[personal/blog] [rants] 

I was due for a new toothbrush, so I picked one up on my way home last night. Now here's what I'm wondering:

Why are there four hundred different kinds of toothbrushes? I don't just mean different brands, because there's only about ten different brands, but within each brand's offering, there are seemingly dozens of different variations on the toothbrush. If Oral-B sells both the Indicator toothbrush and the Cross-action Vitalizer (not to mention the many other choices in their repertoire), how is a person to know which brush is best? And if one brush is superior to the others, why even bother selling the others? I don't get it.

Of course, I used to have similar confusion with toothpaste varieties, when I couldn't seem to find Crest with both tartar control and whitening, so I had to make the difficult choice between getting rid of tartar and whitening my teeth. Thank God they finally merged the two features some years back, or I don't know what I would have done.

So as I perused the vast selection of dental cleaning tools at the local Rite Aid, I simply strove to locate a toothbrush that looked reminiscent of the brush I had purchased a few short months ago. But the crop of toothbrushes in my view looked to be an entirely new generation of dental hygiene devices, none of which looked even remotely like the last one I bought.

So now, my mind nearly overheating with the burden of choosing between soft and medium bristles, large and compact heads, single, dual, and even triple-action bristles, I almost gave up and chose the simplest, cheapest, most boring toothbrush I could find. And then, instead of toothpaste, I would come home with a fresh box of baking soda -- or at least Tom's of Maine (until I realize that even they've sold out to the demons of dental variety).

But not this time. No, I gave in and picked the super duper, cross-action, gum-massaging, indicator brush with a tongue-cleaning pad on the reverse side. For now I'll just counter the excessive technology of my new toothbrush by continuing to use the good old, mouth-burning blue Listerine a couple times every day.

But in three months, if we've already progressed to the next stage of brush evolution, I swear, I'm settling for a piece of emery cloth tied to the end of a twig and a box of baking soda.

 [rants]  [sociopolitical] 

Today is the day they start debating a bill that would make it harder to get relief from creditors. A proposed measure, which may as well be sponsored directly by the nation's kind-hearted lenders (you know, those sweet institutions willing to give a credit card to anything with a pulse?), will make consumer bankruptcy rules much more stringent than they currently are.

Please understand, I'm not advocating that we should all be able to simply skip out on our debts no matter what, but I do find it insidiously hypocritical that the same forces pushing hard to collect every last penny they lend have also strongly resisted tighter standards on how they lend.

So maybe the lenders themselves don't want to be "unfairly" restrained by a modicum of fair lending procedures. How about making intensive high school courses on personal finance and credit mandatory for all students -- it's becoming clear that some kind of training on these issues is as vital as reading, writing and 'rithmetic.

And while you're formulating the course, throw in some highly involved retirement planning theory.

You see, I actually like the idea of encouraging people to be more responsible for their own ways and means, but it seems like every measure being pushed in this arena right now should be coupled with an honest endeavor to educate people on how to avoid becoming one of these unpleasant statistics. It seems that while we're doing away with all the safety nets, we might as well also do something to make the safety nets less necessary. And while we're at it, why not balance the scales by also restricting corporate bankruptcies and frivolous lawsuits?

I've yet to really get wound up about how beneficially one-sided both this current bankruptcy reform effort and the recent tort reform measure are going to be. They only restrict the rights of consumers. They don't do anything at all to protect consumers from corporate bankruptcy or frivolous lawsuits by corporations, both of which cost more public money than the combination of consumer bankruptcy and class action lawsuits.

It's sad that we boast of such "reforms" when we're really only attacking the lesser part of the overall problem, almost always the part of the problem that doesn't have as many professional lobbyists on the payroll.

I titled this post the way I did for a reason. It was meant to illustrate one of the popular societal trends that particularly annoys me. I'll call it the "don't offend" trend. Do you know whereof I speak?

This trend can be found in many corners of society. The "holiday" season only provides a narrow glimpse into the crux of it. It's not just about the prohibition of religious specific language in public life, but also about how stupidly we pursue this strange ideal. We bend over backwards to appease those we fear offending, even when they couldn't care less. Our tendency towards tolerance for the minority view has been turned inside out to the point that it reeks of intolerance toward anyone in the majority.

We don't let Christmas decorations into public schools anymore -- many districts won't even allow the word Christmas, even in the labeling of the vacation days that just happen to fall right around December 25. It's likely that many who celebrate Christmas aren't really celebrating a religious holiday at all -- for most people it's just another excuse to spend money, exchange gifts, perhaps attend a few extra parties, or in a more noble mindset, a great excuse for family gathering (though some might argue family gatherings aren't the most enviable situations).

So really, when most of us say the word "Christmas", are we really cognizant of the word's meaning? Are we really thinking of it as the celebration of Christ? Or are we thinking about the trappings that have been shrewdly tied to the original meaning? Maybe we should ban people from using the word "Christmas".
-not all people mind you. And certainly not for fear of offending those in our society who don't celebrate Christmas. Do it for the fact that by allowing the rampant use of the word to describe what it was never supposed to describe, we have allowed it to be diluted of its real meaning. I would encourage those who honestly see it as a celebration of Christ's birth to continue using the word "Christmas". In fact, use it until your voice goes hoarse on you. But for those who don't see Christmas for what it is, maybe another term would be more fitting, more honest.

But that aside, is it really a constitutional concern whether or not someone says the word "Christmas"? Like I was pointing out earlier, how many people even see it as a religious matter? I know several people who celebrate Christmas without its religious inspiration -- what of them? Are they saying a dirty word when they unwittingly offend a non-Christmas person by saying a word that, to them, has no spiritual meaning? Should banks be sued for closing on Christmas, but not honoring Kwanzaa or any of the days of Hanukkah? The Post Office?

