cuba is not US soil, Bush believed that Federal courts did not have jurisdiction to get in the way of holding the prisoners without trial. This belief, however, was not uniformly shared outside of the Bush administration.

Soon upon transfer to Gitmo, relatives and friends of prisoners engaged lawyers and filed lawsuits all over the country on behalf of the detainees, to the point where then Chief Justice William Rendquist ordered all lawsuits to be consolidated and sent to a judge in Washington D.C.

Some of the cases were about habeas corpus, which is the right of a prisoner to be brought to court to determine guilt. Habeas corpus is guaranteed to all persons (not just citizens) in the US under the Constitution and cannot be suspended unless in time of war. Since Congress did not declare war, the Bush administration is clearly in the wrong, right? Wrong.

On September 14, 2001, by a vote of 98-0 (with two senators not voting), Congress passed the Joint Resolution 23, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force." This resolution had the following text:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It is this bill that has led to the holding of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the suspension of habeas corpus, and everything else that opponents of this war cry out against. But what critics of the Bush administration forget as they demand impeachment of the President, is that every Republican, Democrat, and Independent agreed to give Bush this power. John Kerry voted for it. John Edwards voted for it. Ted Kennedy voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for it. So who is to blame?

Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism", which contains the following text:

(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.

Many legal and constitutional scholars contend that these provisions are in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the US Bill of Rights. This belief was challenged in the Jose Padilla case. But on September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain "enemy combatants" without charges, citing the president's constitutional powers as commander in chief and the congressional resolution authorizing the president to use military force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.

Moving forward in our story, one of the cases that was sent to Washington D.C. for consolidation made it to the Supreme Court, which said 8-1 that the lower Federal courts do have jurisdiction over the prisoners at Gitmo. But what difference does it make if Gitmo falls under US jurisdiction if they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention or habeas corpus, or if the Federal Courts recognize that Bush has the power, given by Congress, to deny habeas corpus?

People on the Bush side argue that the Geneva convention does not apply, as we are not talking about civic law. They feel that a different legal framework applies when at war. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) says that you may detain someone without charge until the end of the conflict, however long that may be. LOAC applies to the conduct of military operations even when war has not been declared and when only one party is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. This applies to the enemy combatants at Gitmo, as they didn't wear uniforms nor represent a specific country that we had a treaty with. In addition, they have valuable intelligence that the US must extract.

Critics of the Bush administration challenge those believes in multiple ways:

1) The Geneva Convention has a specific article referring to prisoners captured without uniforms, and it states that they are due the same protection as those without uniforms. This clause was put in specifically because American soldiers took uniforms off to infiltrate enemy lines during WWII, and US special ops forces today don't wear uniforms, and the US wanted some protection for them if captured (fyi.. it is against international law for soldiers not to wear uniforms, even though every country does it.) .

2) To hold someone until the end of a conflict, when the War on Terror could last forever like the War on Drugs, likely was not the intent of the authors of the Geneva Conventions, so how can that be the rule you go by to determine when the prisoners at Gitmo can be freed? In addition, there is no government to surrender to the US for the War on Terror, so who will decide when it is over?

3) Is this how we would want our troops treated if they were captured? Not a legal reason, but a practical one.

4) What if the government has screwed up and has innocent people detained? According to a report based on data supplied by the Defense Department, only 5% of the detainees were captured by US forces; 86% of the prisoners were handed over by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance, at a time when the US was offering large bounties for the capture of suspected enemies. In other words, most of the prisoners were brought in by local bounty-hunters rather than as the result any American investigation or collection of intelligence. This, of course, does not mean that those prisoners are not guilty of crimes against the United States, but it does seem to important to validate that the right people have been caught.

5) How valuable could evidence be from a prisoner who has been held for four years in a foreign country with no contact with family, a lawyer, or even the Red Cross possibly have? Anything they knew certainly has no value today.

Is the Bush administration's policy in Guantanamo Bay against what the Founding Fathers intended when they created the Constitution? Yes. Is the policy directly in conflict with the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights? Without doubt. But is the Bush administration breaking the law by holding enemy combatants and not giving them a trial to determine their guilt or innocence? No. Is he guilty of impeachable offenses? No.

