Unrepentant Tangential Lengthy Musings

Baseball Free Agency and Gen X

2005-12-05T08:54:00.000-08:00

Has the creation of free agency in baseball affected the employment patterns of Gen X?

If you're a doctoral student or simply a thinker, feel free to steal this idea, research it enough to respond, or lambaste me as I've been lambasted by prior posters ("You suck" comes to mind).

The definition of the supposed Generation X is still highly debated, but Wikipedia notes that the book Generations by Strauss and Howe says this generation was born between 1961 and 1981, while others define sub-genres with a prevailing set of years between 1965 and 1975. This would make the generation anywhere between 24 to 44.

Baseball free agency began with the case of Curt Flood, a St. Louis Cardinal outfielder who after being traded from St. Louis to Philadelphia after the 1969 season, pleaded his case to then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, to become a free agent. The battle was against the Reserve Clause, which bound the player to the team he played for and gave owners tremendous power to control their employee. He lost. Then, in 1974, Catfish Hunter of the Oakland A's claimed breach of contract against owner Charles O. Finley. An arbitrator agreed with Hunter. The Reserve Clause crumbed December 23, 1975 when Andy Messersmith of the Dodgers and Dave McNally of the Expos played the 1975 season without contracts and declared themselves free agents. An independent arbitrator sided with the players, was fired, the ruling taken to a federal court, and eventually upheld. This summary was taken from a fine article by Bruce Lowitt from the St. Petersburg Tribune from 1999 titled, "Free-agency era opens in baseball".

This got me thinking about my generation.

Did baseball's free agency begin at a time when my generation was coming into its own?
Have personal salaries increased at a similar rate or scale as have ball players since free agency began?
Are workers switching jobs at a similar pace as ball players looking for more money?
Are there correlations between workers' changing jobs more frequently and the reduction in employer benefits such as pensions?
Is a transitive property effecting not only job hopping, but employer benefits? So, if employees care less = increased job hopping, and employers care less = employees care less, then increased job hopping = employers care less?

There are, of course, a lot of other factors that affect this generation. But, in terms of dates, the growth of free agency in baseball certainly falls into the date definition of Gen X.

I ask you Gen Xers out there: Conscious or not, has the rise of free agency played any role in your efforts at work or to switch jobs? Do you see yourself as a free agent? Do you believe Gen Xers running organizations are reducing benefits because they assume we think this way?

Anybody want to run with this one?

The Power to Brush

2005-11-17T11:26:00.000-08:00

I like to have a toothbrush at work. I do this because I have an inordinate concern that I have something in my teeth. All the time. That promotes horrible breath. That makes most people avoid me. Okay, maybe not that bad.

I do have a toothbrush at work. It does help to brush after two cups of coffee and breakfast, after lunch, and after my mid-afternoon diet drink. My teeth are somewhat close together and my six month checkups have been, in the past, replete with knowing looks by my hygienist that say, "Geez, you really should be brushing and flossing more often." Maybe that's just what I feel when she's standing over me with a really sharp instrument that's been making scraping noises that make fingers on chalkboards seem like Muzak.

I keep a cheap toothbrush at work; a "travel" brush. At home I have one of those spin brushes, the kind that has the battery in it. I like it and think it works really well. Of course I say this even though I know in my heart I'm still going to get that "Oh boy! Look at what I can scrape off his teeth and draw blood!" look from my hygienist. This is the power of marketing. I believe that the spin brush I'm using makes a difference. But that's another topic.

The cheap toothbrush I have at work has marketing all over its packaging. I store my brush in this original packaging because I don't have one of those cheap little caps for the toothbrush head. And yes, I'm sure you're wondering if this cheap toothbrush is crawling with germs and impending diarrheals. I know I am.

I decided to take a glance at this packaging today. Here's what I found: "The Curved Handle and Bristles Put the Power to Brush in Your Hands". I'd like to dissect that statement and consider what it's saying to me, the consumer.

I don't doubt the curved handle, which also has nicely placed rubber-feeling material in the right places to feel secure while I'm holding the brush. So yes, curved handle. And the bristles are slightly curved in shape, though this is developed via the "short straw" maneuver of making some of the bristles physically shorter than the others. Thus, the bristles themselves are not "curved". Strike One Colgate.

The "Power to Brush". Hmm, this toothbrush is any different than any other in this way? Because it has a curved handle and "curved" bristles? The power? Wouldn't a Brillo pad do the same thing? How about a leaf just fallen from the frost-covered tree outside our bedroom window? Wouldn't any of these, and about 200 others, give me the power to brush?

Finally, I have all this power in my hands. Not just my hand. In my hands. As though I'm standing at the sink with both hands wrapped around this Wave toothbrush jerking it back and forth in my mouth, foam and toothpaste spurting onto the mirror in front of me, with the forcefulness (nee power) of a jackhammer. That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Both hands on the toothbrush?

Now, I imagine the marketing geniuses at Colgate probably felt that they could avoid a class action lawsuit by left- or right-handed brushers by saying "hands", even though they do not, in any way, identify which hand gets the power with the brush in it. But I do admit that, if this statement rings true, my left hand would be very jealous if the right hand got all the power. My left hand might refuse to help do things it's done in the past, including tie my shoes or zip my zipper or hold my daughter by the scruff of the neck (oh I hope you know I'm kidding).

I'm starting to wonder if maybe I need to start brushing with both hands. I can't afford the jealousy or the therapy right now. Maybe these Colgate marketers are on to something...

The War Over a College Football Playoff

2005-11-15T11:30:00.000-08:00

"BCS analyst Jerry Palm said it's unlikely the Trojans or Longhorns could do what Oklahoma did in 2003 or what Nebraska pulled off in 2001, when the Cornhuskers lost their final regular-season game to Colorado and still played Miami for the BCS title.

'The formula now is so poll driven that if you lose late in the season you're pretty much dead,' he said."

That piece was pulled from ESPN.com's 11/14/05 online article regarding the new Bowl Championship Series (certainly not Collegiate, as that would imply the guys were debating) rankings that were put up today. The system used to determine which teams play in which big bowl games which determines which two teams play for the mythical national championship. This weird computer system has been in place for a few years now, and everyone seems to loathe it. "You can't trust computers," they say. "It's biased against West Coast teams," others say. "It screwed up my order and didn't give me correct change," others say. (Okay, maybe not.)

What I do follow, for the sake of enjoying listening to columnists and "experts" pontificate, is the ongoing argument that college football does not need a playoff system. A much-shortened version of this argument goes thusly: Because there are 11 games, each is important, with no letdowns. The champion will focus on winning all 11 games. This argument is particularly interesting in that some of those proponents argue that college basketball's championships is flawed because the teams can afford to lose some games and still make the NCAA Tournament.

I want to tie these things together and tell you why a college football playoff is the right thing to do:

1) Losing one game should not make you "pretty much dead": That's an incredibly stupid way of determining the best college football team in the country. If this were the way it worked in the NFL, no one would make the playoffs. The Houston Texans would not ever upset the Indianapolis Colts (they didn't, but work with me here). The best college team in the country could lose early in the season, say the 1st or 2nd game, and then run the table the rest of the way by demolishing everyone. And they'd not play for the national championship because they had a bad day? As if a team can control whether they'll "click" on any given Saturday? That's a ridiculous statement. And it doesn't make any sense.

2) Polls are subjective, and adding computers to the mix to create balance is just as ridiculous: The playoff opponents don't want playoffs because each game means so much. "You can't afford to lose," they scream. Well, that's interesting. If I'm TCU, and I win all of my games (which they didn't but again, work with me), why am I still ranked #12? The subjective aspect of human voting is going to necessitate bias, and that bias is going to allow for excuses, such as "TCU didn't play anybody. You can't say beating SMU is better than beating Alabama." No, you can't. But you also can't control which conference a team plays in, either. Just because Alabama's not in TCU's conference does not mean you can downplay their victory over SMU. Sure, SMU sucks, but so could Alabama. And who's to say that as much as SMU sucks in their conference they could not whip Alabama's foes in the SEC? A majority of polls and "expert" opinion is as swayed by reputation as anything else. Again, the non-playoff folks are scratching their heads, getting ready to scream. For more evidence of the silliness of the polls and the "need" for computers to determine the BCS check out Stewart Mandel's column for SI on the final coaches poll. The piece skewers the coaches for their bias.

3) There's too much time between the end of the regular season and the "big" bowl season: Playoff opponents begin the "They've got to study for finals!" scream here. They do? You've got to be kidding. It's really good for a football team with momentum (they've won at least 11 in a row, week after week) to take 4 1/2 weeks off between games? We're all going to get the best that team has to offer? Sure, injuries heal. That helps. But we need to talk about these games for weeks? And wait? And wait? The guys have to study? Like they've been studying all semester? This is the four weeks between when they're catching up to master Greek Mythology and Basketweaving? C'mon. We all know better. Hell, even the early bowl games in December that don't get any coverage get it over with quick. And the guys still have time to study. Geez, they get to spend Christmas at home.

4) There's too many bowl games already: The playoff opponents love the bowl season. They believe that the University of Kansas belongs in the Human Interest for Kodak's Film Processing Department at KMart Bowl against the University of Toledo on December 13 because, hell, each team won the requisite 6 games against Div I teams. Woo-wee. I'll bet the 17 alumni of each school that care are able to scalp their tickets for just about face value 10 minutes before kickoff. Please don't tell me that approximately 30 bowl games gives the rest of the country the chance to see these teams we've missed all year long. Y'know what? We don't care. We really don't. You don't need a marketing degree and an MBA to realize that the real ratings (and yes, NCAA, the common man knows you're in it for the money) come during the "big" bowl games. Let's quit pretending we're doing these bowl games for everybody. They're a joke.

5) The national championship is mythical anyway: I've never understood this. We can't have a playoff to determine a real champion because the championship is mythical. Huh? If there's no championship anyway, why not have a playoff to determine a real champion? Does this make any sense?

There you go. Because of these reasons, we need a playoff. And it should look something like this:

1) The top 16 teams, averaged by the various polls with the BCS system (because we have to use what was given to us), should play over 4 weeks the weekend following the last regular season game. This means the season ends about the same time it currently does, the first week of January. And, let's skip using the division winners to fill the seeds. If you want to keep the emphasis on winning all you can, then you won't let a 7-4 South Florida division-winning team into the tournament. You'll keep them home and let 9-2 Louisville play if they're ranked #16. I hear a lot of rumbling about this already, "WHAT? You're going to leave out a conference division champion?" Yup. If the subjective voting and BCS system says they're not in the final 16, then yes, they're out. They can still play in a bowl game (there's at least 13 others). They just won't qualify for the national championship tournament.

2) The teams are seeded similarly to college basketball, with 1 facing 16, 2 against 15, and so on.

3) The games leverage the current bowl naming system. The Rose Bowl would be the final, and championship, game. The Orange and Fiesta would be the two previous weekend bowls. I'd leave the others to fight it out over the three previous weekends. I've determined the 15 games necessary for 2006. Weekend 1 would include the Sun (in El Paso, TX), Independence (Shreveport, LA), Music City (Nashville, TN), Peach (Atlanta, GA), Meineke (Charlotte, NC), Houston (Houston, TX), Liberty (Memphis, TN), and Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX) games. Weekend 2 would be the Fiesta (Phoenix, AZ), Capital One (Orlando, FL), Gator (Jacksonville, FL), and Outback (Tampa, FL) Bowl games. Weekend 3 would be the Orange (Miami, FL) and Sugar (Atlanta, GA this year) Bowls. And finally, the championship game would be the following weekend, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA.

4) The home team would be the higher seeded team, which over the first two weekends would go to the closest bowl physical location. For example, USC would play Georgia in the Sun Bowl in El Paso.

5) Leave the rest of the bowls alone. Except get rid of the ones that let in 6 win teams. Make 7 wins the minimum. Remaining conference and division champs fill these games. That's 26 good teams if there's enough 7 wins teams to qualify. The rest of the turgid bowl games go away. They must. Please.

Why is this better?

1) Anyone can win: Let's face it, this is what makes March Madness so good. You're saying that an 8-3 Georgia team doesn't deserve a shot at the national title if it can put a run together and beat some really good teams? Why does this eliminate the desire for a team to lose a game or two? Are playoff opponents saying that a 10-0 Texas team would really want to drop it's last game because they could afford to because their seeding was guaranteed? Are you kidding? What athlete sits around and says, "Hell, we can afford to loaf on this one. We're in." Okay, stop thinking about the NBA. Or Major League Baseball once a team has locked up its division.

2) No gap in revenue: Each weekend the games just get better and more intense. Just like NCAA basketball. Who doesn't really want Bucknell to beat Kansas? Who at least doesn't think it's a possibility? C'mon, this is why this is fun. And with the games running each week, the television ad revenue is consistent. No big gaps. And, no more prattling on ESPN for hours at a time to fill while waiting for the weeks to pass until the "big" game.

So, what would this system look like this year? Let's take a look:

Bracket 1
(1) USC
(16) UCLA

(8) Miami
(9) Auburn

(4) Ohio State
(13) Alabama

(5) Oregon
(12) LSU

Bracket 2
(2) Texas
(15) Texas Tech

(7) Georgia
(10) Virginia Tech

(3) Penn State
(14) TCU

(6) Notre Dame
(11) West Virginia

Wow. Now those would be great games for the first round. UCLA gets another crack at USC. Texas and Texas Tech get another crack and play the actual Big 12 championship game. Wouldn't TCU love to prove critics wrong? And wouldn't Penn State love to prove critics right? How about Penn State-Notre Dame in the 2nd round? Or Miami wouldn't relish a shot at USC? Here's a beautiful thing: Let's say Georgia won the whole thing. Who would rightly say they don't deserve to be national champions with two losses? They would have beaten Virginia Tech, and probably Texas, Penn State or Notre Dame and USC to finish 13-2. That's bad?

Well, it is if they were hoping to pass that Greek Mythology class during the holiday break. I wonder if one of those guys would take a National Championship over a passing grade?

Disrupting Microsoft

2005-11-11T08:40:00.000-08:00

I've been fortunate to have an on-off email thread with one of my favorite authors, Prof. Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School. So first off, I'd like to thank him for doing so. Prof. Christensen's seminal work, "The Innovator's Dilemma", is a business theory that basically says that bringing down an industry leader takes two things: 1) industry leaders ask their customers what they want and do what they ask relatively blindly and 2) an opponent either a) comes from a slightly different direction for those customers who want or accept "good enough" or b) go at the problem from an entirely different angle, creating a different market that attracts the leader's customers and those who cannot or do not want the leader's product or service. The steel industry, the hard drive industry, and many others have followed this pattern. What makes the theory more interesting is that the leader, upon finding that they are being encroached upon, typically tries to respond by modifying their existing product or service to copy the follower but tries to sell it to their existing customer, who has no use for it. In the mean time, they cannot sell it to the follower's customer, either, because the follower sees complexity and a sense of "tacked on-edness". Thus, the leader begins the slow or steady decline into irrelevance. Think NCR and plenty of others.

Most people in technology and other pundits have seen the rise of Linux as a major disruption to Microsoft. The Linux movement is populated by highly technical people who have tried very hard to make Linux a disruptive force. Unfortunately I don't see Linux as the threat. The free software movement has seemingly come apart and splintered. There are companies involved with versions of Linux now and regular people, the folks who run Windows and want computing to be easy, don't see a viable Linux that "just works". For the technogeek out there (and you know who you are and you should be proud of that stereotype) Linux offers a wonderful world of development and opportunity. For the rest of us, as Steve Jobs might say, Linux is a complicated, overwrought world populated by people who want to jigger with the internals of a computer's working code. 98-99% of the public has no, and that's a definitive no, interest in doing this.

So what? Well, I've put together a theory about disrupting Microsoft, using the principles of the Innovator's Dilemma. Here's the question: How would Microsoft's desktop dominance be threatened? Here's the hypothesis: Microsoft's dominance could be toppled by competitors who de-emphasize the OS and its subsequent tools such as Office suites and focus on computing in the home or entertainment realm. Which company could do this? Apple.

Apple is the company most regular people really like because of one thing: the iPod. And what is the iPod? It's simple entertainment. It's the computing device for the rest of us. Anyway, without further ado, I present the email (with additions as I've added them) I just sent to Prof. Christensen for his feedback.

Clayton,

Hope all is well with you. We have not emailed since, I believe, February or so. I've been following Apple Computer very carefully and wanted to run some thoughts by you:

Apple will, in my opinion, disrupt Microsoft's desktop dominance. They are creating the classic Innovator's Dilemma by creating a new market for their products: they are no longer "competing" in the computer hardware and software OS arena, but have attacked and successfully are dominating the entertainment industry. (I believe the recent announcements by CBS and NBC are hackneyed attempts to look forward-thinking and represent weak offerings to the public because they've each taken a different approach to Apple's more elegant solution.) This back door maneuver is evident in the iPod, the Motorola-Apple ROKR phone (selling well or not), and now with the release of the new iMac G5 with Front Row, an eventual direct Media Center Edition competitor.