The list of theoretical offenses could drag on for miles, but the point is that if someone really has a problem with the idea of Christmas, that person's got more to worry about than a public school teacher or some civil servant using the word -- if that person really wishes to sanitize religious (read that "Christian") references from our culture, he would need to aim much higher. Such a bold crusader would need to wipe the influence of abominations such as Christmas from places as high as the federal government (which does, in fact, bestow special status on the 25th, simply because of Christmas).

But our brave anti-Christmas warrior needs to be prepared for more than just a throng of angry Christians -- he'd also have to fight off a formidable corporate structure that relies on Christmas sales to bolster profits. Then there's organized labor, and so on. The point is, it's a tough road to travel, if you really wanted to take it so far.

But the scary thing is, some people actually do.

I know people who seem to think the world is going down the drain -- and quickly, too. I wonder why these are some of the same people who don't believe they can do anything about the conditions that upset them. Meanwhile, I share some of the dismal view I hear from these folks, but I also still feel like something can be done about it, if only one person at a time.

For a while now, I've been intent on trying to do little things to make a positive difference in the world. I don't want to rule the world, or even lead the movement to change it; I just want to always be a part of something positive, especially because of the negativity that seems so prevalent.

Some of my online correspondents have questioned what I'm prescribing as a solution when I rail against things like the slow, ineffective twin-engine Spruce Goose that has become our political system. The answer is I'm not prescribing anything grandiose enough to single-handedly fix any of our broken down system. I actually just want people to think, and I have said that before. But sometimes I may sound like I'm trying to effect a grander scheme than that, when the truth is, I don't think there is a grander scheme.

I remember being challenged to think for myself, by things I've read, by personal conversations, etc. Many such challenges have become critical turning points in my life, where I don't change to suit someone else's beliefs, but rather, I change to suit a more consistent application of what I already believe. In political discussions, whether in the media or in real life, I hear too many people who are just repeating the same sound-bites they hear and read in the news.

And from people who don't care to participate in discussions of politics, I often hear that they don't feel like they know enough to comment. This may be true at times, but often I find in talking to these same people that they know more than they think they do. What they think of as their own ignorance is simply an ignorance of the more established opinions that dominate political discourse. Well I say those established opinions are usually over-rated. I gain more useful ideas about political theory by listening to people who feel like they don't belong in the discussion at all.

We have a system that's fairly happy to see half of all would-be voters stay home on election day (or election month in some places), which isn't to say all current non-participants would vote third party, but that keeping the voting pool relatively small and stagnant makes outcomes more predictable. And even with those that might go major party in the voting booth, there are countless others who might just as well bring a third party into the mainstream of American politics -- and trust me, if you're part of the two-party machine, that's not a good result, even if it is democratically ideal.

Which is one reason why I favor movements that draw more citizens into the process, even if they don't agree with me on policy. That seems to be the grandest solution to a troubled democracy.

(And having said that, if I do write more tomorrow, it won't be about politics.)

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right..."
-George Orwell

I was just reminded of this quote while watching Al Gore give a speech at Georgetown University on C-Span (this was right after watching the President speak to a crowd of supporters in nearby Marlton, NJ). Then I thought of Kerry's "Orwellian" comment during the second debate. Then I wondered if this Orwellian theme might not be part of the Democratic talking points -- which isn't to say there's nothing to it.

I have often wondered if the President and all of his faithful servants really believe everything they say, about domestic policy, about the economy, about Iraq. Or do they really know that it's mostly just political strategy? I'm really not sure sometimes, and that may be the most disturbing thing of all when I try to evaluate the President.

Then I thought of the Sinclair political correspondent who has just spoken out against his company's decision to preempt programming for a commercial-free showing of Stolen Honor. It's probably worthy of mention that Stolen Honor is an anti-Kerry movie with much the same kind of creative editing as Michael Moore applied to Fahrenheit 9/11. I've heard many Bush supporters voice strong support for the Sinclair decision to air this "news" programming, often making the familiar "what's good for goose is good for the gander" argument. This is what we've come to; we decry Michael Moore for twisting the truth and trying to sway the electorate, and then when Republican sympathizers pull the same exact trick, the (sadly) predictable response from Bush supporters is "they did it first."

Okay, so that's politics. I despairingly acknowledge as much, but it may also be worth noting that Fahrenheit 9/11 was not released in the final days before a Presidential election, and further, it wasn't subsidized the way Sinclair is subsidizing the broadcast of Stolen Honor. It isn't as if you can accidentally turn on your local channel and find yourself watching a free presentation of Michael Moore's biased little masterpiece. People who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 actually had to fork over some money to see it; countless unsuspecting couch potatoes will tune in next week expecting their normal prime time fare, only to find themselves watching this "news"-- not quite analogous, is it? After all, even Michael Moore had the decency to admit his movie was serving a slanted political purpose, and he had no stockholders to defraud, either.

Even if these two instances were more similar, I thought Bush supporters weren't the type to bask in moral relativism. Guess I was wrong about that one too. But in the end, I suppose we believe what we want to believe, even when we know it's not true.

I know this one's already been mentioned, but it warrants repeating. Michael Badnarik and David Cobb, Presidential candidates of the Libertarian and Green parties, respectively, were arrested on Friday night, prior to the start of the first debate. You can read more detailed information on both the Badnarik and Cobb websites.

Badnarik's site offers up the interesting point that the Commission on Presidential Debates isn't non-partisan, but rather bi-partisan, in that it unfairly bolsters the dominance of the two-party system and circumvents, if not violates, campaign finance law. Cobb's site also offers criticism of the CPD "infomercials," contending that if the process allowed for every candidate on enough ballots to have a chance at winning, there would still only be six participants in the debates.