Unfortunately, we have short memories. Most Americans who despise Bush's policy in Gitmo believe that their side would have handled it differently, when the fact is their leaders authorized Bush to do this without one objection. Meanwhile, the hypocritical political leaders who enabled this mess continue to hit the cable news shows criticizing Bush, as if no one could have seen this coming.

It is likely that the next President and appointed Attorney General will reverse the Presidential Order and require the government to present its cases against the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and if no evidence found, the prisoners will at that point be freed.

When this happens, most of the prisoners will have been held in Gitmo for over seven years, so let's hope they are guilty.

Anatomy of a Sears sales receipt

I am not a fan of long receipts.

Not because of environmental concerns (although that would be a valid argument for some of these companies) but because they are an inconvenience. And not just because they are an inconvenience, but because the company knows it is an inconvenience and does me wrong anyway, laughing in my face, because I can't do anything about it.

Granted, most Americans don't save receipts, track their expenses, or generally care about anything related to financial management, but as someone who saves receipts for credit card statement validation, then saves them again for possible future warranty issues or returns, I don't need this amount of paper in my wallet, kitchen drawer, and file cabinets.

The information in these receipts has no value to me. I don't need my entire day itemized on my receipt, and I don't need to have my sales receipt double as a PDA with all of the latest company news.

Buy one sandwich at Subway (see image on the left) and pay with a credit card, and you will walk out with a foot-long receipt that tells you the card swiped was approved, the authorization number, the host order ID, the reference number, the processor date, whether it was swiped or keyed, the ticket number, the account number, the expiration date, the card company, the card member name, the amount charged (again), a signature line, and a thank you for the order (Subway thanks you three separate times on the receipt).

Wow. Information so important, it makes me wonder how Wal-Mart manages to stay in business with just an account and approval number on its receipts (There is no confirmation on the rumor that Subway plans to include your BMI, college transcripts, and paycheck withholdings on future sandwich receipts.).

Target initially pleased me years ago when, during the Christmas season, cashiers asked if you wanted a gift receipt. If you said yes, then they would print out a separate receipt that included a "to:" and "from:" line and a barcode for gift exchanges, so your receiver could easily exchange the gift without knowing everything else you purchased.

Now, however, Target puts this at the bottom of every receipt whether or not I want it, which has now become an irritating extra five inches of paper with every visit (surely Target must know that not 100% of my purchases are gifts for others?).

And yes, Home Depot is a pain in the arse with its coupons at the end of the receipt and messages that are completely unrelated to my purchase. I bought a replacement cartridge for a leaky shower faucet last week and the receipt had a paragraph stating that Home Depot has a 30-day return policy on all gasoline powered equipment. Great. Now you tell me. My six-year-old son was just asking me about that the other day, and boy did I feel stupid for not knowing the answer!

But the king of long receipts, without equal, is undeniably Sears. In 1906, Sears opened an office in Dallas, Texas. The mail-order plant, with more than three million square feet of floor space, was the largest business building in the world. A cynical person might say its intent was solely to hold copies of all its sales receipts.

Everyone has heard the anecdotal evidence. A family in Pittsburgh, purchasing dishes and appliances for a new home, ended up with a receipt which, if laid down flat, would stretch around the earth three times. During the big East Coast blackout in 2003, rumors are one woman in New York survived two weeks solely on the heat produced from burning receipts saved from four visits to Sears.

I acknowledge sometimes these stories may be exaggerated, so I decided to find out for myself. We usually don't shop at Sears, but we needed a new vacuum, and the one ranked number one in Consumer Reports was at Sears. So last week we bought a vacuum, plus an extra bag. Two items. The receipt? Twenty-freaking-seven inches long. Over two feet of paper. I kid you not.

A closer look at the Sears sales receipt shows that it can be broken into three sections, each eight inches long. The first section is the most traditional, with your item, cost, date, payment method, etc. But where Sears wastes real estate is that it has a huge box for you to sign your name plus ten lines of explanation about your role in all of this (by signing this receipt, you agree to pay for the merchandise... this explanation is understandable, given that the credit card has only been around for about five decades and many people don't understand how it works).