Microsoft, in response, has basically failed with the introduction of their WMA-based music players. Though Apple is not following the classic model of inexpensive but good enough music players (and now with "good enough" video), they could get away with this because the aesthetics of the devices more than made up for the lack of functionality, which Apple says is overdone anyway (who wants an FM tuner as well as playing music, is Jobs response). Apple excels in the simple. But for an operating system, no matter how simple OSX is, the desktop is dominated by Windows.

Seeing the move to the media center, though, Jobs and Company have decided that simplicity is the best move and gone directly for the throat. As people's homes are routinely filled with attractive Apple non-computer products, they will be constantly reminded of Apple's brand. Eventually, this could result in replacing the buggy, virus-ridden PC with, of course, an Apple machine. And this machine could be the Mac mini, which could become the perfect "component" for recording and managing video, eventually on-demand video as PVR makers such as TiVo are attempting to handle.

Microsoft, as expected, has responded poorly to these attacks. The Media Center Edition of Windows has not been as well received as hoped. Microsoft has attempted to retaliate by doing what you noted every threatened leader does: they've crammed features their users don't want into the same products and essentially made them overcomplicated and uninteresting. This is where Apple is continuing to win. The crude breakdown is Microsoft is still for geeks while Apple is for everybody else. (As an aside, this would also support why Windows is such a target for viruses and worms. Yes, 95% market share helps, but the code is a veritable mish-mash of legacy support and holes that tech geeks salivate over to find problems.) And now Apple has taken that mantra out of computing and put it directly into our entertainment centers. And by doing so, will eventually make it into our computers again.

I see Apple's newest forays into video as another toe in the water. They will release a smart phone eventually, when they've reduced OSX to something very, very simple for a phone that incorporates iTunes the right way, not the Motorola way. As well, they will continue to expand the Mac mini's role as an entertainment component and less as a computer for general use. It will "just have" the right circuitry/components to eventually wirelessly tie into a home's computer network and make it accessible from anywhere. It already does. It's just missing the Front Row software of the new iMac G5. The new iMac G5 will, as Dell and HP are doing, morph into a full-fledged HDTV-based entertainment hub/computer/television.

And let's not forget Apple's decision to move to Intel processors. This is an obvious "stake in the heart" approach to proving that computing can be simplified. The ads virtually write themselves extolling the virtues of 1) better, simpler, easier-to-use OS 2) fewer, if any, viruses 3) better incorporated system into the home entertainment products Apple's been selling for years already. If Apple can prove that the same products written for Windows, such as the stalwart Photoshop, run as fast or hopefully faster on the Intel OSX machine with fewer resources (Windows is a resource hog, resulting in a need to deck out a PC with as much RAM as possible) Apple will begin to work the mindset of both the geeks and the home users. On the geek side, expect Apple to release a developer toolset that easily bests Microsoft's Visual Studio package in terms of simplicity, speed, and power. I expect it to embrace development tools such as the current AJAX model that Google and others are using to such success. Which is why I see Apple/Google pairings in the near future. Apple is entertainment and entertainment is data/information; Google is information and searching/leveraging that information. I expect Google's influence to spread to built-in OSX tools such as Spotlight, Apple's excellent OS-based search tool, either through direct partnership or links that will allow Spotlight to leverage online search capabilities. On the personal side, I expect Apple to continue to have high profit margins but lower cost computers due to the more standard components of an Intel-based PC. Apple should approach the "too expensive" argument with fervor once the Intel-based Mac machines hit the market.

Microsoft's current Windows plans include what seem to be 20 versions of "Vista", due out in 2006 (originally due in 2003? 2004? 2005?). This plan has had plenty of ridicule heaped upon it. This plan also supports the Innovator's Dilemma leader theory of developing as many versions as possible to satisfy the current customer base while attempting to satisfy those who need "good enough". This approach will result in confused and frustrated existing as well as possible clients on all sides, including the businesses that Microsoft so desperately wants to appeal to in the small business arena. The release of the Windows and Office Live online products has been resoundingly dull. They look to be repackaging of existing MSN products with which no one was highly interested in the first place. The focus on services, and the recent release of the Gates and Ozzie emails outlining the major issues facing Microsoft, support the opinion that the company believes, at present, that the competition is beating them online again, just as they were beaten in 1995 with the Internet revolution. Microsoft curtailed that problem by hammering the competition with a free browser. In the world we're currently living in, this option will not be available to them unless they're willing to give away much more expensive assets, including the hardware on which their software will run. And this means that if Windows WMA digital rights management music players are to sell, MS will have to subsidize them to the tune of almost or fully free. And that would be very expensive. Today these WMA-based players are bit parts in an industry dominated by Apple. Microsoft does have the money to do this, but without the subsequent revenue uptick to offset these costs, their stock price will take a hit. And, there is still no promise that they can make the system hardware and software as simple as Apple, or remove the perception. It would take a massive failure of Apple for regular people to take the leap to Microsoft, and again, only if the entertainment package was almost or fully subsidized.

Gates has just issued his every 10 year missive regarding the biggest issues they face. Gates is only partially right this time because the major issue is now more complex than it was in 1995. The software as a service world is coming. But Jobs and Company may know that there is no point in focusing on that currently. What people want is entertainment where and how they want it. They don't want to write Word docs on their sofa while watching Oprah. They want TV on their phone, the laptop, or on the sofa. They want their music in the same places. Computing for computing's sake is too difficult right now. Expect Apple to move to services software near the end of their strategy. (If you want an example of where they might go, just take a look at Apple's widgets in the OSX Dashboard.) Microsoft is still focused on protecting the desktop. They believe the PC is the home entertainment hub. But their efforts to move into this realm have seen lukewarm reception, at best. Microsoft sees a PC. Apple sees an appliance, something that just works. This is not the Internet appliance of the late 90s, either. These are more like your toaster with a brain that removes the regular person from having to jerk around with an operating system. Now, no one has yet seemed to want a toaster with a brain. Bad example. Look for Apple and Google to combine efforts (or even combine) when Apple has even more power in the entertainment industry in both audio and video.

It strikes me as very ironic that Microsoft is right with this innovative idea. But Apple is going to beat them to it by coming through the back door.

The KSBoE is Brilliant

2005-11-09T07:19:00.000-08:00

By now you've probably read on myriad news web sites and periodicals about the now-concluded battle over Intelligent Design (ID) in the state of Kansas. The debate has centered on teaching students critical thinking about the veracity of the theory of evolution by adding an interpretation of the Biblical teachings of creationism, which proponents of ID believe account for the scientific inconsistencies that evolution cannot scientifically explain.

The Kansas State Board of Education (KSBoE) voted 6-4 yesterday to approve the additional criticism of evolution via the ID theory. I say hooray. It's about time.

We have too many people from the coasts moving here anyway. Stay the hell away from us. I hear Montana's nice.

The KSBoE's decision is just one in a series of upcoming masterstrokes by the state. If you've seen the most recent edition of Business 2.0 magazine you'd know that the Kansas City metro area was selected as one of the group part of a $25 billion (or trillion, I lost count of the hyperbole while reading) USD land grab around the country. Business 2.0 believes that there are fantastic opportunities for cheap real estate in a number of mid-size metro areas over the next 25 years, or something like that. Then, the Los Angeles Times has the audacity to write an article about the outflow of Los Angeleans to areas other than Los Angeles, since they can't afford to buy a home there. Guess where the focus of the article was? That's right. Kansas City. Or rather, Lee's Summit, a very nice Missouri suburb of Kansas City. And the Times was nice enough to mention what a fantastic deal this former California couple got and the value they received for their money. Oh, and a nice picture, too. The couple and their two children looked positively idyllic in front of their 3,000 square foot home with the boat and trailer.

While this may be a boon for some of you considering a move to the midwest, your moving here is going to kill us, the hard-working midwesterners who've been keeping the prices down for years because no one, and I mean no one, wants to move here. We've got tornadoes. We've got wind all the time. We've got weather that changes from one day to the next. We've got winter, for crying out loud. And that includes snow. And ice. Scared yet? Damn.

Hold on, I've got it: We've got the Royals.

When you bring your $600,000 profit from your shanty sale in Silicon Valley, you kill the property values of those of us who already live here. We must stop this. The state knows that. We've got enough dumb people living here who don't know how to save and spend wisely. Or understand what the word "theory" means.

That's where the state got smart. That's when we got Intelligent Design.

Next thing you know, there's this huge debate about evolution and how it can't be the scientific principle to be taught to our children. Separation of church and state be damned. We're pushing this new "theory" into the schools as a challenge to something that right-wing Christians believe is antithetical to their faith. As many before have noted, this is our new world. If you challenge the evangelical belief, you are immediately wrong. And should be punished.

Or get ID.

Game theory says that the state must have carefully taken into account the global, national, and in-state humiliation ID would cause. The state is punishing residents, but has obviously done so because it's the best thing to keep those damn Coasters from bringing their money and their ideas to the state. We certainly have no interest in thinking progressively here.

Geez, Kansas is still fighting over whether to sell alcohol on Sundays. But I know that it won't be long before state Attorney General Phill Kline finds a way to get this topic into the global and national media as well when he proposes a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol period in the state. Maybe then we'll be able to keep everyone from moving or visiting as well as making residents feel as though they're living The Cannonball Run every weekend (weekday?) while driving to Missouri (or Nebraska or or Colorado or Oklahoma) to buy that gosh darned liquor.

Wouldn't that be great?

Who do I need to call about that idea? My property taxes just went up again.

What Did We Do Before the Internet?

2005-10-31T06:53:00.000-08:00

Think about all the things you do on the Internet. All day long.

Then ask yourself this question if you're old enough to remember what life was like before this big, wonderful smorgasbord we call the 'Net: "What did we all do to screw off at work before?"

Oh, that's unfair, you say. I don't screw around at work and surf the 'Net on my employer's time.

Sure you don't.

Of course you do. As a matter of fact, there are studies by such luminaries as the Pew Charitable Trusts that say people don't feel even 1/2 bad anymore about using their employer's high speed connections to pay bills, look up movie times, email their buddies, and surf for information.

So think back about 10 or 12 years, if you were in the workforce then. Those days were amazing, as I remember them. I was programming and writing technical documentation. The 'Net at work was one of those things you looked for. You wanted to find a place that offered 'Net access. That was a cool place to work. There were still organizations that frowned on 'Net access. They thought workers would use access in funny ways or cheat the company or, God forbid, screw off.

Well, it's 2005 headed into 2006. And I can say without a personal shred of doubt that those Thomases of 1993-1995 were exactly right. If you still don't believe me, do a Google search for "wasted time" or "Internet access cutting into productive work time" and see what you get. You're going to be very surprised if you don't think people at work are screwing off with the 'Net.

Why are we doing this? Well, one of those Pew studies says that we do it because the company owes us and because "the man" already asks too much of us. So, screw you right back. I'm surfing the 'Net. Which begs another question: If I'm surfing an hour a day at work on top of the time I'm spending talking with my co-workers (not to mention the smoke breaks I'd be taking if I smoked), and took my 30 minutes to 1 hour (or more) for lunch, I'd be bitchin' too about my 11 hour day away from home that my wonderful wife would be pointing out to me.

What does all this really say? I think it says some pretty scary stuff about us: We're really, really lazy anymore. We're bored at work. We don't like what we do. If I'm at work 10 hours and subtract one hour for lunch (9), and even 20 total minutes of quick conversation with co-workers (way too little but down to 8:40), and then hack out an hour for surfing (7:40), my job's getting shorted. And so is my employer.

If we're sticking it to "the man" by surfing the 'Net at work, I can simply argue this: If you feel overworked, it might be because you're making yourself into a work martyr who's really not. Look, if you can honestly say you're working 9 to 10 or more hours on a work-related project, you can most certainly surf the 'Net to pay your bills. If you can't honestly assess your time on the premises and say you've given that required work day a full go, shut up. And get off the 'Net. And quit talking or bitching with your co-workers. By the way, that hour or so of time you're using to clog up the organization pipe to access the 'Net during the day costs money. The bigger the pipe, the more the cost. And that cuts into the bottom line of your organization. So, if you also complain about how much you get paid while surfing the 'Net an hour a day to download your latest iTunes, shut up and shut down. Get some work done if you expect a raise.

Let me make an analogy here: I just heard Mancow Muller (a relatively well-known DJ out of Chicago with an obnoxious morning show) say we really need to raise the minimum wage in this country, because it's a crime how little it is. Now, that might sound like a really good idea to you. Unfortunately, to raise the minimum wage in this country has ramifications. And one of those ramifications is that the things we all buy will get more expensive to counter the increase in wages each and every business has to pay for their increased minimum wage workers. Hell, even Wal-Mart might have to raise prices. The point? There are no free lunches. If someone gets something, someone else loses something in return.

There. Now do you understand why surfing the 'Net at work really hurts everyone in the long run?

Didn't I ask what we used to do to screw off at work before we all had access?

Take a memo, please.

Sweeney Substitutes Religion for Ego

2005-10-26T07:54:00.000-07:00

I haven't written for a while. And for some of you who've written me, that's probably a good thing.

But Mike Sweeney has simply infuriated me. Again.

Mike, as you probably know, is the best player the Kansas City Royals have. He makes $11 million a year. And he's an egotistical hypocrite masquerading as a "Jesus freak", as he points out in a column in the October 25, 2005 Kansas City Star sports section.

Here's Mike's response when his non-Christian teammates call him a "God squader" on the way to Sunday chapel in the Royals clubhouse: "We just say, 'Hey, be there or burn.'" Not to take this out of context, but Mike followed this quote up while on a Christian-based TV station interview by noting that he didn't mean any ill will toward his non-believing teammates.

First off, I've made this clear before: Religion does not belong in the clubhouse or on the field. Mike and any other good religious person should know this. By holding "chapel" on Sunday in the clubhouse Mike is violating the personal space and belief of any other player, be they religious or not. Second, Mike assumes that Christianity is the only religion in the clubhouse by not harboring any "ill will" toward nonbelievers. Mike, did it occur to you that some of the guys might be Jewish or, God forbid, Muslim? Or anything else? Shall they all burn, too? Third, having to immediately say you mean no ill will is the sign of a guilty conscience. Of course you mean ill will, Mike. Otherwise you would never have said that. Ever. That statement is like a couple of skinny frat guys pointing out that their brother Jim is known as Jumbo because he weighs 320 pounds, but that it's simply a nickname. "He made it up himself," they cry when someone points out that Jim is only 5'4", "We're just calling him what he wants to be called."

Okay, back to Mike. Later he went on to discuss how hard it is to be a Christian in baseball. And he goes on to talk about how, in 1999, when things looked bad for him, he told God he'd been "working his butt off for you" but that his baseball career was at a crossroads that looked bleak. So, he decided to not "give a hoot about baseball or ever playing baseball again. I'll go back and sack groceries in California." But you know what? Mike didn't get sent to the minors or get traded or released. He's been to 5 All-Star games. Here's where it gets good: "From that moment on, I played for an audience of one -- Jesus Christ. I remember in spring training that year there could have been 10,000 people in the stands but I could only picture one -- Jesus Christ."

Oops. Mike just stepped into an athlete's ego substitution transferrence bucket. Mike don't play ball for himself and the money. Nope. It's all for Jesus. And he could care less what you think about his play, you baseball fans who basically pay his salary. Thus, don't expect the best on the field from Mike, 'cause Jesus takes care of his game from now on.

Sidebar of an announcer during Mike's 3rd at bat in a July game next year: "And it comes down to this folks. Sweeney at the plate, a count of 1 and 1. Two runners on, the Royals down a run. They need this game to get back in the race...Sweeney steps in. Wait, he steps out again. He signals to the umpire something I don't quite understand and refuses to return to the batter's box. Home plate umpire Tim McClelland signals again. Sweeney seems to be arguing something. And McClelland gives him the heave ho! That's right, folks, Sweeney's out of the game!"

Post-game interview with Mike: "Basically I got tossed because Jesus told me that my teammates on first and second were nonbelievers and that I couldn't get a hit to take the lead because he felt they didn't deserve the glory, Jesus's glory. So I told Tim that, and he told me to get back in the box. I told him what Jesus said again, and he tossed me. Jesus said that was the right thing to do when I got to the water cooler in the dugout. I got some high fives from the believers, too."

It gets better.

"When I was a catcher or when I'm at first base now, if the pitcher is of faith and he's kind of scuffling, I'll go talk to him and say, 'Hey, dude, what are you doing? Rely on the Holy Spirit that lives in you.'" Wow. Let's look at this.

First, Mike's saying that he actively discriminates against those not "of faith". So, if a pitcher who's not "of faith" is "scuffling", Mike's standing at first base condemning them, probably to "burn". And, he's probably wondering what it's going to take to get them converted at that moment. But God forbid (sorry, just had to say that) he'd go over and offer words of encouragement to the non-believing scuffler. Second, Mike's subjugating God in a way I've rarely seen from these hypocrites. He's saying that not only does God care about how the Royals are doing, God cares directly about the individuals on the team that are believers and Christians. But them only.