Badnarik's communications director Stephen Gordon added, "We'd have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America."

Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think the Republicans and Democrats are in any hurry to give up their stranglehold on U.S. democracy.

Well, I watched the late great debate re-broadcast on C-Span again. As far as the ability of the speakers to sound like they were intelligent, this was better than the first Presidential event, which isn't saying very much.

Moderator Gwen Ifill was off a bit more than Jim Lehrer was last week. She actually lost track of whose turn it was to speak near the end of the debate, with John Edwards trying, almost in vain, to set her straight. She discovered about fifteen seconds into his extra turn that she should have gone to the Vice-President instead -- but who could blame her? Aside from the more polished tone of the debaters (when compared to last Thursday), there was enough inaccuracy being spun by both sides to make your head spin.

But at least we saw some subtle (and some not-so-subtle) jabs from each of the candidates.

As I was watching, and then sitting afterwards thinking about it, it really became obvious to me how desperately these past two debates needed at least one third party candidate to shake things up, maybe shout at the two major candidates, "Why are you guys so afraid to answer the questions?" It certainly didn't seem as if the moderator was going to do anything to keep them on-point.

But they both sounded so smooth and well-spoken that if you de-focused your hearing a little bit, you almost thought they might be making sense. Of course, the Vice-President tarried down the same path as the President had last week, insistent that Iraq was going well, even amid admissions from those in his own party to the contrary. And Senator Edwards continued to talk about plans, as if he'd actually offered one that was substantively different from the administration's.

The real problem, as usual, is that we only had two choices in the debate last night, and they were both so stilted in establishment politics that nobody dared venture off the beaten path to seriously discuss what have become known as "kitchen table issues" -- that is, issues that affect those of us not in the the same economic or social stratosphere as any of the four men being featured in the nationally-televised debate process. The only attention paid to those matters last night was more in the vein of skimming newspaper headlines, as opposed to reading the actual stories.

I heard the debate on radio before watching it on the late C-Span broadcast after I got home.

All the outlets are asking who won the debate, and while many are boldly proclaiming for one candidate or the other, I'd rather take a cue from the debaters and give my own non-answer. Most people in the early returns seemed to think it was Kerry, and I suppose in a cosmetic sense, that's probably accurate. But in reality? I don't know if a winner can be picked. Neither podium last night was inhabited by anyone resembling a straight-talking candidate, but I suppose that's par for the course.

While I wasn't especially impressed with either candidate last night, I was surprised to see and hear the President sounding very distracted. He could often be heard repeating an arsenal of two or three different phrases, and several times when those phrases weren't directly related to the questions being discussed. He was the only one to venture into flashing warning light territory (referring to the visual timer warnings being used last night).

Kerry, on the other hand, did seem to like talking about "plans" whether it be the one he has, or the one the President does not have. While I do tend to question the course of events in Iraq over the past year (especially following the "end of major hostilities"), I don't think the debate format lent itself to explanations of complex foreign policy, and that may be my biggest problem with the debate. But if Kerry was just looking to mimic the President's over-use of catch-phrases, well, he did a pretty good job of it.

Then there's the debate format itself, which no one will ever confuse for anything that transpired between Lincoln and Douglas. It's a given that any time you constrict explanations of complex issues to time periods no longer than two minutes (at the longest), well, you shouldn't complain if the candidates start over-using the talking points. I sincerely thought Jim Lehrer should have been able to do something to keep the discussion more on topic.

And the questions -- who thought of these questions? There were some decent ones, but why even bother asking the President of the United States if he believes electing the other guy will result in more terror attacks? Can you blame him for dancing around that one? Perhaps the question could have been framed by asking what he thought of his Vice-President making a statement to that effect.

Both these guys just had it too easy.

The only demonstrable difference between the two candidates in my observation (and apparently I wasn't alone in this one) was the almost surreal stupor that seemed to be plaguing the President through half the debate. I seriously started wondering if he was on some kind of industrial-strength allergy medication -- actually, I sincerely hope he was, because some of the other scenarios that come to mind have far more disturbing ramifications. And then I thought maybe he just didn't have enough rest for his big night -- either way, his demeanor didn't play too heavily into my opinion, other than I thought it was a bit off.

But I guess I'll corral this all by saying I don't think people expecting heavy-duty policy discussion were hanging their hopes too heavily on last night's event -- or any of the coming Presidential debates either. And that's the real dilemma; we shouldn't really expect anything too deep or meaningful out of this contrived process, which is one of the real curses of U.S. politics.

Maybe if I was dyed in the wool of one major party or another, I could have made one of those typically snap judgments for one candidate or the other. As I heard people's opinions for about 20 minutes on the radio last night, I settled into a firm belief that most people who believe the debate was won by a landslide were already supporting the candidate they proclaimed to have won. Which makes the perception meaningless.

Being an independent, I think I'd be in the pool of voters they'd be looking to sway. And by that yardstick, they both failed miserably.

I was watching two campaign advisors discussing the upcoming debate format on one of the cable news channels last night. One of them was Ralph Reed; the other was some guy from the Kerry campaign. (No disrespect to the unnamed Kerry guy, but I tend to remember Ralph Reed more easily ever since his days at the Christian Coalition -- he always reminded me of Dave Foley for some reason...)

Anyway, the discussion was about debate format and how they thought their respective candidates would fare in the format. It was strange to hear each man arguing so persistently about how the other guy's candidate was a better debater than his own candidate. Of course this is a common practice in the build-up to debates, where each side tries to quell high expectations in hopes that if their candidate manages to make it through the debate without losing his composure or sounding like a complete idiot, he might be perceived as having won the debate. It is a common practice, and a very, very sad one, at that.

