End of 2008 ... some thoughts.

As 2008 draws to a close, I find myself thinking about this same time last year.

 

What's really odd is, despite all the turmoil in the economy, the deteriorating wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ... I actually look forward to 2009.

 

Last year-end was quite depressing for me for a number of reasons ...

We had a lot of political instability and uncertainty. I seriously was considering the prospect of relocating the family outside the US should John McCain had won the upcoming election. I even thought the same thing if Hilary Clinton had won.

I had taken on a consultant job, and though the contract appeared to be secure, as is always the case, I had this suspicion that it would eventually end. This after spending all that time, energy and money to relocate.

Our house back in the Seattle area had been on the market for 6 months, with no end in sight. Watching all the equity we had built into it slowly disappear due to the impacts of the market, and realizing we'd entrusted selling our house to a person who had no business being in the industry any longer made the holidays very hard to bear. I think I aged 10 years in the process.

Since my daughter was born, and my son was still sleeping in our bed, my wife and I had been doing shifts on a regular basis. Of course I haven't had a decent night sleep since September 2005, so what else was new?

This isn't to say life is all rosy and perfect. The struggle to achieve my goals and dreams still remains. But at least I have some things to look forward to -

 

For one thing, I'm seeing signs that the American public is finally coming to its senses. It seems it takes the country being brought to its financial knees to finally see the light - that installing right-wingers into public office is a really bad idea. I for one am looking forward to Barack Obama taking office on January 20, 2009. I suspect many in the country and world feel the same way.

 

I landed in a nice company. I finally tired of consulting and all the politics of it, I finally landed at a place with some degree of sanity. It's a much smaller company, but they put out a great set of products, people are great to work with, and are open to my ideas. I consider myself really fortunate here, considering the rising unemployment rates.

 

Our house sold, and we've settled, at least for the next few years. We live in a nice house, and the neighborhood is far more calmer than the ghetto of Lombard St. and Interstate Ave.

 

Of course I've still got a laundry list of things to accomplish. But given how trying a year 2008 has been, I'm very grateful and thankful I haven't lost the things important to me. I'm here, and the family is doing well.

 

And 2009 will hopefully be the year I move closer to achieving my goals and dreams.

 

 

Fighting in Professional Hockey - and the proponents who make false arguments.

I recently came across an article on a Sports site where an alleged writer (Al Strachan) proceeded to present a variety of 'arguments' against fighting in pro hockey. He then spends the rest of the article debunking these 'arguments' to make that point that there is a place for fighting in pro hockey.

 

Upon reading the article (titled 'Tips for winning the fighting argument'),  it became clear to me that many of his so-called 'arguments' against NHL brawling were strawmen at best, and patently false at worst.

 

Evidently Mr. Strachan is more interested in fighting rather than the game of hockey.

 

Below are the supposed "arguments", his reactions, and why it's wrong But before I do, I had to insert one quote from his article that needs and immediate response -

"Still the members of the ballet-on-ice brigade emerged in full force and, as even Don Cherry was forced to concede, appear to be winning the battle. "
The game of hockey is a sport. Ballet is entertainment for some. Kind of like pro wrestling is entertainment for others. I'd say ballet has more in common with pro wrestling than hockey, as they are both staged for entertainment purposes.
Evidently Mr. Strachan seems to confuse the two. And Don Cherry is no authority on the subject - How many Stanley Cups did he win?
But anyways, on I go  ...
1.
" ·  "I don't want my children to watch a game in which I have to tell them that fighting is acceptable."
First of all, most fights are a response to a perceived wrong. Do you really want your kid to turn the other cheek to everyone he meets in life who tries to take advantage of him and his friends?
More importantly, this is professional sport. If your kid watches NASCAR, does he expect to drive bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph down a city street? If he watches wrestling, does he expect to be allowed to deliver forearm shivers and body slams? Professional sports operate under a specific set of rules.
Response:
Note the word ‘perceived’ wrong. According to Al, if I were a professional hockey player, and someone roughs me up, I should go after them and beat their ass. Or vice-versa.  I figure a better response to such people who challenge one to a fight in a hockey game is to answer them by putting the puck in his team’s net. It’s called scoring goals. Apparently that’s really how a team wins the contest known as a hockey game.
And in a professional sport run by say the National Hockey League, athletes are typically paid to do just that – win the game. And evidently, if a team wins enough games, they eventually will draw more fans (something about people liking a winner), and thereby more revenue.
BTW- it IS important to tell kids who watch fighting in hockey that it is wrong. More importantly, explain to them why it’s not winning the game, and how that a waste of time, especially theirs.
 