I've said before Mike Sweeney is a cancer. He is not only a cancer, but a hypocrite. And these are the worst types to have on a team. Mike, as many born again Christians do, has made sure to separate his ability to accept responsibility for failure by putting things into "God's hands". He is also saying that his faith makes it okay for him to directly ignore or condemn those who don't believe as he does, to the point where he singles out believers from nonbelievers.

Trade Mike Sweeney immediately, Mr. Baird. I don't care how many foundations he creates, the charities he gives his money to (which I'm sure are Christian-based only and working hard on converting heathens), or how sweet and kind he is during interviews. His $11 million can be far better spent on building a cohesive team. The cancer is spreading. Let's cut it out.

Reach for the Stars, Get the Moon

2005-09-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

It's over. As of today I've posted 1,000,091 meters. Officially, the quest has ended. Two days early. Even after bronchitis kept me away for 3 days. Got back on these last two days and pounded out the final meters.

It's been worth every ounce of sweat, pain, and second of time.

Find yourself a goal. Make one. Achieve it.

It really feels good.

I promise.

On The Cusp

2005-09-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

I missed my self-imposed posting deadline this week for the million meter row. Oh well.

Having said that, the update is this: meters rowed is now 976,612, leaving me 23,388 meters from the million.

With 8 days left in the month, this is a sure thing. If, of course, I'm not hit by a car, come down with a case of gall stones, or let Jeff Flanagan's column make me sick.

Fire Jeff Flanagan

2005-09-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to one of my favorite newly found blogs, Fire Joe Morgan, I'm stealing the title to argue (rail against?) for the release of his duties one Jeff Flanagan, sports writer for the Kansas City Star newspaper.

If you're reading this, and you probably aren't, you might not be aware of Jeff. Jeff writes a page 2 piece called Top of the Mornin' in the sports section. And Jeff is really, really full of himself. Let's get a quick overview of how much Jeff is full of himself:

1) Jeff's byline is actually Jeffrey Flanagan. Not Jeff, or Jef, or Neat Guy. Jeffrey. Now, there are plenty of politicians and other self-important people who don't contract their names because it makes them sound like they're 12. But sports writers? C'mon, Jeff, get over yourself. You argue that people need to let go of finger pointing at Mike Sweeney (we'll get there, I promise), and yet you have the audacity to write a wittily-named reference column to the Irish with your full first name. I think there's a Saturday Night Live sketch in here somewhere. Get over yourself.

2) Jeff got into a publicized spat (in his own column, no less) with a local college athlete over his salary a while ago. Jeff actually decided that this college athlete deserved to have his opinion publicized and criticized by Jeff in print. Jeff, no one gives a rat's ass what you make. And your spending 10 seconds of time to respond to Mr. Watson's criticism makes you look weaker than your journalistic skills. Get over yourself.

3) Jeff is willing to shill for professional athletes and their wives who buy into franchises. Translation: Jeff is not a journalist, but a publicity whore who, given the proper opportunity, neglect hard-working Americans without hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank to shill for you, the professional (or ex-) athlete so you can make up for the rest of us who battle daily to survive with our franchises, most of whom had to mortgage their lives away to buy into. Thanks, Jeff. More coming on this topic.

Got enough overview of Jeff's ego yet?

No?

Then how about today's column? Let's take a look.

Today's Top of the Mornin' column had three great areas for analysis: the Royals' Player and Pitcher of the Year awards, Meal Makers, and Kareem Rush.

Nobody outside Kansas City gives a damn about the Royals (and most Kansas Citians don't now that the Chiefs have kicked off, too). But Jeff has his vote for Royals' Player and Pitcher of the Year. For the Player, Jeff argues that it's a "two man race" and that's between Mike Sweeney and David DeJesus. Jeff eliminates Emil Brown (Kansas City lets out a collective, "Who?") by noting that he's a "4th outfielder somewhere else", and thus not eligible. Hmm, because Emil's not good enough to be an every day outfielder somewhere else, he's eliminated from contention. That's good logic. If Jeff had said that Emil is an okay hitter who's been productive but can't field his position worth a crap, I'd be more likely to agree since Emil's made 13 errors in the outfield this year and basically looks like he's playing in a blindfold. But Jeff eliminates Emil because he's not good enough to start anywhere else. Is this how we pick Players of the Year?

Jeff notes that Mike Sweeney is the best hitter on the team. True. He also dismisses the "finger pointing" and reputation that Mike's rightfully earned for himself of being 1) a pansy and 2) a clubhouse Bible-beating cancer. Mike Sweeney is probably the nicest guy on the planet. Sure seems nice in those TV interviews. Heck, he's the captain of the team, for crying out loud. But Mike also is injured a lot. A lot. Enough so that a lot of folks I know have lost confidence in the man. This is also the same nice fella who, during the Royals latest extended losing streak of 19 games, noted that "God willing, we'll win." Everything after "God willing" is a paraphrase. I have a wake up call for Mike: If God cares about the Royals, or for any professional or amateur sports team, we're all in trouble. Do we not think God has more to worry about than sports? There was actually a report at the beginning of the year about how good Mike has become at having Bible study before the games, and the number of players who're now carrying Bibles around to events and in the clubhouse. Should the fans be concerned when it looks as though, as ex-skipper Tony Muser once rightly and angrily opined, the team needs to be less of a milk and cookies team and more of a vodka and water team?

If Jeff thinks I'm just an anti-religion guy, he's off base. But religion should play no role in sports. God does not choose sides in sports, stop losing streaks, or let guys bat .300. That kind of selfish thinking is not my God. But it would explain why Hurricane Katrina wiped out the Gulf Coast. He must have been watching the Dodgers.

Mike Sweeney's a swell guy, I'm sure. And he's a candidate for Player of the Year on the Royals precisely because he's on the team. But so is Emil Brown. And so is David DeJesus. Just because DeJesus is currently on the disabled list, I believe Jeff has dismissed him. As far as I can tell, though, David's played in more games than Mike, 121 to 110, respectively. Sure, Mike's got some pop in his bat. But how can we hand out team awards by subtraction rather than accomplishment?

By the way, Pitcher of the Year? Mike MacDougal. Guess what? Someone must have written this part of the column for Jeff. Whoever did is exactly right. Not that anybody cared.

Here's what really boils my blood. In another segment of his column today Jeff notes that ex-Royal Shane Halter's wife Jennifer is opening a Meal Makers franchise in Overland Park, KS. First off, who is Shane Halter? And what did he or his wife Jennifer do for Royals baseball besides collect a few hundred grand and not make much of an impression? Second, what is Meal Makers? Well, Jeff explains that for us: Busy parents don't have time to cook anymore and Meal Makers invites them to their location to put together pre-cut and organized food into aluminum tubs that they can take home, freeze, and then cook when they have time. But guess what? Jeff does this by shilling directly for Meal Makers, a St. Louis-based company. Guess what? Kansas City and St. Louis don't like each other much. For example, when a vote in KC was required for raising the dollars via taxes for the new downtown complex that included the Sprint Center arena, St. Louis-based Enterprise Rent-a-Car pushed a campaign to kill it. Hard. They argued that because they would have to raise rental taxes it was an unfair burden on them. Uh-huh. St. Louis doesn't want competition for events and sports, and plenty was made of it, too. The measure passed. The Sprint Center is underway. Screw St. Louis is what Kansas City said.

Now, Jeff wants us to support a St. Louis-based franchise like this one? Here's where Jeff's lack of journalism skills becomes painfully evident. He does not mention that there are at least two other similar organizations in Kansas City already: Social Suppers and My Other Kitchen. As far as I can tell from my research, these two are not based in St. Louis and Social Suppers is a Kansas City-based, local organization. And they're viable substitutes for Meal Makers. And local. Give your money to them if you're going to use this type of service. Please. Let's make sure that Jeff's close friend Jennifer (wife of Shane Halter, ex-Royal of no regard) decides to find a Kansas City-based opportunity instead.

Last on this, do we really want Jeff telling us how ex-athletes and current athletes such as Shane (who?) and Jermaine Dye and Jeff Conine can simply write a check or tell their accountant where they want their millions invested to make more? Nope. Not me. I'd like to see Jeff rail on about athletes sending their money to the Gulf Coast like his cohort Joe Posnanski did a few days ago when he noted that Jose ("Serve 'em Up with a Smile") Lima got his latest $250,000 bonus for making his 28th start of the year. Jeff, next time you want to use your column for self-serving, direct address publication of a friend's new venture, remember to get the money up front. Oh, and make sure you donate it to the Red Cross relief fund.

Finally, Jeff wraps up with a gossip point. Jeff "hears" that Kareem Rush (a former local basketball player with the Lakers) will be delivering supplies to the devastated Gulf Coast region with a cavalcade of NBA players. He "hears" this? Or he knows this? Or this is so mind-boggingly inane that he added it because he needed to fill the final 30 words of his column? Jeff, we hardly thought your column as hard-hitting sports journalism to start with but I'd leave the People magazine stuff to them.

Of course, maybe you're simply trying to impress your next employer. God willing.

Minor Annoyances Alter 1 Million Run

2005-09-13T17:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm gonna make it. Come hell or high water. Minor annoyances and pain won't stop me.

As of today I'm at 909,355, or 90,645 meters from the million by end of September.

I'm now working at 2 days on with 1 day off. I'll easily get there. I've no other travel to do. I'm getting between 20-25K each of those 2 days on, so I fully expect to finish off my first million in my allotted time.

I'll be glad to be done.

And ready to go for more a few days after.

People vs. Mein Kampf

2005-09-09T07:17:00.000-07:00

People Magazine is ruining this country.

I'd rather my son read Mein Kampf than People Magazine.

People Magazine is a weekly. It has hundreds of pages, a majority of which are advertising. This means it's successful. Lots of people buy and subscribe. If not, People would have gone the way of The Industry Standard long ago (remember that one?).

People Magazine is very expensive, even to subscribers. Unlike car magazines like Automobile or even Auto Week, where annual subscriptions run in the single to double digits in dollars, People Magazine takes almost $200 out of your pocket each year for a subscription.

And here's the rub: People Magazine is taking time away from your life that you could spending with your children. I'm not going to defend car magazines any more than PM, but there's a difference between the two. People Magazine's core message is to share gossip and fact about celebrities. Car magazines explain in somewhat unintelligible technical or macho terms what cars do, how they operate, and which ones are good or bad. Basic difference: People Magazine is a waste of your personal time. Car magazines teach you something, can help you make a better buying decision, and generally are better written than People Magazine.

My initial post idea was to ask, "When did celebrities get so stupid?" I wrote that because I'd seen a headline on Fark.com that Kevin Federline said he'd like to name their child Vegas because they spent so much time in Vegas. When did this become news? When did the meaningless trivialities of "celebrities" outweigh the issues in our country? Who knew Cameron Diaz had such bad acne that was routinely covered with heavy makeup? Who in their right mind cares?

I know who cares. The readers of People Magazine. And I'm not lumping each and every one of those readers into the idiot pile. Just a bunch of them. These are the folks who think they're in dire need of a personality transplant, liposuction, or other life-changing reconstructive surgery because the profiles in People Magazine tell them so. Who knew Brad Pitt would be a multiple year winner as Sexiest Man? Boy, that was a surprise.

Folks, if you're reading People Magazine, I beg you to stop. I'd rather you spent that money on cigarettes and/or alcohol than People Magazine. People is as addictive as crack or trying not to look when passing an accident. Once you've picked it up, you can't put it down again. The pictures, the graphics, the hard hitting journalism on the backstage parties at the Oscars. It's all there in black and white filling your mailbox every week.

Why Mein Kampf? I'd rather my son be exposed to the concepts of a madman (and the consequences of reading and believing such writing) than be exposed to the drivel and dreck of a weekly publication with no redeeming value whatsoever. How many party conversations can you remember when someone wanted to debate the Jesse James-Sandra Bullock marriage? Mein Kampf is rarely a conversation starter, but the concepts presented within it can be. Look at it this way: Which discussion would you rather see your children in later in life? Or even at the dinner table with you?

All of the derivative, vapid People Magazine substitutes fall into this category, too. Stop reading them. They offer nothing that enriches your life. Here are some ideas as to things you could be doing instead of reading these publications, which, as I've said, are as likely to hook you into wasting your precious time as much as surfing the web for porn:

Catch a movie
Read a book
Play with your kids
Have stomach flu

These are all better than reading the waste of good paper that People Magazine is.

Why are these publications popular? Gossip columns have been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, they've existed since the first cave folk moved in close to one another. But they took off with the advent of 24-hour media coverage and publication capability. How do you think the Marilyn Monroe-JFK supposed relationship would have looked were it happening today? A lot like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal? You're right. But in the early 60s we had no way of getting this information to everyone, all the time. The best we got was the weekly scandal sheet, probably posted in the newspaper and buried in the FYI section. This was, as my grandfather recalled, the section read only by women who were living vicariously through these gossipers and who spent as much time picking up the dirt around the neighborhood as they did around the house.

It's time we relegated this fascination to the back page, where it belongs. Our world is certainly screwed up, but when we devote more time and effort to learning about celebrity marriage break ups (Nick and Jessica?) as we do about a flood that ravages our deep South, we're all using this opportunity to escape from our own realities more than necessary.

But enough about that. I've got an October Automobile magazine just waiting for me. Came yesterday. So did my wife's People Magazine. Who's on the cover, I wonder?

Striking Distance

2005-09-06T14:03:00.000-07:00

Today's update on meters to go for the million: 136,310 to go with 24 days left in the month.

Total meters completed is now 863,690. I can, if possible, get to the million by rowing 10,000 meters a day for another 13.7 days, or 13 full days and another 6310 meter day. The beauty of finishing this way is that I leave myself plenty of days of rest between rows, which is becoming more and more necessary. Little bits of pain and nagging injuries are rearing themselves over the last ten days, such as a slightly nagging left Achilles tendon, a leftover pain from my running days in my mid to late 20s, and a slightly arthritic feeling in my right hand ring and pinky fingers in the 2nd and 3rd knuckles.

Injury aside, this will get done. Not because if I really did hurt myself I'd stop, because I would. I'm no martyr, idiot, or masochist. These are simply annoyances that I've accounted for anyway, so why the heck would I stop now?

Just for fun I should invite the President to row with me. Since he's in such good shape, and with so much free time on his hands, I'm sure he wouldn't mind the distraction. I'd better tell him I won the Tour de France or something, though, otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't speak for me because I don't represent all other 38 year olds who are or are not using an indoor rowing machine for fitness.

Inching Closer to a Million

2005-08-30T08:52:00.000-07:00

810,356 meters.

Considering I won't be back on the rower until at least Thursday morning (I'm in Canada this first part of the week), I'm very pleased to only be 189,644 meters from the goal. And, since I did five consecutive days of 10,000 meters last week, I feel confident that I'll put down the remaining meters quickly in September.

In case you're wondering, when you work out (no matter what you do) 13 of 14 days, you're tired at the end of 13 days. I must say that this three day respite is quite welcome. I will, though, not let the three days keep me from the goal. And, I'm sort of jonesing to get back on the rower already. Weird feeling.

That's the update. Keep those cards and letters coming!

Iraq'd You, Too

2005-08-24T12:44:00.000-07:00

Our troops in Iraq are some of the bravest and probably underappreciated servicemen and women in this country. I salute each and every one of them who've either been there, are about to go, or are there today.

But I don't agree with our President on how long they'll remain there or that by pulling them out today, tomorrow or "soon", as he likes to mention, our country will be "weakened".

In removing Saddam Hussein, we did the world a favor. He's no longer killing his own people and collecting billions in foreign aid and other dollars to line his and his family's coffers. Bravo. Let's not get into the WMD discussion. Much as the evidence presented, the WMD argument seems to be one of hearsay on both sides.

I do think, though, that we're glossing over other issues, possibly bigger ones. Have we heard an update on our attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden? Or clean up the remains of what seems to be a re-growing Taliban in Afghanistan? If you've tried to keep educated on any of what happened leading up to 9/11 and its aftermath, you may have read Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" and found that the US seems to be one reason the Taliban and Osama came to be such powerbrokers in terrorism. Our efforts to help the Mujahadeen drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and curb the growth of Communism were a noble goal. Alas, they were also the beginning of what we now know as Al Qaeda.

Needless to say, we are where we are. What I want to present are a set of scenarios as to what we could be doing with our military and all other resources we currently expend in Iraq, along with the billions each and every day that are spent.

Pull out now: If we did this, President Bush says the US would be weakened. That's a challenging statement. Why? I think his comment seems to point out that a void would be created whereby the military would vanish, go poof, if they weren't in Iraq. They could not be redistributed to other areas, could not be reassigned to, oh, I don't know, find and capture Osama. Really? Are we really supposed to believe this? And, if the military stays through 2007, let's say, is President Bush saying we're safer in this country until the day they pull out? If so, won't we be weakened no matter when our military pulls out of Iraq? Are we to believe that just because a Democratic government with an approved constitution is put in place that the rebels will throw up their hands and say, "Geez, they got the constitution in place. Let's go home, give up our weapons, and vote fair and square in these cool democratic elections." I'm struggling with that one.