In the midst of each man trying to make the other man's candidate seem like the better debater, they were each asked about the debate format itself. On this topic they couldn't agree more; they both touted the debate format we will get to see tonight on national television as one that will provide, without a doubt, the single most substantive and comprehensive tool for evaluating who the next President of the United States should be.

All this, with no consideration given to third-parties and independents -- you know, the fake candidates. Or in the other way of looking at it, the candidates who can actually keep the "real" candidates a little more honest.

As always, this country is being controlled by those who get to frame the debate, and right now, that task is being left in the greedy hands of two parties, both of whom understand that their success is predicated upon keeping everybody else out of the game.

"She never read much, but she loved to quote."
-Chagall Guevara

I heard a political observer warning about how the spin that follows the upcoming Presidential debates will be at least as important as what transpires during the actual debates. And I started to wonder, "why?"

I'm not really that naive -- I fully recognize that spin plays a pathetically huge role in the way we choose political leaders. But the question is still a genuine one -- why do we allow barely connected pieces of spin to influence our voting process?

The answer, as best I can figure is that we don't usually observe enough of the actual campaign process or assorted speeches and policy statements to really have even a semi-independent idea of the reality that's being spun, whether from the right or the left.

I heard someone criticize Kerry's style yesterday by saying that he doesn't speak in sound-bites. The tone of the statement left me under the distinct impression that Kerry's tendency to not speak in snappy one-liners was an inherently bad thing. And I suppose that politically it is, given our society's distaste for paying attention to items that take more than seven seconds of our time.

Perhaps if most of us learned to view spin as merely supplemental to reality, we might not be so easily spun ourselves. It occurred to me that political spin is akin to Cliff Notes, but for one small difference: Cliff Notes tend to be much more representative of the items they capsulize, whereas spin tends to rewrite its antecedent's meaning to varying degrees.

In short, spin is the revision of what didn't get said or demonstrated in the way one side or the other would have preferred. It gets rewritten in a snappier, less substantive form -- you know, because we're all too stupid to make up our own minds, so they happily spoon-feed us what we're supposed to think in clever little half-truths.

Keep that in mind whenever you hear John Kerry oversimplify the President's tax policy, or whenever the President attempts to tell you how much of a flip-flopper Kerry has been.

Remember that reality rarely fits into the sound-bites you hear on the nightly news.

(In reading back over this post several hours later, I noticed a few typos that I can't believe slipped by me originally, so if you've read this more than once, you may notice a difference. It's not in your head. The substance is the same, but the typos are, hopefully, gone now.)

"If you can't Google your blind date, that doesn't make them a freak."

I think I found it with the Stumble Upon browser bar I can no longer use with the new Firefox (I still like the browser itself, though). Like most sweeping manifestos, it over-generalizes and over-emphasizes the evils of the internet, but I know people who seem to believe everything they read online -- and for them, a visit to my favorite little cautionary site is worth it.

For the record, I agree with the main thrust of what it says, even though my self-imposed website language restrictions keep me from printing the name of the site, I would like to echo the concept of people really thinking and checking facts for themselves. This task, however, has become exponentially more daunting, as many major news organizations have teetered on the brink of being as factually useless as much of what can be found online.

And for many of its evils, the internet does one good thing (at least so far); it allows us to sample information from different sources, lest we should only be subject to that which is handed down from for-profit news organizations. And it's communication benefits are fairly useful, as long as we don't completely forget there are worthwhile people who don't go by names like "chunkylover5120@aol.com" (there are some pretty fascinating and useful people who don't even have computers). But gaining perspective from different people in different places and situations, that can be as educational as any formal schooling.

So here's my little disclaimer for readers of the smedley log:

I don't purport to be a viable news source -- except when I'm telling stories about my own life (-most of that's the truth, I promise). What I do here is share thoughts, mostly in the realm of opinion. Though it would be mighty flattering if everyone followed me around and did everything I suggested, I'm not sure the world would be that much better for it.

So now that that's all been said, I'll just leave the link below for anyone wishing to visit the site at which I've been hinting.

Visit my favorite cautionary internet site.

I can no longer tolerate hearing about polls from serious polling organizations asking respondents questions like "which candidate would you rather sit down and chug a beer with?"

I just don't get it. At all. I do understand that we have this collective mental problem that deludes us into thinking we'd rather have someone just like us in the White House; you know, someone we can relate to. The problem with this mindset is multi-faceted, though I'll only bother to mention two facets right now.

One, it would be much smarter to want someone smarter than us to run the world's sole remaining superpower; I mean, wouldn't that be a much better idea than electing someone just because he seems like a "regular guy"?

The other facet that strikes me like a baseball bat right now is this: does anyone really believe that either of the major candidates for President of the United States would really be just a regular guy anyway? Did either one of these guys really grow up middle class? Did either of them really have to start at the bottom at any point in their lives?

Just by being a several term U.S. Senator, John Kerry is statistically unlikely to be anything but rich, with or without a familial head start or a ketchup mogul for a wife. And George W. Bush? Well, that's where these survey results really confuse me. Here's a guy who's had pretty much everything handed to him, and yet many people seem to think "hey! He's just like me!"

I'm not saying being born with a silver spoon in your mouth makes you a bad President, but it certainly doesn't give you the socio-economic perspective of a typical American.

I lamented twelve years ago that many people seemed drawn to Bill Clinton because of his folksy charm, and I didn't vote for him in either of his Presidential runs -- though I suppose he had a better chance of understanding how typical Americans had to live. Now looking back, I wonder if 1996 will have been the last time I'll get a chance to see two major party rivals in the same election who have both come from modest to humble beginnings.

I guess I'd personally feel like I had more in common with someone that I know has had to start with fewer advantages and has still found a way to the top, in which case, I sense the two major party VP candidates know more about living like the rest of us than Kerry or Bush ever will.