The second part of the Sears receipt (see image on the left), is the phone book section of the receipt. I guess it is nice that Sears is proactively giving me information I can find in the phone book or web site, but it is a bit disconcerting that they are so eager to tell me their parts and service department numbers... does a new product break so often that someone decided it would be most efficient to print out four different phone numbers on every receipt? Given that, it is disappointing I don't also get the address and phone number of the nearest Target and Wal-Mart, so after I return my defective Sears product, I can go get one that works.

The third section of the receipt is the shameless promotion section. In this case, they are offering $20 if you use H&R Block to do your taxes. Hmm. H&R Block? Is that the tax consultant company who admitted this month it
underestimated its own state effective income tax rate in prior quarters and owes $32 million in back taxes? The same company that in an August 2005 filing with the SEC said that it had overstated net income for 2003 and 2004 by $91.1 million, due mostly to accounting errors? The same company that announced this month a slower start to the tax-filing season than in previous years, in part due to a new software program that sent an estimated 250,000 customers to rivals with some offices unable to process taxes?

Well... let's see... I could either spend $20 and use Turbo Tax and not be audited, or I can spend significantly more, go with H&R Block, and hope that I get out of jail in time for my kid's graduation? No thanks.

(Another strong alliance decision by Sears, for those who felt the K-Mart acquisition was an anomaly. I am surprised Sears doesn't include the IRS phone number in Section two of the receipt, along with my nearest Jackson Hewitt rep.)

Following the coupon, Sears again feels the need to give me six inches of legal jargon. Do I really need to be told that my $20 off of H&R Block prep fees cannot be applied to fine jewelry or Levi's jeans? Don't I know this? Is there really a use case out there to justify the cost of printing this out? Has anyone at Sears done a CBA on this?

Jewelry Cashier: "That will be $450."
Customer: "I think you mean $430... I have a coupon here for $20."
Cashier: "This is for H&R Block consultation only."
Customer: "I don't understand."
Cashier: "You can't use this on jewelry."
Customer: "Well, then you should say that clearly on the receipt, right under the coupon then! I am never shopping here again!"

Perhaps the length of receipts is a result of Sears clinging to its past, when it was a mail order catalog of over 300 pages in the early 19th century. Perhaps it is way for a conservative executive council to get back at Spotted Owl legislation by killing as many trees as possible with every corporate revenue (an irony that keeps them laughing all day).

Either way, clearly companies, specifically Sears, can save the consumer some time and the environment some waste by just letting a receipt be what a receipt is supposed to be: simply a record of a sale.

Welcome

This blog is for people who want to think about the big themes of life (knowledge, reason, truth, politics, social norms) and who want to rant about the little themes of life (sports, entertainment, traffic, social norms). If this seems a bit broad, that is because of me.

The fact is sometimes I want to change the world and tackle a tough issue, and other times I get worked up over a topic that admittedly is of no significance to anyone. It would be great if I were always in the mood to debate the death penalty or the theories of Immanuel Kant, but sometimes I just want to explain to everyone why figure skating is not a sport. It is also a time issue: I can write a rant on parking lot designs in an hour, but an article on whether the media is liberal takes some research.

Because of this, I cannot promise you will enjoy every entry, because my writing is for my sanity, which may not align with yours. Ideally, both of our needs would be taken care of simultaneously. The problem is that idealism, philosophically speaking, only works when the union of the knower and the known are one, when the object of perception and the one who perceives it is not separate. This, unfortunately, doesn't always happen.

However, it does happen, and the journey of discovery (before you find the knowledge, the identity, the moment of idealism) is only surpassed in importance by how you react the moment after you see an implemented idea or theory achieve its intended result.

Does doubt corrupt or enlighten? Does faith survive best on ignorance or on knowledge? The intent of this blog, at its best, is to find the pragmatic truth. At its worst moment, this blog is simply an avenue for me to complain. In between, we may come to the conclusion that we do not need to validate every belief with rational inquiry.