Pull out never: We could leave a contingent of our military in Iraq forever. This would entail setting up bases of operations for Middle Eastern operations, much like we have agreements with countries like Germany and Turkey to do the same thing. Would these remaining soldiers be in as much danger pre- or post-constitution and democratic government in Iraq? Or would they become sitting ducks for concentrated suicide bombing attempts, like early terrorism involving the USS Cole? How long would it be before Iraqis demand we get out? When enough of their civilians are killed as collateral during the attacks on US military personnel and infrastructure? Could we not alienate one of our few allies with this arrangement?

These answers may seem very black and white. And this is why I simply cannot agree much with our current administration. I know that our country's citizens seem to like everything boiled down to sound bites, which is why the Republicans get elected. But the answers are not always as black and white as we'd like. Why aren't more people outraged by our lack of Osama's capture? Doesn't it seem odd that the Brits caught a number of the London bombers within a week or so? And were able to hunt down a lot of the developments leading up to the bombing? Are our intelligence agencies still so far apart as they were purported to be before 9/11?

Are we not weakened more by our government's inability to stay focused, like someone with ADD, on finishing something before moving on to the next thing? All the while skimming over the issues that seem to be front and center for the grieving mothers, fathers, and families of those we lose overseas? Where's the accountability? Our country is rife with blame game hyperbole. Athletes do it. Politicians do it. We're all doing it. Nothing's our fault anymore. President Bush says Cindy Sheehan "does not speak for the majority of families who have lost relatives in combat", and will not speak with her during her and her entourage's protests while he's romping around during his 5-week vacation in Crawford. I ask you: Are we safer with our President on a 5-week vacation in Crawford than running the country in Washington? Why or why not?

Since when did the President only speak with Americans who represent the majority? I'd bet that there are plenty in the Moral Minority who've sat with the President to lobby him on things like abortion. Does this mean he can only meet with leaders of majorities? Would Martin Luther King, Jr. have qualified or would he have been classified as someone who does not speak for the majority of Americans who believe in segregation? Who in their right mind would give this to this to the President as his excuse for not meeting with Cindy Sheehan? One more for you: our President has plenty of time to cycle with Lance Armstrong but not meet with Cindy Sheehan. There's nothing perplexing about that, folks. Our President is a boob.

We should all know now where his commitments lie. They're certainly not with Cindy Sheehan and the others who've lost family in the war in Iraq. They may not be on staying in shape, either, though I understand Mr. Bush's resting heart rate is below 50. But I must try to wrap my hands around the fact that, at this point in a lame duck presidency, our President cares more about cycling and his own fitness than the health and welfare of the United States of America. Where's the weakness, I ask?

Row Row Row Your Boat

2005-08-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

Well, since last I blogged the progress of the 1 million meter row, as of today I'm over the 750,000 meter barrier, 762,356 as a matter of fact. It was a big week of rowing with only Sunday off.

Thanks to those of you who've emailed and wished me luck. I'm feeling quite positive as I race to the million meter goal.

The NCAA Gets My Vote

2005-08-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

Political correctness has finally met its match.

The NCAA has banned the use of 18 "offensive" mascots from post-season play this coming year. It's about time.

It's about time that some officious set of white guys finally put the nail into political correctness in this country. These guys have finally got my vote, as I knew someone would, to make sure that the farce we call PC goes into the round file of American culture.

I'm no fan of racially insensitive slurs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not. But I'm also an American who does not understand how it's okay for comedians "of race" to make fun of their own race with slurs or categorize each other by words that I'd be put in PC prison for.

But now we've gone over the line.

If you're thinking I'm a racially insensitive white guy with no experience or knowledge of what being a minority is like, you may be right, as Billy Joel (a well-known cracker) has said via Top 40 music. Then again, I may be crazy, as said Mr. Joel has opined.

I spent two years in New Orleans on the West Bank attending junior high school. Our school was in a relatively okay area. We lived on the base just six blocks from one of the city's largest projects. When we came home from football games on the East Bank (in or around the city on the other side of the river), we'd have to exit into the projects to get back to school. The whiteys took off our uniform jerseys and pads and had to lie in the aisle of the bus so we would not get shot at. This was a real moment that included fear. Real fear. No matter if we won or lost, we were returning to a war zone.

In school we'd play football during gym class. Usually it was the whites versus the blacks. When the whites scored a touchdown, we'd kick off. When the blacks scored, the whites would kick off. At times, during gym class, if you heard, "Get 'em!" that meant some poor kid was being chased down by a group of kids to be beaten up. Needless to say this was not a group of white toughs picking on the lone black kid.

What does this have to do with the NCAA ban on mascots? Well, simply put, I've been on the other side of the racial insensitivity side of the fence. Ask the kid who threatened to stab me at school in New Orleans who referred to me as "the little honky shit" for accidentally moving into his field of vision during a baseball practice.

As a country, we've been moving into a mode of political correctness for years, really starting in the late 70s when the first "sensitivity training" started in the workplace. Things have gone steadily downhill since. Can you imagine movies like "Blazing Saddles" being made today? Some of Eddie Murphy's funniest standup being put on the big screen? Characters like Andrew "Dice" Clay making any money? I can't. And yet, I remember these and others as some of the funniest people because they were unafraid to call things as they saw them. Can you imagine a movie that refers to "Kansas City faggots" being produced today?

What's done this to us? Why are we afraid to face our biggest fears or issues by surfacing them? Does a mascot really harbor some ingrained offense to those it characterizes? Yes and no. Yes in that the caricatures that are ridiculous exaggerations can or could be deemed offensive. I mean, do we need Chief Wahoo dancing around like a moron? Other characters and mascots, such as the Florida St. Seminole, who is required before donning the character's outfit to learn about the heritage of the Seminole Indians and whose costume was designed by the Seminoles, are not. Yet the NCAA's suits have stepped in on behalf of the aggrieved and want us to know that they're looking out for all of us.

How about those Fighting Illini? They're on the list. Have you looked at their logo? Does it seem that, no matter who you are, you would feel disrespected by it? Are you kidding? If so, when are we going to get rid of the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame? I'm offended by the little leprechaun standing with balled fists ready to fight. I've got three real big problems with that: 1) It makes the Irish look like dwarves, little people, runts, whatever. That's wrong. Not all Irish are short. 2) The leprechaun is a fantasy character with Satanic overtones because it has "magical" power. How can Catholics allow this? 3) The guy is a bully. Do we really want our children to push around other kids and solve their problems by fighting? Oh my, no. I certainly do not.

See? Isn't this getting out of control? Do you not see how ridiculous we're getting?

What happens when we start to eliminate the names of fictitious mascots? Jayhawk? Isn't that some cross-bred type of evil bird that represents the worst of society?

Look, we're still a great country. We have our problems. But we continue to pose a threat to ourselves by overcompensating for each other's sensitivity issues. If you're over the age of 35, can you honestly say things are better in this country with political correctness? Or, would you be afraid to say so? Isn't that sad?

Questing Still Update

2005-08-16T13:51:00.000-07:00

One week ago I posted the whole blog about my quest for 1 million meters on the rowing machine in 1 year. (See that entry below so I don't rehash the entire thing about goals, fried food, and sweetened iced tea. Okay, so nothing about fried food and sweetened iced tea, but I just can't stand iced tea with sweetener. Yuck.)

In my update, I must admit that I had a nice three day rest as the whole family went to The Lake of the Ozarks. That repose has done nothing for my desire to reach the goal, though, and since I've been back, I've hit the machine again. So, today, I report that I have passed the 700,000 meter barrier.

As of today, I am at 707,174, which is up about 36,000 meters during the week, or about 9,000 meters a day since I did not row three days. I must still row about 6,500 meters a day each day to reach the million by September 30. I will be in Canada 8/29 through 8/31, so I have to account for those three days, as well. I have no issue with factoring these three days in, though, and don't see that I will have any problem reaching the million.

Again, if you row for exercise and want someone to talk with, drop me a line. If you don't or want to know more about it, let me know. I'd enjoy trying to persuade you to plunk down the best-spent $850 + tax you'll ever spend on a piece of equipment. Hell, if you just want to try the rower and live in the KC area, let me know. You can always drop by and give it a shot, too.

Outsourcing is Good!

2005-08-10T06:55:00.000-07:00

Provocative title aside, let me explain.

Before anyone gets too far into this, the usual up front: This might be really long, and poorly reasoned. But isn't that what blogs are for?

Okay, here goes.

Outsourcing is still a major topic of ire for Americans. We complain about it all the time. I rarely go to a function without someone mentioning that they've lost their job to outsourcing or that it's W's fault or that labor unions have made it so attractive for our companies to push so many jobs overseas to cheaper labor. Topic #1: Why aren't we doing anything about it? And if there's something to do, what is it?

The numbers are beginning to have an impact on American life. In the July 25, 2005 Fortune mag article "America Isn't Ready", the statistics (as much as you can believe them) are staggering: McKinsey Global Institute predicts that 49% of packaged software jobs could be outsourced to low-wage countries; some 25% of worldwide banking jobs, 19% of insurance jobs, and 52% of engineering jobs. Yikes. If these totals were to come to fruition, the US unemployment rate would jump from 5 to 11.4%. That's mind boggling.

We're hearing all the time now that our American kids are becoming "Dumb and Dumber". We're steadily falling down the ladder in academic achievement. In that same Fortune article, US 15 year olds now rank 28th in mathematical achievement. Who's the top 5? Finland, South Korea, Canada, Hong Kong, and Netherlands. Now for some ranting: In some of these countries there's nothing to do other than study and in others the government's threatening to imprison your family for failing the tests. Topic #2: Do we want our children to become education automatons?

Along with the Fortune article are some sidebar topics, such as how confident the Indian and Asian teens are to succeed. "We have the best brains, and we beat anyone -- no one is ahead of us," opines one Saksham Karwal. The sidebar includes the word "want" another 8 times. The kids want to do this, want to go to school there, or want to dominate the overnight package delivery industry (just kidding). But there's a heck of a lot of want in there. Topic #3: With this much want, is there the intestinal fortitude to "do" when the breaks are beating the boys (no sexism intended)?

Why aren't we doing anything about all of this change? Because right now we don't feel like it's really something that affects us, that's why. We're complaining on the surface while things are eaten away slowly. There's a number of arguments here: We do nothing about it because we don't see a threat, and that's the wrong thing to do because this is how insidious diseases eventually choke the life from our bodies. They start small and undetectable and then, one day, they've invaded our lungs and brains and it's over. Another argument is that we've become a more well-rounded nation. We're a nation of liberal arts majors. We don't need to only have the manufacturing jobs anymore. We're adaptable. We're moving ahead. Let the 3rd world have the manufacturing jobs, make cheap stuff for us. Why not? They work cheap, right? We'll re-train Americans for more complex, yet less physically demanding, work. As I've argued before, did the steam engine put all of our horses and farmers out of work? No, we adapted and found new ways to work. The bigger threat, though, is in the more purely thinking jobs such as engineering. The more the separated jobs between the physical and virtual are outsourced, the more we are at risk for losing our standard and way of life.

Again, what do we do?

This will be unpopular with lots of folks, but it leads to issue #2. We need to incent our kids to care more about education and testing and learning. I don't think our kids are dumb. They've become fat (literally) and lazy. Why should they show up for some international test that has no bearing on where they go to college or get their next minimum wage job? There is no incentive for our high-school kids to do well anymore on these standardized tests. Just telling them that they can outscore the Canadians and high-five each other ain't enough. The kids who do show up for these things are leaving answers blank, too, because they just can't be bothered to write an essay they don't care about.

We need an educational Olympics that actually rewards our winners. Create a competition that rewards educational success with scholarships and things that kids want, like iPods. Do it every four years. And during the intervening years, the US would hold elimination tourneys to get our best and brightest onto the team, just like our Olympic athletes. But do not, and I firmly reiterate, do not segregate them from society like the North Koreans or old Soviet Union to become educational freaks the way the Olympic athletes were taken from their families and sequestered for years with the threat of gulags if they didn't bring home the gold.

Finally, how will these developing countries react when things don't go their way? Or if, possibly, the bravado, entrepreneurialism, and confidence is suddenly eroded by failure? Or competition? Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that for all the confidence we hear about these folks they've yet to consider the effects of saturation? If everyone's so driven, so smart, so entrepreneurial, aren't they bound to run across someone more of the same? And fail? Not everyone can win right? This isn't bumper bowling, folks. This is business. And business, especially of the free market economy type, isn't exactly a kid glove experience. It's dog eat dog. Did the Japanese not have a similar experience in the '80s when they were dominating industry and buying up Pebble Beach? Their own markets and society didn't adjust well and look where they are now. Most of them aren't exactly teeing it up on #1 with Kevin Costner anymore.

Maybe the Indians and Chinese will be different. Maybe they've learned from other experiences. But then again, maybe they haven't. Maybe they're all flush with confidence and high-paying jobs flowing in from American companies pleased to be cutting costs and getting solid work. And maybe we're making the world a more global experience for everyone. Maybe we're the ones who're giving in a way we never expected. And maybe we're doing this for the love of our money, too, in a completely selfish style. Who knows? Finally, and think hard about this, how long will those low-paying wages satisfy these folks who until now have had nothing? How long will it be before they start demanding raises? They're going to sit there in a factory with no representation and minimal wages forever? Where's the first union representative going to come from? When's the first battle between workers and managers going to come? And when it does, when will it get violent?

But I'll say this: No matter how many wars they've won or lost on the battlefield, the Chinese and Indians and even South Americans (the next "near-sourcing" opportunity) have never, ever battled the way Americans have in business. Our war of independence makes us uniquely qualified to fight to the last person to maintain our way of life. Americans are like Microsoft when they realized the Internet was the next big thing: "Quick, build a browser and give it away!" And they did. And, until recently, that was it for everybody else.

Next time you're whining or hear someone else whine about outsourcing, think about what it means for you, your family, and Americans. We're making the world stronger, making products cheaper for all of us, and losing jobs. We're also creating opportunity for ourselves and the world. And when you fear that our kids are getting dumberer and dumberer, don't fret. They're simply not motivated to win. Find a way to do this, and we will. Finally, when you can't bring yourself any closer to the brink of saying outsourcing is positive, maybe after you've lost your job to someone who'll do it for 1/5th of what you're paid, think to yourself, "Can it stay this way forever?" Nope.

The world is one big place that seems to be closing in on itself. We're globally becoming one industrialized region. But in these newly found hotspots I argue that they haven't seen the effects of free market economy yet. And when they do, they'll be chewing off each others' legs as quickly as Paris Hilton can get her Sidekick hacked. Success carries as much pressure as failure. And the countries we're currently so concerned with have yet to see the pressures of success truly change them. When they do we might all just sit back and have the last laugh while they're outsourcing things back to us.

Quest For Fire

2005-08-08T11:00:00.000-07:00

Okay, well, not quite a quest for fire. But a quest nonetheless.

Since October 2004 I've been on a fitness kick. In April 2003 I got up to 204.5 pounds. I was miserable and unhappy. I'm sure some of you who might read this can empathize and sympathize. Being fat is not fun. So, I took my fitness life back at the age of 36. The day before the 20th reunion of the Shawnee Mission NW Cougars class of '85 Friday night party, I weighed in at 174. As a tangent, if any of you I had the pleasure of catching up with are visiting, it was truly a pleasure to see so many people again. And that slide show was excellent (as well as embarrassing). So many varied paths, but with one common, comfortable bond. Go Cougars.

I started losing weight in May 2003. Like I said, I started the fitness regimen in October 2004. I started rowing. If you haven't tried rowing, I highly recommend it. If you have a bad back, get on a rowing machine. If you want a superb whole body workout, try rowing. Hmm, again, off topic.

Well, everyone should find a goal for themselves. We often create goals such as personal ("I want to save for that car."), or health-related ("I'm going to work out 30 minutes every day."), or family ("We're saving $x per month for junior's college tuition and retirement."). Goals are good. I found one through rowing.

If you don't know, 1 mile is about 1,609 meters. I am aiming for 1,000,000 meters completed by September 30, 2005, one year after I first set my butt down on that rowing machine in our basement. Where am I on this quest? Well, with 53 days remaining, I just passed the 661,000 meter mark, which leaves about 339,000 meters to go. When I reach a million meters I will have rowed approximately 621 miles over the previous year. If you're Lance Armstrong, you peddle that in about 1/3rd of the Tour de France. If you're me, you reach a milestone that any self-respecting 38 year old would be proud of. And feel all the better because of it.

So, what do I have to do over the next 53 days to reach my goal? I need to row about 6,400 meters a day without a day off, or about 4 miles a day. I've been averaging about 8,000 a day for the last month to get within striking distance. If I can keep up this pace, I'll finish early and take a well-deserved day off. And then start in on my 2nd million the next day. And, to track my improvement, in October 2004 I was averaging about 8 minutes 30 seconds a mile over 5000 meters. Today I am rowing anywhere between 6:50 and 7 minutes a mile. The 7 minute mile was a milestone achievement.