Not that I'm sure that would mean much; in fact, I don't at all believe humble beginnings are necessary to being a decent president. It's really just a thought about the changes to the national political playing field, and the way we sometimes mistake charm for commonality.

It has been my unwritten policy, for just two weeks all summer, to avoid any sort of critical commentary regarding ongoing convention fare, so please forgive me if this comes off as anything but humorous. Because really, I do like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but one particular stretch of his address to the Republican National Convention last night had me scratching my head a little. (By the way, I linked to the speech text here.)

It was the part of the speech where he launched into a litany of "if...then" statements about how to tell if you're a Republican. About halfway through his speech, I realized something: I'm a Republican! I agreed with almost every single ideal he was setting forth. How could I have missed my obvious party affiliation for so long?

Come to think of it, pretty much everyone I know is also a Republican (I'm not sure, but I could verify it with a little survey based on the text of Arnold's speech, right?). Everyone I know -- even the people who swear they're voting for Kerry in November. All Republicans! Hmmm...

I guess the President must be having a little trouble with his base these days, what with so many of them leaning towards Kerry at this point.

In light of this, I wonder how they snuck that old Patriot Act through a couple years ago? It couldn't have been a Republican president, because even Arnold knows that all Republicans believe government should be accountable to the people and not the other way around. Somebody must have forged the President's signature on that one -- pretty sneaky.

Come to think of it, I think John Kerry (also a Republican by most of Schwarzenegger's criteria) voted for that legislation too. Wait, something doesn't sound right here.

Okay, okay, I know we're not all Republicans, but it was too obvious, listening to the Governator's speech that we are supposed to infer only Republicans embrace the good, decent, democratic principles; thus everyone else must not believe in mom, baseball and apple pie.

Of course, all is fair in love and war... and political conventions. We saw just as much overly simplistic rambling a few weeks ago in Boston; it just didn't seem quite as hilarious to me as Arnold's speech last night. Still, I watch intently.

I know everyone else goes for the movie stars, but I'm still waiting to hear the Zell Miller speech tonight.

These posts have become a little sporadic, mostly because I've been busy the past few days. Part of it's been real world business, and part has been thoughts-buzzing-around-my-head business.

On the thoughts side of the list is how strange it's come to seem to me when I observe people obsessed with advertising for well-known commercial interests -- not just advertising, but paying to advertise. Why do we do this?

I see the walking billboards everywhere I go: Nike, DKNY, Old Navy, and pretty much every other brand name of clothing known to humankind. I remember being in a discount store a couple years ago, comparing a $50 Nike windbreaker with a nearly identical $15 windbreaker. Yes, nearly identical, except for the prestige of the Nike name and logo. Aside from that, I imagine they were both manufactured in similar sweatshops -- I know they were both made in Malaysia. I bought the plain $15 item and went on my way. I just couldn't see how something was worth an extra $35 simply because of a "swoosh" logo.

Now maybe if Nike would knock a little off the price, instead of jacking it up, you know, as a way of thanking me for helping their marketing scheme -- that might change things. I don't particularly like buying items I know weren't made under especially humane conditions, but the truth is I sometimes do, out of practical concerns. I'm not proud of it, but it happens. The last thing I want, though, is to patronize a company that not only takes advantage of workers in third world countries, but also asks me to pay extra for the privilege of being a human advertisement. I guess things like that make me feel a little used

I have received some free items, and I wear them -- I just won't buy them with my own money. Though I will buy logo-wear from makers I find to be more conscientious with their business practices (-thus making me want to help advertise). I just can't figure out the appeal of paying to subsidize some huge corporation that cares more about making a few extra bucks (perhaps to pay some already-insanely-rich celebrity to hock their goods in more traditional advertising media) than ensuring the welfare of the people who actually work to manufacture the goods -- and why? -so we can all look the same?

But then, when I put it that way, it sounds so much better...

"I know that embryonic stem cell research is very preliminary right now, and the implication that cures for Alzheimer's are around the corner is just not right, and it's really not fair to people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."
-Laura Bush

Having been away from political observation these past few days, I have yet to comment on Laura Bush's appearance at one of our local hotels, not to mention her stellar contribution to the overall traffic situation in the area.

I will start by saying I am, and have been for over half my life, a type 1 (juvenile onset, insulin dependent) diabetic, and therefore I am among the group that many believe will benefit most from less restriction on the funding of stem cell research. But I am against it. I agree with the President's position on this issue, not on practical grounds, but rather, on moral grounds.

Having gotten that out of the way, I would like to wonder to the world now, who is writing this stuff coming out of the first lady's mouth? In her speech, she glosses over the moral implications as if they were nothing, but she goes out of her way to make some bold statements on what is, as of yet, a vastly incomplete area of science.

In addition to that leap of logic, Mrs. Bush also made it sound like proponents of embryonic stem cell research have promised a cure for Alzheimer's disease is just around the corner. While it's probably safe to say there are uninformed folks who do believe this (of which Mrs. Bush is apparently one), many of the high profile advocates of more liberal funding have gone out of their way to stress that Alzheimer's is not the most likely of diseases to benefit, especially not in the immediate future. Much closer to the top of that theoretical list are diseases like Parkinson's and, oh yeah, diabetes. Yet in her speech, which had been carefully written by someone else, she specifically dispelled a rumor that has only been purported by the least knowledgeable about the issue, if by anyone at all. And the backdrop of physicians who were applauding her entire speech (or most of it, at least), were mostly there just to support Bush's proposed caps on medical liability. But the onlookers of news broadcasts nationwide were, by and large, left believing that the doctors were endorsing the first lady's statement on stem cell research, thanks to the usual 15 seconds most newscasts bothered to air.