2.
" ·  "That fight last week probably cost Todd Fedoruk his career."
If it weren't for fighting, Fedoruk wouldn't have had a career.

Response:
Which basically means he should never have been allowed on the ice with other players. I have an idea, since all these goons do is fight, why not just take their sticks, skates, and gloves away? They can still stand around on the ice, while all the other players actually play the game I pay money to see. 
3.
" ·  "Hockey is the only sport that allows fighting."
It's also the only sport that uses a puck. Baseball is the only one that uses bases. Each sport has its own peculiarities and fighting has always been a part of hockey.
Response:
This is a sad attempt to equate the tools used in the game (i.e. a puck for hockey, bases for baseball) with fighting. By that argument, slavery should still be around be around in America. I can see people like him making that argument –
'Each civilization has its own peculiarities and slavery has always been a part of it.'
Except see, slavery was wrong. It treats one person as less than another. That’s why enough people thought it should be eliminated from society. Heck it tore this country apart for some years.
 
4.
" ·  "The NHL Players' Association should step in to curb fighting in order to prevent injuries to its members."
The fighters are PA members, too. How can the PA follow a course of action that would deprive them of their jobs?  
Response:
Very circular. Because fighting is so ingrained in hockey, the goon is now considered a part of the game (according to Al). That means it's a job, one the NHLPA has to defend.
This is the heart of the issue I have with views from people like Al, and people who support fighting in NHL hockey. Have you ever wondered why you don't see too many fights in Olympic Games matches, or for that matter the Canada Cup?  Perhaps it's because those players, coaches, trainers, sponsors, and fans are more interesting in dedicating their time, energies, and resources to winning things like Olympic Gold Medals, or the Canada Cup for playing hockey.
5.
" ·  "This is 2007. These barbaric acts belong in the past."
Then watch figure skating. There's no constitutional requirement to watch hockey. The people who attend games, and the people who play the game, are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping fighting.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who complain about fighting in hockey don't watch the games. Furthermore, there's no evidence that they'd watch if fighting were eliminated.
Response:
Figure skating doesn’t involve sticks, a puck, a net, and teams trying to win by putting pucks into each other team’s nets. It’s called hockey Al, look into it.

I note that he seems to be implying by the figure skating comments that people who don't believe in that point should watch figure skating instead of his brand of hockey.

I've never advocated removing bodychecks, or players grinding for a puck. What I object to is the intentional runs at the head, the high sticking. What is a fight, other than a set of intentional blows to the head?