Who cares, you might be saying? Well, besides me, I'm hoping to get your support to continue this quest. If you have a Concept2 model a, b, c, or d, respond to this post. I'm looking for other rowers who would like to share training sessions and talk rowing. If you don't row, post anyway and wish me luck. I will update as time goes by. Whatever happens, I'm proud of what I've done. I'm no motivational speaker, so I'm not telling you what you don't already know.

What's your quest?

Convenience vs. Laziness

2005-06-30T07:08:00.000-07:00

The refrigerator that can take inventory. The vacuum that vacuums for you. The lawnmower that mows for you.

Is this really what our country is coming to? If so, how about this?

The trash chute that lets you put the stinky leftovers like chicken bones onto a conveyor and deposits them in an airtight trash container somewhere else, like in your garage where the trash normally is?

How do we define convenience? And for every convenience we create, is it one step closer to laziness?

Convenience makes something that was previously difficult or unpleasant easier or more pleasant. Laziness is when a convenience eliminates the need to manually complete something, a development of reliance. Convenience and laziness are applied to actions, things that we do. As with any convenience there are consequences, sometimes unintended. But that can be the cost of progress.

Why do we create conveniences? Because we're lazy? Because we want to take jobs away from people?

We create conveniences because we think we're solving a problem. The steam engine was not developed only to eliminate the need for horse-pulled farm equipment. The steam engine was applicable to a number of actions and it had the unintended consequence of eliminating a lot of jobs. And while it eliminated a lot of jobs people used to do, it also freed up those same people to find other jobs, or, create new ones or start new businesses leveraging the steam engine.

The car had a number of effects on life, one of which was it could get us from place A to place B a lot faster. But without roads what good were they? The car's convenience was drastically hampered until the automakers came together to begin building smooth-running roads for the horseless carriage. If you really want to get crazy, you could blame the car for the rash of child kidnappings in the US. If it weren't for this convenience, kids would never be taken as far from home as they typically are by those same kidnappers. Kidnapping on foot or bicycle wouldn't get you very far, even 24 hours later. Of course, if searchers didn't have cars either it might not matter. Can kids play as safely outside, in the front yard, as they once could when there were fewer cars? Would we have so many soccer parents and complex schedules for our kids? Or would they still be enjoying Pop Rocks and playing tennis ball (baseball with a tennis ball, duh) in their own yards?

There's no doubt convenience is important. We want to solve problems. It's one way we define ourselves as humans. We solve problems. When are those problem-solving skills leading us to become lazier?

When conveniences become answers to questions nobody really had, that's when. You really want a refrigerator that keeps an inventory? Because you're too lazy to open the door? How about a refrigerator that keeps an inventory to itself and can notify my favorite grocery store when I'm low on some critical items and then has them ready for me? Grocery shopping itself is an inconvenience, especially if I have young children. The conveyor that carries away the stinky trash you don't want to carry out to the garbage in the garage? What? You must be kidding. Isn't that kids are for? "Take this to the trash, please. I don't want it to stink up the house." And it's done. It takes all of 30 or 45 seconds.

Here's another example: Your mobile phone. You might have 10 to 500 phone numbers stored. Can you remember a single phone number from that list? Should you be able to? What would happen if you lost all of that information and had no other way to retrieve it other than to start again? Would you be hamstrung? Is this convenience?

Look around your house. There are automated devices that solve all kinds of problems and make life more convenient. The washing machine and dryer make washing and drying clothes easier. The telephone lets us stay in contact with our friends and family more easily. And there are others for which there really is no excuse. And no question or problem that they solve. The George Foreman grill. The quesadilla maker. The TV. (I mean really, what was the question television was trying to answer? Entertainment? Who can't entertain themselves? Or go to a movie? Or play? Or spend time with their family? Or read? Nah, we can't either.)

I'm not against convenience. Without it, I wouldn't be writing this blog. But the problem lies in each of our definitions of convenience versus laziness. If, as we hear constantly, we don't have time for anything anymore, when are we going to find the time to create more conveniences? And when we do, what will their consequences be? The argument can very easily be extended to, of all things, the American obesity problem. Fast food is a convenience. What problem does it solve? It lets us buy pre-made food and eat it fast, because we don't have time to cook. We don't? Isn't fast food a self-fulfilling prophecy? I believe I don't have time, so I'll just drive through. Who said we don't have time? And, if I'm going home anyway, why would I stop for food? Won't the refrigerator just put in my order at the grocery store?

We don't have time anymore because we don't make it. We've allowed ourselves to prioritize without prioritizing. It's easier to simply pick up food on the way home, to let the Roomba vacuum. As we soften it makes me wonder if we're going to let the wonderful little things in life like making s'mores disappear like the Dodo. Is this really the evolution of our society that we want? Do we want the fire to be lit for us, the marshmallows pre-fired and chocolate pre-made on the split graham cracker, only to have to say "Yum"? Who's going to develop this convenience? I know I didn't ask for it.

All of this is thorny. Very thorny. And I'm struggling with my own definitions. You have your own. Don't let others tell you what they are. But then, if we all did that, we'd never buy anything off an infomercial, would we? And George Foreman's grill would never have been a big success.

Isn't that convenient?

Letting Go

2005-05-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

This post could be about a number of topics: death and dying, relationships, etc. It's not.

When you're a parent, you take on the biggest job in the world. If you're a stay-at-home parent, you deserve a Purple Heart and whatever other commendation this planet has to offer. Especially if your kids are 5 or under.

As we parents all know, as your children get older, they trade in one set of problems and issues for another set. And each of these problems and issues is different and sometimes more complicated than the last set. Which is where this post comes in. With each set of new problems, let go of the last ones. Face the new ones and realize you're probably not prepared for them. And then realize that you'll learn to deal with them as best you can until a new, and different, set come along.

The core point I'm making is this: the selfish parent (ahh, back to this theme) not only has a hard time letting go of past problems, they resent their kids and the new issues when they arise. Sometimes this manifests itself as your internal opinion that you've got a "bad" kid, or that your younger daughter "never does what our son used to do." If you feel the hackles on your neck standing up or if you're mad while reading this, you're probably one selfish parent. Now, there are bad kids, yes. Some of them need counseling or medication because they're just messed up and we don't want them to turn into serial killers or animal abusers or anything else. That's natural. And we, as parents, need to recognize if this is the issue we're facing without selfishly hiding behind the belief that "Johnny's just different." That sort of denial is just as selfish.

Let me give you some examples.

When your child wakes up in the middle of the night crying for you or just crying for any reason whatsoever do you a) wake right up and head to their room awake and concerned about your child's well being? b) wake up and hope your spouse will take care of it? or c) Wake up and head down to the room pissed off because you're tired and with little patience for whatever the "issue" seems to be?

If you answered b) or c) you're a selfish parent. Now, that's not all bad in itself. You need to have your own time. But if you look at this type of situation as an infringement on your time more than 50% of the time, you need to seriously reconsider your priorities. Or, find "me" time during the day or evening or 2 hours on the weekend. Something.

Here's another example: While eating dinner with the whole family your 5-year-old son, who loves to immerse himself in television when he has the chance to watch it, absentmindedly and accidentally spills his cup of Mandarin oranges from his Mickey D's Happy Meal on his lap. He cries. Do you a) get up wordlessly, get a wet washcloth, clean up the mess and remind him that he needs to pay more attention or the TV needs to be off while he eats b) Turn to him and say, "See? That's what you get for not paying attention." or c) Angrily get up because your meal is interrupted, turn off the TV, which increases the screaming, get a washcloth, and say, "No more TV. You can't eat and pay enough attention."

If you picked b) or c) you're obviously a selfish parent. Here's the rub: If the TV is on and you're all not watching a program together while eating (and I'm not going to debate the family time issue here), then you might be glad your children are leaving you alone. That's just not the way to parent.

What's the answer to these and other questions of parental life? I don't know. But I can tell you this: I am one selfish son of a gun.

Remember this from one who knows and is working to make things better: Your child isn't doing any of these things purposefully or to you personally. (That comes later I think. The teen years?) Let go of the feelings of anger or interruption. If you're telling your spouse you can't get enough done around the house because of the kids, you're not trying hard enough. Because if your kids under the age of 5 need you, you need to be with them. But, never at the expense of getting necessary things done. Your kids can cry when you need to get things done. Sometimes dinner just has to be made, or the laundry has to be folded and put away, or the carpet needs to be vacuumed. But you don't need to check your email or watch Oprah or talk to your friends on the phone for 30 minutes while the kids are home.

Pick your battles. I can't stand military analogies, but this one is working for me right now: Raising children is a war. Pick your battles. You might lose a few battles, but overall it's up to us to win the war. Your children will thank you for it. And you'll be a happier, and less selfish, parent.

I Hate You

2005-04-20T06:52:00.000-07:00

That's right. I hate you.

Okay, maybe not. But with the way the word 'hate' is being slung around these days, I might as well hate you.

I've noted a disturbing trend amongst politicians to 'hate'. Tom DeLay currently 'hates' Democrats for the supposed character assassination they're foisting upon him related to dubious behavior. One of our neighbors 'hates' another woman on the block because she "has to have a nanny two days a week to get to Ann Taylor". We have 'hate' groups who probably, for all intents and purposes, really deserve that tag. I heard a woman on NPR the other day say she doesn't 'hate' Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing, but she sure wishes McVeigh would have "rotted in jail instead of being executed." Hmm, isn't that pretty close to hate?

Hate is such a strong word. Think for a moment on how many times in your life you use it. Then think about it again. Do you 'hate' broccoli or some other vegetable? Do you 'hate' the New York Yankees because they've won so many World Series? Do you 'hate' a neighbor?

Most of the time, don't you really just dislike something? If you hated, wouldn't you want to have some physical response to the feeling? Doesn't the word make you want to do? To do something? Hate connotes a visceral reaction, one typical of violence. And sometimes, violence might be necessary. Say if you're being mugged or physically assaulted. Your fight or flight mechanism might just respond with, "Right cross, kick to the groin."

Hate is thrown around so casually today. Al-qaeda hates us. At least that's what our government says. And lots of people believe. We seem to hate dictators and ex-dictators we've overthrown like Saddam Hussein. And with good reason, probably. But hate seems to infer a physical reaction, as though revenge is associated with it. Hate is an emotional response that seems to require a powerful emotional and physical response, sometimes one that's out of control. Hate can be an excuse.

Is this what we're becoming as a country? We're the reactionists everybody loves to hate? There it is again. It's no wonder we have such silly reactionary things like Freedom Fries instead of French Fries. We are reducing our emotions to blind attacks and knee jerk reactions to things that have absolutely no bearing on the events in our world today. And yet we feel the need to have some control, and control can sometimes be associated with emotion, and emotion can have a physical or visceral associated element. And that element can be tied to hating.

When we hate we respond, emotionally or physically. You might really dislike seeing the word in print, even. It might make you feel horrible. I know it's been difficult to write it this many times. But it's also not a word that I think we should become so attached to. Hate is not something we should become numb to because we've heard it so many times like violence in movies, television, or video games. And before you jump down my throat about violence, I don't subscribe to the belief that the violence in that medium is directly attributable to real-life violence. Some people are naturally unbalanced, and when exposed to those stimuli, go over the edge. That's not going to change. Here's another side of that same issue: Why didn't more people in the 19th century get murdered when men were walking around with sidearms supposedly killing each other dueling in the streets? Weren't children and teens there to see it? Shouldn't we all be carrying guns? Would mutually assured destruction be enough to reduce gun violence? If so, why is it that in countries like Japan and the UK where violent video games are more popular than they are here is there so much less violent crime, including murder? What? They're too dull to realize they could just blame the video game industry for their troubles?

But I digress. Don't you just hate that?

Boogedy

2005-04-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

That's right. Boogedy.

Pronounced "boo-gah-dee". Every rock and roll song, or for that matter just every song, should have a boogedy in it. At least that's what The Cult seemed to be saying this morning during my drive into work.

Now, "Love Removal Machine" was, in the early 90s, a pretty big hit for this band. But as I listened to it over the car stereo through my iPod, I realized how creative it truly was. There it sat, right at the tail end of the guitar solo. Boogedy.

The rhythm of LRM is that of heavy high hat, snare, and bass drum with a great deal of repetitive chord guitar and a subtle, yet strong, bass line. (Gee, did I just write that?) What's more important, though, is why the word boogedy got into this song, at this particular spot. Next, just what does boogedy mean? And finally, let's discuss why boogedies should be in every song.

First, Ian what's-his-name (a long-haired guy from England, as one of my favorite bands The Cereal Killers perfectly summarized in a song of the same name) was just really jazzed during the recording session and wanted to add a bit of emphasis to show how he felt about LRM. Perfectly normal and natural. I'll give him that. Of course, I'm not sure why boogedy is any better than "yeah" or "uh-huh" or "oh" as is wont to be used during periods of, um, emphasis, but there it is. Boogedy.

Second possibility is that the band was listening to the playback and noticed a funny, uncomfortable hole at the tail end of the solo. Maybe the band looked at each other and the following exchange played out in a Cockney-type accent: "Did you 'ear that? That freakin' 'ole at th' end of me solo?" To which Ian might have replied, "Boogedy if you're not bleedin' right." To which the producer, Robert "Mutt" Lange of AC/DC fame, said, "That's bloody it! Boogedy! We'll splice that righ' in 'ere!" Sorry Mr. Lange, I know you're not British, but I couldn't resist continuing to try and write Cockney dialogue.

Third possibility is, during the recording of the vocal track, Ian what's-his-name simply dropped the can of pop he was holding at the time on his foot, thus throwing off the vocal track, which the band, upon listening to the final press, felt was clearly superior to the original track without the boogedy.

Hmm, I'm going to have to think on those choices.

What does boogedy mean? Well, in a literal sense, it could have something to do with your nose. And picking it. Or what's up inside it. That's gross. It might mean nothing, be purely nonsensical. It could also have a deeper meaning known only to the Brits themselves, much like they seem to know what "telly" or "bloody" means, but we Americans are too dense to use the same language and stick with acronyms like TV. On the fantastical side, maybe boogedy is a magical word, like a reference to early Harry Potter magic. Maybe that's why, once I heard the song on the radio, I bought the album. Wow, that's scary.

I'm going to go with the last definition.

Why does every song need a boogedy? Because they give people with blogs something to write about once they notice them.

Maybe not.

Your Employer is Trying to Kill You

2005-04-08T07:08:00.000-07:00

That's right. Your employer is trying to kill you. Here's how:

I am currently working at a large regional bank in the Midwest. The people working around me, the employees, are hard workers. They seem dedicated and interested in their work. They're mostly IT people. (But there's no accounting for taste.)

Anyway, I was in the break room a week ago getting some water when one of the fine employees, holding a plastic bottle of costly water, says to me, "You trust that water? I don't know how often they clean that machine. And the one time I did see somebody cleaning it, well..." Well, the big stand-alone size-of-a-refrigerator machine had just dispensed a large amount of crushed ice and was in the midst of filling my 20 oz. plastic cup with said water. I looked at him and said with as much straight-faced honesty as possible, "Sure. The company provides it, don't they? And it's free." To which he looked somewhat puzzled, but said, "Yeah, I guess you're right."

So I'm here to tell you that your company is trying to kill you. They want you to use the public water system, filled with chlorine and fluoride and who knows what else, through a giant water machine that is purposefully not cleaned. And, by not cleaning the filter system of this mammoth machine, the company can guarantee that thirsty, healthy employees will become rabid, unhealthy employees who don't come to work for weeks due to some water-borne illness. This is what your company wants.

Now, I'm not knocking this gentleman's choice of paying for his water. I don't do this, but I know that everyone in this country has the right to do so. And I respect that. But I do challenge the validity of the argument that you should buy your water specifically because the company you work for, who provides a number of things to make your work life more comfortable, including an ice and water machine, would intentionally or unintentionally try to poison you. There are a few reasons why you might feel this way: You believe that the bottled, costly water is better. This is possible. I also know it's possible that a number of these bottled waters are no more healthy or clean than the water pumped through the machine in the break room. You believe the company is trying to poison you intentionally: This is a conspiracy theory. I believe that conspiracy theories are becoming more and more popular because of our lack of education and unwillingness to ask questions or learn more about our situation. Things like this become black or white issues. (See a previous post to go over my feelings on black and white issues.) You believe the company is unintentionally trying to poison you. Thus, you buy water. But, you probably are not going to say anything to anyone about this issue. You're just going to stare at the people who continue to get their water out of this machine, wondering if some form of cancer is aggressively attacking their lymph nodes due to this poison. Again, this is a black and white issue, one that you're not going to take any extra time to figure out.

Here's why the company is not trying to kill you. They can't afford to. First, it costs too much to replace employees who've been around at least a year, even in IT (just had to drop that one in there). Even in the companies who love turn and burn the folks, they can't afford for you to spend weeks at home with diphtheria or some other water-borne disease. Second, health care coverage is already sky high. For them and for you. Do you honestly think your boss wants you to be sick? Third, there is no way on Earth that any company purposefully or maliciously wishes harm upon their employees. Do you honestly believe that your employer is out to screw you each and every day? If so, why did they hire you? To take advantage of you? If you're getting paid, you're not an indentured servant, though you might complain that you are. If you do complain, you're probably a whiner more than an underpaid, under appreciated work powerhouse. Get over it.