It's starting to become clear to me that all the President's men, and his woman in this case, are no longer comfortable with doing things because they are right -- that now it is also necessary to find (and if that's not possible, contrive) other reasons, in what could only be an attempt to convince people whose hearts aren't really on board with the conservative agenda. But to do this by framing the issue dishonestly or simply making up facts that are far from confirmed -- that's just weak.

I disagree with opening the floodgates on embryonic stem cell research because I believe it's wrong. I simply don't believe it's okay use good ends to justify lousy means, no matter how hopeful or well-intentioned the ends may be. As much as I want to be able to think differently about the stem cell issue, that's why I'm against it. We shouldn't seek to do right by doing wrong.

Incidentally, that's also why I think the speech Mrs. Bush regurgitated the other day, and by extension the recent Bush approach to stem cells, is wrong. I agree with the President's position on stem cells, and I do so strictly on moral terms -- something else we used to have in common.

Why are people still taking advice from Donald Trump about money? Well, I suppose if all you're trying to learn is how to make money, then he may be a help to you; but history suggests that if you want to learn how to actually run a successful business, you may want to do your apprenticeship elsewhere.

There are plenty of folks out there who've not only made money (even more than Trump has) and have actually proven useful in avoiding credit problems and bankruptcy for their businesses. So why do I still hear business talk show hosts trumpet him as a source of sound financial advice?

Make no mistake, people are following his example in large numbers in this modern economy -- whether it be by design or default remains to be established.

I heard one banking analyst the other day talking about how vital consumer debt is to our economy, and, as always, it made me shudder. There's something terribly disturbing about such huge cornerstones of our economy being predicated on financial liabilities like personal debt. Look around; have you noticed how fashionable it is to be in debt? If not, why would we sink ourselves into perpetual debt just to drive a new car every few years, or buy the biggest house for which we can possibly get financing?

Does anyone realize when they look at another person's nice new luxury car that half the people buying those cars aren't buying them because they can afford them, but because they want to look like they can? There's something insidious about a philosophy that suggests you should make yourself poorer so you can appear richer.

Maybe we all just want to be like "the Donald."

*For the most recent statistics available from the Federal Reserve, please go see the most recent Federal Reserve Statistical Release on consumer credit.

A union WalMart and how big business looks out for workers

I seem to have missed the news earlier this week, though I'm not sure how. It appears workers at one WalMart store in Quebec have won the right to organize as a result of an August 2 decision by the Quebec Labor Relations Board. There will be an appeal from Big Blue, no doubt, but just getting this far is something many people thought would be impossible.

One note mentioned in the article is the difference between a secret ballot certification vote and employees signing union cards individually. It mentions one common objection voiced by union opponents in these matters: that the traditional process of union card drives leaves employees open to union "coercion."

What these people who oppose union card drives neglect to mention is that in the secret ballot process, employees can easily be subjected to coercion from their employer. The other half of the objection most companies have to card drives is that it doesn't give the company ample opportunity to launch their own anti-union drive. Card drives are often done person-to-person and can be finished before the company has a chance to sufficiently propagandize its employees against unions.

Secret ballot votes, on the other hand, can take months to set up (assuming management doesn't outright refuse to allow an election), allowing a company more than enough time to launch its campaign, and there have been reported cases of companies firing suspected "activist" employees during this time period also. I'm sure some executives must simply see this as analogous to throwing Jonah overboard (to avert the scourge he has brought upon them).
Anti-union tactics, which have long been heavily used by companies like WalMart, can be extremely intimidating to workers who are desperate to keep their jobs. I walked into a WalMart a while back (before I became enlightened on the matter) and I just happened to be wearing a hat with a Teamster logo on it -- I didn't even remember what was on my hat until after I was approached by two different supervisors within a minute or so of entering the store. They didn't try to kick me out, but the conversation was akin to a police officer asking a stopped motorist where the driver is headed. They made sure to ask if they could help me, and I said I was just looking for a few things in the auto section. The second supervisor asked what I needed in the auto section.

That's when it hit me that I was wearing that hat!

Of course, I wasn't there to organize; I wasn't even that involved in union activity at the time, but apparently they were concerned upon seeing me walk in the door.

That's when I started to recall all the horror stories I'd heard from actual union organizers, as well as from former WalMart employees who'd claimed that being seen with union representatives had gotten them fired.

It struck me that maybe they didn't want me out of the store so much as they were trying to make sure I didn't have to start anything resembling a conversation with a non-management employee. I then assured both of them that I knew where to find my needed auto supplies and I would be just fine along the way. They stopped asking questions, but I swear I kept seeing one of them every couple minutes (from one corner of the store to the other and back) until I paid for my purchase and walked out to my car.

That may be the pivotal moment for me -- the beginnings of my awakening to the idea that maybe some people are actually telling the truth when they make claims about such happenings. I won't suggest that unions have always been perfect or that they have never coerced anyone to sign a union card, but that's what the appeal process addresses. And keep in mind that the people most engaged in the current struggle "for" secret ballot votes are invariably those who have vested interests in stunting union growth.

When you see "right to work" movements, claiming to be all about worker rights, check to see just how grass-roots they are. But don't be shocked when you find that there's no uprising of the "little people" behind these movements, just a lot of big corporate money and spin. And when you see an effort to "protect" workers from union activity (i.e. H.R. 4343), check to see if the cry is emanating from union-oppressed workers or from employers desperate to avoid providing benefits or a living wage.

But like I said, prepare for the shock of discovering it is usually the companies, not the employees, who feel "oppressed" by union activity.