So, to wrap: If you use a company-provided water machine that dispenses ice and cold water and you suspect it to not be cleaned enough, tell somebody. Anybody. Wait, not anybody. If you're just telling another coworker who won't or can't do anything about it, don't say a thing. Especially if they don't use that water machine, either. Tell your boss. Say something like, "Hey, I saw that the water machine has a sign that says the filter should be changed every two weeks. Is it? Who could I ask about this?" If you're concerned, ask. Don't start down the sump pump of conspiracy theory. Please.

Well, I'm done. And I'm thirsty, too. Of course, I can't seem to get this metallic taste out of my mouth. I wonder if the water machine's been cleaned recently?

Conservative or Liberal?

2005-04-06T10:42:00.000-07:00

Main Entry: 1 con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of or relating to Conservative Judaism
- con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb
- con·ser·va·tive·ness noun

Main Entry: 1 lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Today I'd like to postulate just what in the world is wrong in this country by dissecting the hijacking of the two Merriam-Webster dictionary words above. I'm going to go through them and figure out just where the big deal is and why people are so worried about the religious right (conservatives) versus the Hollywood cognoscenti (liberals). Somewhere in here I fall, as I said in my very first post. Here goes.

The perception of the words conservative and liberal have taken a beating in the last few years. You're either a Bible-beating right-winger or a free-love tree hugger. That is one wild swing. So, let's take a look at the definitions. Conservative has a few definitions, but the one that stands out for me is the TRADITIONAL one, which states, "marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners ". This is the definition that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Note the difference between conservative and conservatism in the political sense. This fine line is where a lot of the wrangling seems to fall down, in my opinion. Religious organizations looking to focus on the "moral" issues of this country are actually not conservatives as much as they are spouting an agenda of conservatism. But hey, you say potato...

Liberal. There seems to be no TRADITIONAL definition. In general, a liberal is one who is generous. If we look at the past, the term also meant lacking moral restraint. Wow. That seems to be exactly what those espousing conservatism seem to think. And again, this is where the issue over the two words has become a national debate. We're all using the wrong terms to label each other.

Herein lies the real issue. We're all labeling each other. And by doing so, we're creating a national schism that is, as one of my rather brusque friends put it, making us look like a bunch of hypocritical war-mongers as we attempt to stamp out one set of religious zealots in the Middle East while letting another set run our country. Of course, were the liberals in charge, this would be a moot point. Or would it? Wouldn't we be just as hypocritical? Yup.

This post isn't about war. But I think a lot of where we are in the world has a lot to do with our internal battles, our wars fought on a public battlefield between those who don't want to change (conservatives) and those who want to evolve (liberals). And I don't mean evolve in the Darwinistic way, either. Everybody knows tomorrow is coming. But some of us fear it more than others. And if you support keeping the things the way they've always been more power to you. Just realize that there others who don't feel the way you do. And, some of those folks think you want to take us back to some past era, a grand and glorious one where all of us were white, men ran everything, and June Cleaver had the kids washed with a drink in hand for Dad when he arrives home from a hard day of work. Some folks think that this return to "moral values" is more like a return to "sweeping our troubles under a Ten Commandments red carpet". I tend to agree.

On the other hand, liberal folks sometimes come across as radically disassociated from the rest of the world. I read some disturbing quotes regarding the "harvesting" of human organs from those who were deemed "insentient". The general tone of the quotes was very university-like. It seems that when folks who are buried in academia begin to speak of the benefits of science or otherwise, they tend to forget that some topics make people very uncomfortable, and that most standard educated folks don't think of people or anything else as sentient or insentient, nor do they ponder the definitions. Liberals have lost the American public because they've taken on this academic tone. They talk too much and in too complicated a fashion. Americans in general want to hear their science or fact in soundbites or USA Today-like length or language. The American public does not make or have time for lengthy explanations as to the benefits of stem cell research, for example. Because as soon as they see more than one paragraph that includes more than one three-syllable word, you've lost them.

And who's there to clean up? You got it. Conservative folk. Now, here's what they want: Control. They don't really understand anything more than the liberals, but they can tell you one thing quickly: This or that new idea threatens my world view and it must be stopped. Stem cell research? Babies will have to die or someone will be harmed; bad idea. And on and on.

Is there a solution? Will we ever, as Americans, get past this dichotomy? Yes, but only if we agree that there is a middle ground where solutions that make a majority of us on both sides happy. Sound like a copout? It's not. There is not always a black and white solution to every question. Those who say that is not true are proving another of my postulates: Those who see all things as black and white are just too lazy to look for a middle ground. Hard work is hard for a reason. It's really easy to simply take a polar stand on an issue. We as Americans are hurting ourselves because we are so focused on the immediate. "Hey, I've got too much on my plate to understand this issue. It's just (right/wrong)." Our society has become drive-thru knowledgeable. Which means we ain't learnin' much anymore unless I can get it in under 60 seconds.

Ever heard of the slow food movement? Been to a high school debate lately? Put together a model airplane with over 200 pieces in the last ten years? Heard anybody say in the last five years, "You should take some time to stop and smell the flowers"? The answer to all of these questions is probably no. Because you and I don't have time. And, because none of these things really impacts me, we don't particularly care. That's a shame. Slow food? Who's got time? High school debate? Doesn't that take research (time) to put together? Models? Who's got the time?

It's spring. The flowers are in bloom. The roses smell wonderful. I know. I bent down and took a quick whiff just this last weekend. But I'll be darned if I didn't get everything done around the house. Maybe I should be less liberal with my time and learn to be more conservative.

On Cingular's Advertising

2005-03-31T11:53:00.000-08:00

Everybody has those, "Duh," moments. Just had one and wanted to write about it.

As are supposedly 39,999,999 other people, I'm a Cingular customer. I've been watching these recent ads where they've been touting the fact that they have so many customers. And, that we can all call each other for free any time we want to.

Here's the "duh" moment: Why don't I know a single other Cingular customer besides my wife I can call?

The question then, is: Why doesn't Cingular post the names of their 40 million customers so we can all figure out how not to pay them to make a call?

The answer is: Because that would violate every privacy law in this country.

My response is: That saddens me. I checked the Cingular web site for two whole minutes and nowhere did I find a mention of "Hey, Cingular customer! Find anyone in our network and call them for free!"

That's a shame. 40 million people I could be calling for free (or they call me). But I can't do that. The onus of responsibility to find out who else I talk to on the Cingular network is up to me. That's foolish.

If you would be willing to be part of a change to the Cingular site that publishes your name only in a search engine so your fellow Cingular customers can find you, then I suggest you call or write Cingular an email or snail mail letter. I know I'm going to. That only moves us one step closer to knowing who else is on the network. You still have to find that person and get their number. Cingular certainly shouldn't hand it out. Unless I opt in...

If you wouldn't, don't. But I for one don't think that my name in a search engine on Cingular's site is any more an invasion of my privacy than the number of times my name pops up in those Google engine searches for the magazine articles I've written. Remember, I'm talking only about posting your name, not your cell number. You and I don't need any more wrong numbers or solicitations for garbage than we already get at home, even though we're on the no-call list.

If you have other reasons this can't happen, I want to know about it. Post and tell me. I'm itching to know.

Oh, and if you need to call me, I'm on Cingular. If you are too, it'll be free. But if you think I'm posting my number here, you must be crazy.

Danforth on Terri Schiavo, stem cell research, religion, Republicans

2005-03-30T12:27:00.000-08:00

The following (between the title In the Name of Politics and Mr. Danforth's bio at the bottom for sake of documentation and source) is an editorial that ran in the New York Times op-ed section 3/30/05. My commentary follows his.

In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH

St. Louis ‹ BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed
our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of
this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to
ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen
embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to
keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the
Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone.
Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to
conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes,
would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political
agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and
political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between
the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican
politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating
Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo,
including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional
involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule
a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of
religious power blocs.

In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced
legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are
artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into
the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be
protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on
diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to
identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always
been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a
petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into
statutory law.

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted
the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement.
Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious
liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against
nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to
try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It
is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it
has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it
raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence
of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification
with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their
own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is
to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion
can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For
politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose
the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such
research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would
punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal
the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with
each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited
government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We
encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We
believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were
internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national
defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all
Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to
become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I
worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a
single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of
marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope
for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious
agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to
rediscover our roots.

John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in
January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an
Episcopal minister.

And now my comments:

Amen.

Baseball and the Steroid Issue

2005-03-24T10:38:00.000-08:00

It's lunch time, so I'm going to while away some time with my ramblings about this whole baseball and steroids issue.

Steroids and their effects on the ability to play baseball

First off, I'm trying to reconcile what the real effect of steroids are (besides possibly long-term horrible side effects) on playing baseball. I played baseball through sophomore year of high school in summer leagues and with school sports teams. Heck, in odd numbered years I was a fantastic player; in even numbered years I stunk up the joint. (Isn't that odd?) Anyway, at no time did any of the guys I played with ever, ever, take some sort of ability-enhancing drug or supplement. We just had fun and played baseball.

If you've followed baseball much (or at all), you know that the early ball players were pretty much slugs. They played year round, they partied hard, and some of them had to get jobs in small towns around the country to keep playing and supplement the 47 cents they got to play ball. Those were the days when baseball was played for "the love of the game". The owners ran the joint, the players were indentured servants, and we still had segregated professional leagues. Then, in the 60s, the first player known to be a "lifter", Bill Allen, was called a freak by one of his teammates. The issue then, as now, was that lifting weights was going to kill the purity of the game. Of course, lifting weights did not kill the game, and my estimate of about 100% of players exercising for some purpose is probably right. Professional athletes just exercise because it's part of being a professional athlete. Look at the PGA golfers, for crying out loud. They've even started training regimens.

So where did steroids get mixed in here? Who really knows? All I can postulate is that steroid use got started somewhere, by one guy, who talked to another guy, who showed another guy how big it made him, etc.

Update: I found a fantastic article on the history of steroids, specifically the anabolic ones originally developed for weight lifters. Check it out if you to find out a lot more on why, when, and where. This is a great article and I think Slate does some very good reporting: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113752

And then it was off to the races. Do you remember a guy named Brady Anderson? Brady played for the Baltimore Orioles and in 1998 he hit 50 home runs. His previous high before 1998? 27. Did Brady look like The Incredible Hulk? Yes. Did anybody care about his physique? No. Did everyone love to see a leadoff hitter cranking out home runs? You bet. Do I think Brady was juiced? Do I care?

I believe that it might be proved that while getting stronger through steroid use can make you hit a round, stitched piece of leather with rubber core farther, they don't do a stinking thing to make you a better overall baseball player. I haven't done the research, but did these guys' batting averages drastically improve? How about their defense? Did they cause more errors in the field of play because they were juiced that led to runs scoring more than so than the runs they drove in? Can any of that be proved? Does it matter? And, if the pitchers did it, too, wouldn't this all be a moot point?

The biggest issue, to me, is defining "performance enhancing". That means that we must determine a set of statistics that prove these users are losers. And at this point, there's been no proof of that. Except...

Barry Bonds and other players, role models

Barry Bonds. If it weren't for Barry, all of this hubbub would be a footnote in baseball history. Why? Because Barry's on course to break Babe Ruth's home run total, which was, of course, eclipsed by Henry Aaron, whom Bonds is only 40 homers shy of, as well. So baseball's got an immediate black eye because the event that should bring baseball even more glory (outside of the accomplishments in the 90s like Ripken's consecutive game streak and that little race to 62 with McGwire and Sosa) is about to collapse under the weight of BALCO's attorney fees and testimony. Unfortunately for him, Barry can't keep his mouth shut about the issue, either. He's playing every card in his hand, including blaming the media for his latest knee surgery, which conspirators are saying he did on purpose so the 'roids can clear his system before he returns because he'd obviously be caught during some random testing. Poor Barry. Poor baseball.

This leads to the athlete as role model argument. "We need to ban this stuff because kids will start using it when they're 3 and on their first 3 on 3 soccer team." I don't get that argument at all. Just because we know these guys are juiced, we're all going to start taking the juice, especially those impressionable youth who are clamoring for their baseball scholarship? Where are the parents in all of this verbal hoopla? As disconnected as we're led to believe? When I was a kid, the Steelers and Cowboys won the Superbowl. A lot. Guess what I just read? Jim Haslett, who coaches the Saints and played during the 70s in the NFL, says the Steelers were the first team to push 'roids for competitive advantage. So it's okay for me to idolize Jack Hamm because I didn't know he was juiced? Thus, ignorance is bliss? Please. This is ridiculous. Athletes as role models is another way of avoiding the issue: parents are looking for ways to pass the buck of responsibility to someone other than themselves. Get over it.

Sports Darwinism

Here's the kicker: 'roid use is simply sports Darwinism. The athlete is simply using whatever means necessary to get a competitive edge because we reward them for that. Doesn't it seem odd that professional sports allow us, the public, to know every detail of their contractual agreements and salary? You wouldn't share that with your neighbor, but these people do it every day. This is one driver for becoming successful at any cost. If you knew John down the street was making $10K a year more than you for the same job at the same company with the same hours and 'roids could help you do your job better and make $20K more, you might do it. That and you'd probably resent John. A lot.

We should take a hard look at steroid usage and then adjust our sports because of them instead of banning them or pretending they don't exist. Guys hit the ball out of the park too much for our puritanical baseball statistics? Move the fences back 30 feet. But let's not stop there. Let's go back and re-write all the records for every sport where medical science or technology has had any effect. For example, let's take away Tiger Woods clubs and give him a hickory shaft and a feather ball. He's obviously cheating to win. (He probably works out, too.) Then, let's get rid of those shoulder pads and protective helmets and put football players back into leather straps and no shoulder pads. (Oh, and let's ban the forward pass. It's ruined the game.) And we must rule out every football record since cortisone was introduced by team doctors. If a guy could play hurt with a cortisone shot today and they couldn't 40 years ago, we've got to do something about that. Like asterisk every record. If a guy had a steel rod inserted into his ankle and recovered 6 weeks faster than he might have 20 years ago, he's cheating! For the ultimate extreme, let's put every Olympic athlete back in the outfit God intended: make 'em all naked. No more swimming body suits, no more carbon fiber sleds, no more superslick skis. Cheaters.

This is risk versus reward. Plain and simple. You take 'roids, you chance awful side effects without a guarantee of success. But you should know that before you do. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...

Drugs are drugs. Professional athletes will take them. Let them. They've been doing it years before it became a big deal. To counter their effect, the games must change.

Congress

Congress has wasted our tax money. Period.

Do you honestly want your Congress asking Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and others about their use of steroids? For what purpose? You've paid for this to happen. You also pay for these guys to take 'roids. When we buy a ticket, we condone their behavior, on and off the field, whether we know it or not.

But now Congress has its nose in it.

I feel a lot better now. I'm distracted from less interesting topics like Social Security, the war in Iraq, and gay marriage.

Thanks, Congress.

Quick Update Since I've Not Written in a Long Time

2005-03-23T14:40:00.000-08:00

Welcome to anyone from the Shawnee Mission Northwest Class of 1985. With my 20th anniversary reunion coming up, I've updated my bio to include this 'blog. I can't say I'm all that comfortable with that choice, but hey, Danny Stratford inspired me. Thanks, Danny.

Here's a thought about 'blogging: It's great for those of us who expose ourselves to it. It's not about curing cancer. It's about putting a piece of yourself out there in cyberspace for all who have access to see. And that's fantastic.

'Blogging is also about putting yourself out there for critical, and not-so-critical, review. Your personality, beliefs, and other intimate information could be posted. That puts a cyberspace target on your back. But it also democratizes the entire process and the Internet itself. We should all be able to leverage a place that's available to us to post our viewpoints, our opinions, and our rationales.

So, in the spirit of what was intended, if you don't like what you're reading, quit and do something else. Post to your own 'blog or surf the 'Net somewhere else or wash the car or chase the dog. But don't post to my 'blog and tell me I can't have my point of view. That's not the spirit.

If my tangential musings entice you to post to debate in a thoughtful way, super. I welcome that. I'm especially interested in feedback regarding the Selfish Parent stuff.

I don't post often. And when I do, as a friend told me, I have a tendency to have a bit of an outline ready to go. I prefer to post when I think I've got something to document or say, not simply to document my day. But I understand this is very different than what people usually do with 'blogs. But there's nothing wrong with that, right?

Finishing Up on Music Ownership and Distribution

2005-02-14T08:48:00.000-08:00

After some of the most recent postings and online 'zines have focused their attention on the state of music, I'm now inclined to finish my ramblings on the subject.

Well, it seems we have a couple of choices that I've outlined earlier, but want to go over yet again. The all-you-can-eat subscription service, a la Napster, and the pay-to-play services like iTunes. This Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/14/music_a_la_carte_vs_subs/) makes us believe that subscription services just won't work. There's one reason why they won't work, and Steve Jobs has already hit upon it: you don't own the music you're paying for. When you stop paying, you stop playing. Simple as that. Who wants that?

So, we have the pay-to-play services. I like iTunes. I especially like it because once I get the song, it's mine. I can transfer it 5 times, which ain't perfect, but it's enough. I still think the industry is missing the bigger picture. I want to let the industry know what music I already own (license) and then have them give me access to it however I want it. I don't want another physical format for the music. I want a virtual vault where the "pointers" to my music are kept and I can get to it, organize it, and play it any way I please. This is a failing of a lot of business. It's either/or. Maybe the solution is more of a combo unit.

Like I said before, I don't want a dozen copies of the same song on some hard drive or flash unit I'm responsible for. I want my receiver to have the music streamed to me on demand, like VOD. This is why I think the satellite systems have the leg up. I just saw that the Sirius radio CEO asked Steve Jobs about adding satellite reception to the iPod and Jobs said no. That's either the stupidest decision in the world or Jobs is hiding something. There's that either/or thing again. I'm not sure. I'm not making the rules, either, just harboring guesses.

While the industry continues to bang its head against a wall looking for another physical format to force us all to rebuild our libraries, the technology will move in the opposite direction. It's a classic case of the Innovator's Dilemma. The music industry pushes up market with new, initially more expensive physical formats for distribution of the same product. In the background, technology companies find ways to license the music and distribute it without the overhead of packaging. There is no doubt that technology will win out.

What if iTunes could stream my "owned" music to my iPod, my car stereo, my home stereo without forcing me to download it to the hard drive? Isn't this just a few steps away from today? Isn't this what some of the new Apple gear lets us do by pushing iTunes music wirelessly to AirTunes? Imagine if AirTunes could simply be a piece of every stereo receiver in the home? If our car's stereos could do the same?

For the audiophiles out there who are cringing about this because you've spent 10s of thousands of dollars on equipment, hold your horses. None of this would happen overnight. I think it will be 5-7 years until it even starts. And the sound quality, while good to those of us with damaged or constrained hearing, would be perfectly acceptable, the original streaming would not be done at some lossless rate. The bandwidth would be untenable. But it would get there.

How about those of you who want the cover art? The lyrics? You'll still be able to get those. You'll just have to download them somewhere yourself. Like Lyrics.com or some other place that has that stuff. iTunes already lets you create album cover artwork, so does every other piece of music software. So download it and get it yourself. This is work for us, yes, but theoretically it's less work for the industry and hence, less cost passed to us.

Who's going to control all of this stuff? At this point, I don't care. I just want my music streamed to me via a wonderfully diverse grid computing network with multiple nodes pushing the music out. There's no reason why individuals cannot be paid to use computing cycles as distributors. If you've got a spare Mac mini, you've got a perfect node on the grid. There's power in them there machines enough to be the perfect grid nodes, pushing out music to those of us requesting it.

Well, I'm done rambling on this. Next.

The Future of Subscriber-based Music Licensing pt 2

2005-01-21T13:02:00.000-08:00

Let's skip the review of the previous meanderings and get to the good stuff.

What do I want for my music and listening enjoyment?

The perfect world, for me, is to have access to my music where I want it, when I want it, and how I want it. That's really simplistic. And it's almost impossible to foresee for at least five to 10 years, depending upon technological breakthroughs in compression, bandwidth, and delivery. But let's look at one of those perfect-world scenarios:

I subscribe to Musat (Music Satellite, of course), the first satellite radio I'm willing to pay for that offers me the capability to 1) listen to the music I license on demand on my own station 2) listen to pre-programmed commercial-free radio programming on any of over 150 channels similar to today's XM or Sirius 3) program music from my collection on-demand 4) purchase music that is added to my collection with the touch of a button 5) listen to this music at home through my stereo, my PC, my portable device, etc. All of this could be a single unit that plugs in to my home stereo, the head unit in my vehicle, or that I carry around with me. Here are some of the technical things I want: I don't want to have 14 copies of each song in my collection on a hard drive anywhere that belongs to me. I want on-demand access to come from out of the ether, not off a flash drive or hard drive that is susceptible to failure.

I'm willing to be the first to experiment with the "permanent license" of music. That means I'm willing to rid myself of CD cases, lyrics, cover art, to have access to the music I've licensed. With that, though, I also want to know that I have access to that music any time and from any device that can access it, including my mobile phone, if it's so capable of interacting or receiving the transmission. One main problem with digital music is the requirement of needing to keep it somewhere. Why should we need to do this? Why am I suddenly responsible for the single 3.55 megabytes of information associated with "Dear God" by XTC? If something's in the digital realm, it should stay outside of my responsibility but be available whenever I want it. Isn't this exactly what movies-on-demand are supposed to be? For the right price, why wouldn't I be willing to pay per viewing of my favorite movie without having to keep it? And the argument is, "Dude, it's yours. And, you don't have to pay for it when you'll listen to it hundreds of times." Really? Let's take a look at that argument for a minute under the guise of two music service business models: pay-per-play and subscription services. And, sorry, but this is going to drop a little bit into game theory, not because I can but because it makes sense.

Okay, pay-per-play model. I am willing to pay-per-play for Jet's "Cold Hard Bitch". How much? Hell, I don't know. Let's say I'm willing to pay a penny. I've listened to that song 39 times on my iPod since downloading it from iTunes. It's a favorite. (There's no accounting for taste.) So, with this business model, Musat has just made 39 cents off of me from this one song. Wait a minute! That's not even close to enough money! The record industry is getting ripped off! You're contributing to the delinquency of a minor with that paltry sum! (Okay, I've gone off the deep end.)

Okay. So, we jack up the price. It doesn't matter. But say that when the month is done I've listened to a sum total of 204 tracks. That takes into account my 4 45-minute workouts for four weeks of the month plus the three 30-minute per week car trips I'm taking. I'm paying $2.04 per month for my music, which becomes $24.48 per year for my music. That's more than I pay for my car magazines. That's more than I currently spend on new CDs, for crying out loud. Maybe the model gets more complicated by making newer, hotter bands more expensive, or older music by still-hot bands less expensive, or whatever. The formula can be developed.

Now, let's move to the subscription service. Musat let's me listen to as much music as I want in the catalog (mine or theirs) for a flat rate of $9.95 a month. The radio would be on all the time under this model for me. I have no reason to ever turn it off. I might as well leave the thing on all night long, just humming to itself at three in the morning. I have no incentive to turn off the receiver because I'll be paying the same thing no matter what. Unlimited access, then, becomes a disincentive for me to have access to music. It also will result in more crowded bandwidth usage because more people will have their units on constantly.

The monthly fee does not sufficiently tackle my biggest issue with digital music: how are they going to give you access to what you already own and still charge you the flat fee? What if you only accessed stuff you already licensed? Is this like caller-to-caller bonus on mobile phones, in that you aren't charged because you've already paid? Wouldn't you be angry if you were constantly re-paying for the stuff you already paid for? Again?

This is why I believe the pay-per-play model is better. One, the music isn't yours in the first place. You're only licensing it to play it for your enjoyment. If you want to hear it from your channel on Musat, you can; it still costs a penny to play it, but "Dear God" has been sufficiently segregated from the other alternative music on the main channels that you can get to it efficiently on your own channel. Second, it removes an element of ownership that I think people are willing to forgo. Because of that, you never feel as though you've "lost" something you never had physical possession of. The only thing you could lose or break is the unit that receives the transmission, and we know that this device will eventually become a commodity so cheap that it will need to be replaced every year anyway. For those who can't live without their lyric sheets and cover art, the only place you can access them is somewhere stationary. You don't have a printer in the car (yet), and you sure as hell should not be reading the lyrics while you're driving from the driver nav system in the car. So, you'll get those where you have access to them: from a PC or other computing device with printer access, if necessary. Let go of the ownership feeling. I promise it will be liberating.

How will we reach the point of not having "our" music stored somewhere we're made responsible for it? And this, I think, will cheer the recording industry: All that music will be spread around the globe on servers. In offices. In companies. But not on your hard drives. The music industry will have private industry "host" the files, hundreds of millions of copies, all over the globe, on servers with extra cycles just waiting to push them out to the big wide world. And how will this be done? Time for some tech jargon: grids. Grid computing will create the largest controlled peer-to-peer network the world has ever seen. Except that the peers will not push files from one place to another to be stored and then manipulated. Files will simply be pushed out as they are requested in a one-way delivery to be directly transmitted. The receivers will be "dumb" in that they can only "play", not store. I'm discounting the current SkyFi or MyFi device that can currently store up to 5 hours of programming from satellite for later listening when you're in an area with no access, such as a subway. Within five years WiMax and other transmission forms will be so ubiquitous that the hard drive portion of the device will be unnecessary.

Why does this solution work for the recording industry? Because they have control. There will be no unauthorized versions of the music out there anymore (in a perfect world). The recording industry will have companies pay them to use their servers and those companies will become the middle men of the industry, to whom royalty checks will be cut based on usage of their equipment. The entirely digital distribution makes tracking successful artists that much easier. Reporting becomes a snap. Hootie and the Blowfish transmissions down for the third year in a row? Are they under contract? Not for long. (This is, of course, a rancid example, but I'm sure one that an A&R guy is pretty excited about.)

There's a ton of technical stuff to overcome in this perfect world. How am I interacting with the system in my car to tell it what I want to hear? (OnStar anyone?) How am I creating play lists on the fly? (Apple click wheel?) How much bandwidth would be necessary to beam all this personalized music to each individual? (Not nearly as much as it takes for video.) How am I going to push a button and add a selection to my channel easily? (Push the button and your credit card is charged?)

In the next installment, I'm going to tackle one, some, or all of the following:

How does this differ from what the recording industry seems to want?

Are there compromises?

The Future of Subscriber-based Music Licensing

2005-01-20T08:13:00.000-08:00

Forgive me up front because this will be a very tangential thought dump. (And it's way off topic from my story of child-rearing selfishness.) But what I'm going to put here has been on the back burner for almost 18 months. And, with the latest patent request from XM Satellite Radio regarding a "head unit" that allows subscribers to "purchase" the piece they're listening to and then download it through a music store such as iTunes, I just have to give this a shot.

First, iTunes and personal music and data players. I own a 3rd generation iPod, a 20-gigger. I have loaded each and every one of our approximately 175 CDs onto that sucker. I have about 20 different song lists based on mood, activity, or band. I have a device that lets me run the iPod through the 87.9 FM band so I can listen in the car. I work out with it because music works better than TV (I can concentrate and use the beat).

The iPod is stylish, one reason it sells a whole bunch of units. It's also functional. It was first to use a hard drive to store a lot of music and manipulate it the way you wanted. All very cool. Now there seem to be an endless variety of these players with hard drives, flash memory, you name it. They all have a glaring weakness. They are not networkable. None of them can be used on your home wireless network or receive a transmission while away from home. The XM MyFi unit comes pretty close to this, but you're only receiving the programming from XM, not the music you "own". More on this limiation later.

I have used a number of the music services, including at one point experimenting with the original "illegal" ones. The initial foray into file swapping had two components for me: 1) the interface to the swapping software and 2) my purpose for using it: filling in my collection of songs with individuals that I didn't previously have. Now I use iTunes for this. I am still filling in my collection of music and occasionally purchasing new tunes. I purchase singles to experiement: How does the re-formed Pixies sound? It's worth 99 cents to find out and hear the whole song. I can hear snippets at Amazon and even in iTunes, but those snippets are 30 seconds and don't satisfy my need to be completely critical.

There are different reasons for people to use the music stores, whether they're pay by the song or subscriptions. I use iTunes to fill in the blanks and to sample new purchases. Of the hundreds of downloads I've done, though, only a handful have been for new music. And, as I age, I can see that continuing to dwindle. What I don't see dwindling, though, is my interest in ridding myself of all of our CDs and freeing up some space in the house. I am one of those who would be happy dumping all of those jewel cases, the lyric books, the cover art, and the CDs for a completely digital world. Except that I am concerned that today's systems would not afford me the ability to re-burn "my" music if it were ever lost to me, either by hard drive failure on the computer or the iPod. And, by following some message boards, this is certainly not something that Apple or the music industry is concerned with, as well.

So, I can't rid myself of my CDs. And, the music I do "purchase" is not really mine if I lose it. Much as it's not really mine if I sit on my CD and break it, either. Music on media is nothing more than software on media, and this limitation is exactly what the recording industry wants to continue to use as their leverage point into our wallets. The digital distribution of music, whether per song or by album, eliminates the final point at which they control the wallet share of consumers. I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen about the "middle men" of the music industry, this is why a CD can cost $19. Until the recording industry finds a suitable way to control the digital distribution of music, they will continue suing the users of file-swapping services.

Don't get me wrong. I like iTunes. It's not perfect, but it's right for what I do. I'll continue to use it. As I move away from having time to listen to music, it will fade away, as have a number of other hobbies such as collecting comic books (which are going to make a comeback, damnit). While I'm on this topic, let me throw out a hypothesis: As people age, new music becomes less of a priority and they remain focused on what they've known. For example, I grew up a teen in the 80s. My favorite bands are still AC/DC, Devo, and others. I have some music from the 90s (Nirvana) and even the 21st century (Jet), but my allegiance will always be to the music I grew up with. I believe this is the way it works for everyone, but they won't admit it. This is why our parents and I now say, "I can't understand a damn thing that band is singing," when we watch Saturday Night Live. The bands of today don't resonate with us. They resonate with the kids and teens who, in 20 years, will be saying the same thing we are today. They'll look back fondly and ask, "Why can't kids listen to stuff like Eminem anymore? I could understand that guy." This perpetual cycle is one that the industry certainly leverages. If not, they're a lot more dense than I've ever given them credit for. That said, there are plenty of people who, as adults, continue to buy new music, continue to expand their repertoire. But I believe the music-buying consumer by age is a bell curve, with the teen through mid-20s at the peak of the curve.

Second, satellite radio. I don't subscribe to either of the biggies, XM or Sirius, though my current vehicle has a built-in antenna and I could get a discount. Satellite radio has over 100 channels of commercial-free music and programming that is beamed down from the heavens to your vehicle, or your SkyFi or whatever device receives that transmission at this point. Satellite radio is, for all intents and purposes, at the same stage cable TV was in the late 1980s and early 90s. It's not too expensive per month, but it's still right on the cusp of "the tipping point", to use that now handily overworked and overwrought "paradigm". The tipping point is a theory that certain concepts, products, or services that, at one point are virtually dead or just haven't gone anywhere, can suddenly and explosively become a powerful trend or fad. A good example, and one directly from the book of the same name, is Hushpuppies shoes, which had an explosion in the mid-90s because some wonk found them and used them in a fashion show or something. From there, stars had to have them, and then they became the shoe. For a while. Tipping points are typically sociological events that catapult a product, service, or concept into the limelight. Satellite radio is still looking for the tipping point. The competitors are hoping they can create their own tipping point. Sirius has signed the self-anointed "king of all media", Howard Stern, who is supposed to bring 1 million of his loyal listeners over. For Howard, I see this as a coup: he can cuss and have as much as sexual material as his heart can take. His freedoms are unbounded. The listeners he does bring, as well as the existing Sirius subscribers, can sample Howard for all his kingness. I won't get started as to whether I think this will be successful for either Sirius or Stern. Game theory isn't our topic. And, since I don't know how rational Howard really is, it might not be applicable, either.

XM, on the other hand, has yet to find its tipping point, I think. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a major acquisition or change to XM that would lead to a major jump in subscribers, though I believe they hold a 3.1 million to 1 million subscriber lead over Sirius, even with only two existing satellites to Sirius' three. Part of this is the substantial deal XM has done with car companies to pre-load XM capability into new vehicles. The problem with this pre-loading is that, while the ability to have XM is right there, at your fingertips, you still might have no reason to feel you need to pay for your commercial-free radio. I certainly don't. So, while getting the capability pre-loaded was a coup, I would bet that the implementation has not resulted in a major jump in subscribership. And that would portend exactly why Sirius has not made that many partnerships with car manufacturers in response.

Here's another problem with satellite radio: I can't interact with it. Yes, the latest patent filing signals that you may be able to purchase what you're hearing in the future, but you can't tell someone, "Hey, I need a Christmas mix," or "Mix me some workout music with at least 120 beats per minute." And maybe we'll never get there. But I can dream. And you know what? I can almost do this, except not with my digital media. I can do with it with OnStar, the subscriber service offered on most GM vehicles that lets me get directions, talk on the phone, call for help, track my vehicle, or find out where the closest Chinese restaurant is. Ponder this for a minute. I want to come back to it.

Third, my perception of the music industry reaction to the download generation. I'll start by saying that the "licensing" concept of music is a tough one to find solutions for. When I buy a CD, I own the media on which the music is printed. I don't own the music, the lyrics, or anything else directly related to the property of the music. I can make copies of what I've licensed for myself and family members only. I've got this freedom. But if I break that CD, I'm off to the store for another one. This is exactly the same issue I'd have with a toy, a GameBoy, clothing that I ruined, or any other physical product. And while this is still the majority distribution method for media, we're all in the same boat.