Also keep in mind, a card drive occurs either because an employer agrees to it, or the exact opposite (and this is what happens far too often): the employer refuses to allow an election. In that case, a card drive is initiated, as a way to get around management stall tactics. But you probably won't hear that side of it from many "right to work" groups.

Smart or decisive -- what'll it be America?

I am referring to this AP poll about the two major presidential candidates. Seems Bush is strong on decisiveness, while Kerry is perceived as intelligent.

The real problem is that neither quality seems adequate by itself. The conundrum seems as complete as any other, in that the ideal is a balance of the two, not an overwhelming dose of one or the other.

There are some extremely decisive examples of failure in our history, as well as some instances in which over-thinking seems to have gotten people into a lot of trouble.

I could support a man like George W. Bush, simply based on the strength and confidence inspired by his decisive nature. The problem with the President, as I see it, has more to do with his need to find and listen to more people who will be willing to tell him things he may not want to hear, as he has been willing to tell us some things we may not have wanted to hear. This administration is more monolithic than the 2000 Bush/Cheney campaign let on, and I can't convey how much that disturbs me sometimes.

I like his decisive nature, but sometimes the direction of his choices scare me a little, and I wonder if he (and the country) wouldn't be better served to take in more advice from differing perspectives.

John Kerry, on the other hand, seems both intelligent and often incapable of taking a public stand on the tougher issues. I had written a while back about the Democrats having difficulty carving out a distinctly different personality, and how that failure to be more proactive could hurt them against a more decisive incumbent with a somewhat devil-may-care approach. Because of Kerry's perceived indecisiveness and the contrast it presents to voters, there could be a cost in terms of more moderate voters who simply want to elect a true leader as opposed to a populist.

Bush is more appealing to those voters, and he knows it; his campaign has already begun capitalizing on this contrast. There are people who just want to know where their leader stands on things, and there are people who want to know they can trust their leader to give adequate thought to his decisions.

Then there are those of us who would like a little of both.

"Angel, angel or devil,
I was thirsty, and you wet my lips."
-U2

I don't know what this post is going to be about, except that several ideas have been stealing across my mind.

One is that my vacation is officially over today (until next month, that is), and I always hate returning to work after more than a few days off. The first day will undoubtedly be the hardest, so as long as I can weather today, everything should be just peachy, right?

Another thought is that I had a unique last day of vacation, saw things I've never seen before, did things I've never done, and got slightly befuddled in a whole new way. Any guess that my confusion was about a female would be correct, but that's enough of that...

The remaining thought is that I was wondering how all these campaign finance reform purists feel about talk radio (you know, all the ones who sprung out of the woodwork to harp on Michael Moore's movie and its ads breaking the spirit of the law). Just think of all the free advertising that is gift-wrapped and handed to conservative politicians by folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Yes, I know O'Reilly obstinately clings to the notion that he doesn't favor any particular side, but who is he really kidding -- isn't that just about as convincing as the FNC slogan "Fair and Balanced"? And please, nobody send me any reminders about Air America or whatever liberal stragglers still exist in talk radio -- I realize it's the same paint brush, just dipped in a different color.

But the point of that last paragraph was that there is at least as much confederation between most conservative talking heads and the Republicans as there is between Moore and the Democrats. Rush and Hannity exist just as much to get Bush re-elected as Moore does to get him beaten.

And my little diatribe may have spilled into a debate of how McCain-Feingold may have actually tipped the balance more in favor of big money entities (think George Soros) that have so often acted as weeds attempting to strangle grass-roots political fervor. Well, it would have spilled into that, but I can't really concentrate on politics right now; so this will have to do for a while.

"The United States can't impose its will on any country."
-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R), Nebraska

Hail the long awaited transfer of power in Iraq! (No, I'm not joking) Every little step in the right direction helps, I think...

Also, I thought I'd add a bit more fuel to the Fahrenheit fire (that's 9/11, not 451). It seems a sticky little web we're all weaving here.

As I hear Michael Moore's critics tell it, it's okay to have political views; it's even alright to express those views, so long as we're completely factual and put everything into context.

But there seems to be a living, breathing opinion out there that unabashed political expression, even when not having any concrete connection to political parties or candidates, should be subject to campaign finance reform laws.

I can only assume that if this squabble could be settled, that is, with every politically charged film, advertisement, or other media falling under the umbrella of these reform laws, then there would be no issue with such forms of expression lacking truth or context.

Because it's abundantly clear that the advertisements from the parties and candidates (which are clearly subject to these laws) are not limited in contextual creativity.

This rant was really brought on by several media comments about the importance of making sure people who go to see Fahrenheit 9/11 understand that it isn't completely straightforward. Maybe it would be good to start by making sure everyone watching TV or listening to radio understands that almost every political ad they watch is going to be as factually misleading as any Michael Moore film.

Clearly, there's much more danger of someone involuntarily taking in a political ad than watching a movie. But I haven't seen any of the media observers worrying about that yet.

(The quote from Sen. Hagel appearing at the head of this post was an answer to a question last night from CNN 's Aaron Brown regarding what measures Hagel thought the U.S. should take to keep the majority ethnic groups from taking over Iraq. He said we should do what we can, but he qualified his reply with the sentence I quoted above.)

Not quite sure the world had been convinced their cowardice, they took another innocent life. It seems about the only remotely positive thing that can be said about these men is that they seem to keep their word.

But then there are other issues. Prior to hearing news of the discovery of Mr. Kim's body in Iraq, I was listening to a radio news piece on Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws. Upon hearing the report on anti-blasphemy reform efforts in Pakistan, I decided to do my own informal research. Having been raised in a religious setting, I am familiar with the idea of blasphemy; but to make sure I'm on firm ground, I'll quote the first definition in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God"

In hearing of the harsh penalty levied for the crime of blasphemy in the Muslim world, I wondered what it was about these masked murderers that endears them to some (hopefully) limited portion of the Muslim population. Why doesn't there seem to be a popular outcry from Muslims over people who have shamelessly invoked the name of God while murdering innocents?