Take a look at my history of music distribution since the 1950s. First, there were 45s. Kids trotted out and spent their allowances on these platters they could play over and over again until they were so scratchy and worn they had to buy another copy. You got two songs and an A and B side. The A side was the hit, the B side was, well, really filler. Unless you were Elvis, and then the B side was a huge hit, too. Go figure. Bands got together and barnstormed around the country, playing their hit, clearing the stage for the next band, and so on and so forth. Kids created huge collections of 45s. The next movement in radio and distribution was the album rock radio period, which has persisted in one form or another into today. This format pushed artists into the studios to develop whole albums, and we got story music, the kind of album that you could not look for one hit to make the radio. We got Iron Butterfly and even the Beatles White Album. Suddenly, radio was no longer about barnstorming with single hits, but selling entire albums of concepts. And what did kids have to do? Well, if they bridged the gap between the barnstormers and the concept albums, they replaced or supplemented their 45s with 33s, those two-sided grooved vinyls which took up more vertical space than their 45s but contained a lot more music. Unfortunately, those albums did not always satisfy. How could every artist be expected to hammer out 10 to 14 hits per album? When I was a kid, you were lucky if your favorite album artist had 3 to 5 really good songs.

(I'm skipping innovations of distribution with little impact. So, sorry, 8-track and Sony MiniDisc, you're out.)

And the recording industry probably took note of this incongruity. But, instead of fixing the real problem, which was radio hits supplemented with filler music, the industry latched onto a new invention: the CD. In the early 80s, the CD became the rage. This single-sided disc couldn't scratch, allowed music to be stored and heard "digitally", took less space, and didn't hiss or make scratchy noises when it played. And, if you were really good with the tape deck, you could make your own compilations a lot easier because your CD player would tell you how much time was left on each track as it played. That rocked. Unfortunately we were all left in the dust again, having to replace our entire album collection with CDs. And at first, some of those albums were nowhere to be found. As CDs quickly replaced 33s, we were hooked again. I gladly replaced my entire AC/DC and Oingo Boingo vinyl with CD. If I was lucky, the CD carried a bonus track. At first there was a furor over those albums that had stickers such as ADD or DDD on them. If you got an early CD of a remastered album that said ADD, you were getting a CD that had been transferred to digital media directly from its original analog recording. The trend-setters of the time were the DDD artists, those who recorded digitally and went direct to disc. That seems like a long time ago.

The trend here is that the recording industry has had control of the media distribution method since its inception. The physical representation of the media, whether vinyl, tape, or CD, has improved over time and we've gladly continued to re-work our collections as these media have improved. The recording industry has, of course, been glad to fill their pockets with our money in doing so. This is not inherently bad. The consumer argument of late has been, "The distribution method may have improved, but the product sure hasn't." This isn't the space to argue that point. The discussion is about the industry's interest in control.

Control is what suddenly disappeared with Napster and other file sharing networks. I don't believe that thievery or stealing is the industry's main argument. Yes, revenues of purchased CDs dropped the first few years of this century, but that could have happened anyway. A number of economic factors could easily have contributed to people having less disposable income for music. I hypothesize that control was lost so suddenly that the knee-jerk reaction was to do what's being done now. Suing consumers may or may not be the right thing to do. There are arguments for and against that issue we can discuss all day. But they don't get to the point of control. We'll talk about options for control soon.

The next post will discuss the perfect world scenario as far as I'm concerned, my perception of the issues that must be solved to get to that perfect world, what I think will eventually become the norm for both music and video distribution around the world, and conclude by wrapping everything together in a nice neat bow. Or just continuing to ramble with no empirical evidence.

Crying in the Shower

2004-12-21T09:42:00.000-08:00

Upon realizing my selfishness regarding getting my wife a neck pillow while our son slept fitfully and ate even less, another set of interesting, and selfish, events occurred.

During Christmas of that year, our son, who was only about 8 weeks old and screaming incessantly each and every day, was making our lives more and more difficult. We were both working and it became clear that both of us were beginning to work harder and harder at not coming home early to have to take care of him. There was something missing from both of us: compassion. I remember standing there asking out loud, "What's wrong with him?" and my wife saying, "How should I know?" Thus, the first lesson in eliminating selfish parenting: You won't know what's wrong with your infant when he/she's screaming. They can't tell you and you'll never really guess. It could be anything, but most of all, if it happens all the time, it could be colic. If it's colic, begin by telling yourself "This isn't personal. My child isn't doing this to make me crazy, reduce my free time, kill my sleep patterns, anything else." Realize that you've just signed up for the most difficult job on the planet: You're a parent now. Your work issues, your relationship issues, all of that stuff is nothing compared to becoming a parent. Let your frustrations go with your children because they will only carry over into every other aspect of your life and ruin your demeanor everywhere. Let it go.

Christmas Day year 1. At my parents house, after getting three or four hours of sleep, our son would not stop screamining. Again. Christmas Day. And we're very tired. How could he need to eat every 90 minutes? Hadn't we just fed him? At this point we had shifted him to the bottle and milk because the recommendation from the pediatrician was to do so because he might not be getting enough from mother's milk. ("That'll be $95.") But we were in the same situation with the screaming. And it just kept up all day long. My parents, bless them, said to us, "Take a nap. We'll take care of him." Forty-five minutes later, the screaming started again. And wouldn't stop. And there was no room in their house that was not pierced by the sound. We got up. We decided that he was probably as tired as we were, so we tossed him in the back of the car and went for a ride. Forty-five minutes later we were still listening to screaming and things were not improving. By six that evening, our son had had enough. And he crashed out in his car seat. And we were left in peace for the first time that whole blessed day. But all we wanted to do was sleep.

The day after Christmas was exactly like Christmas Day. Screaming and more screaming. Something was obviously wrong, but not just with him, with us, too. We were ragged, angry, raw. Our emotions were spilling over and we just didn't know what to do anymore. This parenting thing was really not working out. And then a voice of reason, my wife's mother, spoke to us, "Why not take him to the doctor? His belly's distended. I think he's got really bad gas." We took him to the doctor. He had bad gas. He was allergic to cow's milk. We shifted him to a different formula. Things began to improve. But on that day, after all we'd been through, we were unable to diagnose our son's distended stomach. All we knew after the beatdown was his screaming. We saw nothing else.

If this is happening to you, realize that if you know nothing else and have quit thinking, "What could the issue be?", you're where we were. And you may be shutting down your capacity to care because you're simply tired of the situation. Resist the urge. Let the sound go. Keep thinking about what the issue is. Be a detective. When you can't take it anymore, when the sound is coming through and strangling you, put your baby down in a safe place and walk away for 10 minutes. Let the sounds reverberate in another room. Get your head together. Let those earlier thoughts about shaking the baby go. But don't forget that when 10 minutes is up, you need to face reality. And facing reality as a parent can be a daunting task.

A few days after that Christmas, I was talking with a perfectly selfish friend of mine, who's daughter was born 10 days before our son. He was frazzled. His whole world had collapsed around his ears. "I was standing in the shower yesterday morning, just crying, saying out loud, 'What have I done?'" He would become one of the better parents I know. But at that time, that moment, the feeling was mutual. And that's selfish. Your life is going to change when you have children, no matter what. You signed the contract, now you must live up to it. Get over it. If you think you're still going out with your buddies on Thursday nights until 1 am, begin to consider another night and another time to come home. Because you'll be very unhappy when your wife kills you. You don't have to give up your time. You just have to find places to sneak it in. The same goes with your relationship. If you're having sex all the time before the baby and the well suddenly goes dry for the next year after the baby comes, don't blame the baby. It might just happen. This side effect, no matter what anyone says, is common. Your personal relationships will change. They have to. You're no longer the big fish in the small pond. Though your child can't tell you you're not going out Thursday nights, that child can certainly scream it to the point of understandability.

This is critical: It is not personal. Your child did not come into this world with the goal of ruining your life. Embrace the changes. Work with them. Modify your world to work. It's more rewarding than harboring anger and resentment that you can no longer get your 1 hour of "me" time each and every day. And if you think it's bad for you, think of your spouse. Talk about the changes. Be honest in realizing how it's affecting you both.

Last thing: Your finances will change. That 1984 Porsche in the 3rd garage? Get used to spending less time babying it, less time driving it, and don't rule out needing to sell it. You've got a college to fund. Don't be a jerk.

The Selfish Only Child Parent

2004-12-20T14:58:00.000-08:00

This is the first of a series for a book I'm writing. The title of the book will be the title of this blog.

This book is for every parent with a small child. It will be for every parent who ever felt like screaming, while their child was throwing a fit in the theater/hardware store/grocery store, et al, "Why me?" Here's the net-net (I hate that term) of the book: Selfish people make bad parents. But there's hope.

I should know. As an only child and one prone to being internalized and focused on everything being about me, the transition to father from husband was traumatic, to say the least. Here's an outline of what I'm going to write about:

What's selfish?
What's a selfish parent?
How do you know if you're a selfish parent?
Examples of a selfish parent
Coming to grips with being a selfish parent
The selfish parent and discipline
The selfish parent and playing with your kids
The selfish parent and bedtime
The selfish parent and meal time
The selfish parent and eating out
The selfish parent and running errands or shopping
The selfish parent at the movies
The selfish parent of 1 or more children
The selfish parent wondering what they've done to their life with the birth of their first child
Creating a selfish parent support group
The selfish parent and the pool
The selfish parent and the holidays
Why the selfish working parent always seems to work late
Why the selfish parent is constantly appalled or embarrassed for no good reason at all
The selfish parent during pregnancy
Getting back some of the selfish parent's "me" time
Why the selfish parent thinks "strong-willed" children and consequential parenting is crap
Coping with another child when you're sure the first was to be the death of you

There's more. Lots of it. And none of the above is in any particular order. It's a matter of putting down all the notes I have and letting things fall where they may. Hell, if two people can write a book about guys being "not that into you" and have women around the country suck it up like cocaine at a frat-house initiation, then why can't I write this book?

Let's start with something really basic: I understand why people shake their kids. I don't condone it. It's just not right. But I understand why they do it. Life is difficult. Kids can make it that much more difficult, especially when they're infants. When our son was born my wife decided to give breastfeeding a shot. She was a trooper. She stuck it out. She just didn't feed our son enough to fill him up. On top of that, he was colicky. Our pediatrician never came out and told us this until he was almost 4 months old and it had, for the most part, passed. This is when I almost killed her.

This is why I want to be a pediatrician. See if you recognize this exchange at the peds office:

You: "My son's nose is running and running and he's had a 100-or-so temp for 4 days. Is there anything we can do? Is it a sinus infection or something else? Do you have any recommendations?"

Pediatrician: "It's a virus. There's nothing to give him. It'll have to run its course. $95, please."

Now it doesn't work exactly that way, but it sure seems like it does.

Our son 1) wasn't getting fed by his mother, bless her heart 2) he was colicky 3) he was two weeks early and a bundle of nerves. We were sleeping very little (my wife even less than me). Here's the sleeping arrangement: At night we'd trundle up to our room, me carrying the rocker and my wife gingerly carrying our son, praying he'd not wake up and start screaming. I'd place the rocker next to the bed, she'd place herself in it preparing for his next feeding, and I'd go to sleep. When he would wake, he'd scream bloody murder. I'd wake up, see if my wife was okay, stay awake a minute or two, and then go back to sleep. This was happening every 90 minutes or so throughout the night. Here's how bad it became: At one point, in a delirium, I said to my wonderful wife, "You know, I should look into getting you one of those neck pillows while you're in the chair." To which she replied as lovingly as possible, "No you idiot. We need to figure out how I can sleep in our bed again." Never had she been as clear in the months following our son's birth. Never had I felt like such a schmuck.

Talking Turkey

2004-12-07T09:12:00.000-08:00

Effort. Today's word is effort. Effort is what you or others put into what they do, they think, or how hard you or they work to understand something, someone, or a concept. Effort is lacking, half-hearted, or whole. Rarely do we get 62% effort unless we're measuring machine or on-time efficiency.

Work relationships are about effort. We all work with people we don't necessarily like. Those we don't like have poor grooming habits, cuss in inappropriate situations. or have any variety of disappointing features about them. But we learn to work with them. They don't have to be our friend. As a matter of fact, they are rarely our friends. That's why we call them co-workers. When your co-workers become your friend, you have developed something special indeed. This entry isn't going to whether that's a good thing or not.

As I mentioned yesterday, the analogy I'm using for my involvement in my current company is, "The engineer in the art class." When you put the detail-oriented, process-focused engineer in the art class, the rest of the students are justifiably concerned. Will he make me use a process that limits my creativity? I won't have to have a pocket protector, will I? Do I need to sharpen my pencils just so? Will I be limited by a color palette I don't like?

This is my dilemma. As much as the engineer tries to get across his abilities and how they can work within the art class, the more resistance, the lack of effort. Distance is threatening. So is process. The mantra becomes "We can't/don't..." instead of "How do we...?" And, because like any organism that feels attacked or threatened, the organism is lashing out with no explicit attempt to understand or include. Instead, the engineer is viewed as a threat, an intimidator.

How do we win in these environments? How does the engineer introduce concepts that are non-threatening without kowtowing to the "but we don't do it that way" mentality, thereby compromising what is the core being of the engineer? Throw distance into the mix and the equation becomes that much more complicated. I'm in one city; the rest of the team in another. I am nothing but an outpost, an aggravator with scary ideas.

And it comes back to effort. To this point, it has been my effort that, successful or not, has been in evidence. And the feedback to my effort has been that I am intimidating, threatening. Personality styles aside, it appalls me that so little effort is made by adults to continue learning and challenging themselves with concepts that they don't understand. The mentality of those who reject certain thinking or presentation styles of new thinking because it is intimidating is as abhorrent as the Salem Witch Trials. "I don't understand you; thus you are a witch! Drown her!" If this were the prevailing thought of the 19th century we'd still all be behind a plow 14 hours a day.

Effort. Challenge. These concepts are part of what is often described as "the comfort zone". And once we're in it, we need a massive attack to force us out of it. But after we've stepped out, had our toes crushed, but learned from it, we begin to grow our zone or at least be less afraid of something that challenges our comfort boundaries. And so, the engineer in the art class.

It is not the responsibility of the engineer to explain the process in a vacuum. The art class needs to work just as hard to explain what they're creating and how they're doing it. There is no one-way phone conversation, just as there cannot be understanding until both sides explain and complements developed. The engineer can learn from the art students as much as the art students learn from the engineer.

It comes down to effort. Make some. It's really worth it.

What This Blog Will Cover

2004-12-06T13:36:00.000-08:00

For those of you who have hit this blog wondering what I'm going to blog on, welcome. For the rest of you, welcome anyway.

There are lots of things to write about. And I've got plenty of opinions on lots of things. This is what makes blogging great. But I'm already off topic.

I'm going to talk about whatever hits me in the head. I may be at work, at home, or on the road. A little about me: I'm approaching 40. I have a wife and two kids (5 and 1). I own a very nice home. We earn an excellent living. It took me 34 years to figure out what I wanted to do with myself when I grew up, and I'm still modifying that concept, almost daily.

I consider myself a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. For reasons of employment sanity I don't talk about my political leanings at work, but am more than happy to absorb everyone else's rantings, if only to reinforce my own beliefs or let the wave of truth wash over my misinformed opinions. I can't think of a political party that I really associate with right now. And I am concerned that our definition of Democrat (pompous limosine liberal) and Republican (wacko right-wing religious zealot) might tear the country to pieces, or at least eliminate the two-party system when it becomes the Religious and the Agnostic parties. More on that later.

I am not a finisher. Thus, if you run over one of my blogs and wonder where in the world I was going with it, you're not alone. I am not ADD or ADHD or have any other malady. I like to think about lots of stuff all the time. A Creative Writing English degree made me somewhat of a sentence and English language snob. (That does not mean I use each and every construct correctly, though. I sometimes get quite creative.) More on this later. I think there's a lot to be said about the changing use of our language and how it's just okay for people to quit speaking and writing correctly in English.

I love baseball. I was crushed by the 1994 strike. I'm still forgiving these overpaid blowhards for what they did to the game. This latest steroids issue is another topic on which I intend to write. Maybe a lot. But baseball will probably get its fair piece in this blog.

I love my job. There are few things in life as challenging as what I've decided to do. Put an engineer in an art class and you'll see a lot of confused art students and one decidedly uptight engineer. Thus is my work life. I closed down my company to roll up into a marketing and advertising firm, which shall remain nameless here, though with enough Googling you'll find a reference to me and it somewhere. We're all still trying to figure out what the engineering student is doing in the art class. I plan to write a lot about this, too. If you're wondering how I'm an engineer, I'll get to that. It will take a treatise explaining what it is I do and how to put it in context with an agency for you to understand. Hell, I don't understand some days. But I'm not willing to give up on making this work.

Well, I'm wrapping up my opening salvo. If you've enjoyed it, come back. If you haven't, well, join the club. I don't much like reading everybody's dreck, either. But that may be because I was not entertained (challenged, laughed) or that I really didn't care about your canker sores. More on that later, too.