Not being a Muslim, perhaps there's some esoteric dynamic I simply don't understand here, but I know how angered I get, as a Christian, when other people purporting to be Christians justify bad behavior with the cloak of doing God's will. Granted, I don't really agree that governments should be involved in doling out punishment for blasphemy, but I do think members of a religious faith should feel slighted when someone attempts to high-jack their religion as a poor excuse for cold-blooded murder.

Maybe part of my confusion is that I have seen, and agreed with, a lot of criticism pertaining to the abuses in U.S.- maintained prisons overseas. It has been a pretty prominent criticism in the American media since the story initially broke. This is because it is the job of the press to act as something of a watchdog, to notice when things are getting out of hand. But for some reason, when I have heard samples of the sentiment from the Muslim world regarding the brutal behavior of these masked cowards, it seems not only lacking in condemnation, but sometimes outright supportive.

And it may be that there is more condemnation than I have seen from the outlets I have been monitoring; I certainly hope so, because it's clear to me that just about all the masked high-jackers of Islam accomplish is to galvanize the will of those who already think the worst of the Muslim faith. And perhaps what should frighten Arabs even more is that some recent atrocities are discouraging other, more moderate voices from defending Islam.

How could such sadistic cruelty ever inspire sympathy for anyone except the victims? That's the question I can't seem to answer.

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check."
-M. C. Escher

It seems to me that if we replaced the colonial settlers, circa 1770, with average Americans from the current population, the revolution never would have happened. It would have been unrealistic to believe we could overpower an empire with a ragtag group of untrained and ill-equipped fighters. The idealism of our forefathers would be replaced by our current strains of pragmatism.

The current situation is similar to the time leading up to the revolution. One similarity being that so many people feel oppressed by the twin-engine political scheme of U.S. government, but at the same time, they feel powerless to change it. People resign themselves to whichever popular theory vaguely resembles their own, knowing things could be better, but not really thinking themselves capable of improving the situation. The primary difference between then and now is that we know there were people brave enough to stand up to such long odds back then. But what about now? It's probably too soon to tell; at the same time, it may be bordering on "too late" as well.

This is just a continuing observation from yesterday's train of thought. I do appreciate the bits of positive feedback on it, as well as the mention from Ales Rarus; he makes an interesting point about how we expect companies to compete for our business, but we don't demand the same from our political parties. Or maybe it's just a case of brand loyalty run amok. You know, the way they used to conduct blind taste tests to see if people really liked Coke better than Pepsi, or if they had just fallen in love with the notion of Coke's superiority. Which makes me wonder even more...

(By the way, the Constitution Party candidate for President this year is a man named Michael Peroutka, in case anyone was wondering.)

"If a picture's worth a thousand words,
then what I've seen is what I've heard,
as the image writhes and flickers on the screen,
the distance grows wide between the glory and the dream."
-Bill Mallonee

I've recently become disillusioned with the state of American politics... okay, more disillusioned with the state of American politics. I just keeps hitting me how hard people on each side of the traditional aisle are trying to distinguish themselves from each other, while actually differing on very little.

Of course, a statement like the preceding is relative. There are many differences between Republicans and Democrats, but the deep divides in political philosophy touted by folks like Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh don't exist. To get to the substantive differences, one must depart from the main highways and thoroughfares of political discourse. The real departures occur on the fringes, the back roads, so to speak. If you favor a nominally liberal or conservative philosophy, you might try to convince yourself that George W. Bush and John F. Kerry are totally different animals, but you're mostly just kidding yourself.

And that's what recently re-occurred to me: maybe the talking heads on both sides aren't employed to categorically prop up their respective sides, but rather to keep drilling into our heads that there really is a major difference between the major parties. But let's face it, liberal pols are rarely as liberal as their label suggests, and conservative ones are often more radical than anyone else, at least among those in the higher reaches of government.

Can you name the last national-level Democrat to oppose the death penalty? That's a classic liberal view, but you'll find precious few significant (also read that "electable") liberals who support it with any sincerity.

On the other side, what is so conservative about a president who urges his country into what is at the least an unprecedented war? (I'm not judging the war, just making an analytical observation that the policy leading to it was not quite traditional.) And the surge in deficit spending (one common legacy between G.W. Bush and Reagan) is hardly the policy of a true fiscal conservative.
To be fair to the labels themselves, there have been folks on each side who have been critical of their respective party's reluctance to enact the sort of ideas nominally espoused by each party. And while there are those in each party who do want purer versions of ideology, they are just voices in the wilderness, wielding very little influence when all is said and done.

Even a guy like George Soros, with all his money and various contributions to the Kerry campaign, is really only playing for bragging rights, much like local sports fans when a local team wins a sports championship. What is it going to actually benefit the everyday citizen of Detroit, now that the local NBA team has won a championship? -probably not much, if at all. They'll feel good that they supported a winner, but will their lives change for the better just because of that victory (not taking into account any gambling profits)?

George Soros, as an ideologue, will gain nothing in a John Kerry triumph. The government will not make a hard left; at most, it will change lanes, and that shouldn't be enough for a man like Soros, if he believes as he says he does. Much the way a guy like Ralph Reed doesn't garner victory on every ideal he supports by advising George W. Bush. I suspect these are folks who see some good in merely being on the winning team, even if the prize is somewhat empty.

It's true, if your only issue is one of the few on which the candidates actually do disagree, you may have a horse capable of winning this race, but both of these competitors are wrong on enough issues for me to have my doubts.

I wonder who the Constitution Party candidate will be this year?