Perhaps that’s why hockey attendance has been in decline the last few years. If people had to tune in to bench-clearing brawls in football, baseball, and basketball, it may draw some attention on ESPN, but after awhile, people who pay an arm and a leg to see it will either start demanding a refund for not getting to see sport being played, or they will simply not come back.
6.
" ·  "Too many fights are staged. They're not part of the game, just two guys who agree to go after each other."
There's some truth to that. But hockey is, above all, entertainment. When the fights — even the staged fights — occur, the rink comes alive. Fans love it. These two guys are willing co-combatants.
What's the problem?
Response:
Wow, notice how Al conceded a very major point. Yeah it's staged. Kind of like when watching managers in baseball come out of the dugout and kick dust in the umpire's face over a disputed call. All high-drama, accomplishes nothing but a diversion from the game.
And people who get fired up from that? I have a theory they'd also get fired up by a great body-check, a fantastic save, or an amazing goal.
Hockey is a sport. The NHL is a business. People pay money to see a hockey game, not boxers on ice. When I see a ‘gathering of the clan’ as Dick Irwin described it, it’s a waste of my money and time.
7.
" ·  "Too many players are getting hurt in hockey fights."
The problem is much more complex than that. Too many players are getting hurt. Period. Some of it has to do with equipment. Some of it has to do with the fact that hockey is a high-contact sport and injuries are inevitable.
The game is such these days that a lot of players don't care whether there's a puck on the ice or not
They're just out there to run other players. And they're causing injuries.
In an earlier era, those players would have been held accountable. But with the instigator rule, and the low-scoring games that put a premium on power plays, they're left alone. If the league scraps the instigator rule and keeps the fighters, those guys would think twice. And there would be fewer injuries.
Response:
I like how Al tries to equate injuries with fighting. Indeed his straw statement sets up his diatribe about injuries. What is that based on? Note there's a lot of words in that rant, but no facts, stats or evidence to back up his assertions.
I would summerize his views on fighting in the NHL by editing one of his comments -
The game is such these days that a lot of fans like Al don't care whether there's a puck on the ice or not


One last comment from Al -  
In the long run, fighting doesn't cause injuries; it prevents them.
No Al, in the long run, not stopping fighting will spell a permanent decline of NHL popularity.

 

History repeats itself ... in Canada

(My regret it took so long to get this out)

 

It's funny how much of my thoughts about the 2006 Canadian Federal election still hold true today ...

 

"Because the Liberal Party's mess with the whole sponsorship scandal, I think the majority of Canadians didn't think there were any other viable options in this election. While they have some good ideas, the New Democratic Party has never been able to really reach out to folks on a national level, largely due to poor leadership and lack of substance. The Bloq is a non-option, and useless. They don't even care about their own cause (Quebec separation), all they do is suck up federal tax dollars by being in Ottawa.

 

Interesting how after the results, Duceppe (Bloq leader) made all sort of gestures to work with Harper (PM-elect). Funny how history repeats itself but in reverse ...

 

I think it's what Canadians want for now (i.e. a minority government) Until the Liberal Party gets their house in order (i.e. get rid of the corruption that comes with running the country for more than 12 years), and elect a leader that can infuse new blood, we won't see them in power any time soon. "

 

It truly amazes me when a group of voters decides to vote for a party based on one issue. What is truly astounding is how the people of Quebec can vote for the Bloc Québécois party. They exist solely to collect an Federal MP pension. They cannot advocate or empower their cause on a federal level, because they will never be elected to govern the country as a whole.

 

The basic problem I see with the Liberal Party in Canada is similar to what happened to the Democratic Party in the US over the last 10 years. Right now the Liberals have neither a coherent strategy or plan that addresses the basic issues that affect the entire nation, nor is there an effective communcator able to reach the country as a whole.

 

Both of those don't just spring up overnight - Barack Obama didn't just spring up out of no where. It takes years of thinking, planning, and execution in order to make that happen. My guess is it's going to be some time before that comes about.

Alert 2

See how the Right-wing is trying to steal the election?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/rachel-maddow-decries-lon_n_140455.html 

 

Be aware of this when you vote.

Quote of the day

"... I had to chuckle as I paged through The Way to Win for the first time since it was published in 2006. The book is about the blueprint for taking the White House and which politicians were positioning themselves for victory in 2008. I laughed because there was one name that did not appear anywhere in the book about the upcoming campaign, one name Halperin and Harris left out of the index: "Obama, Barack." "

 

Well said Eric.

 

To understand read this - http://mediamatters.org/columns/200810210005

 

 

ALERT - Republicans already trying to steal the election

When you go into the voting booth, be sure to get confirmation that who you actually select to vote, actually gets selected correctly.

 

This almost sounds like the opening to Treehouse of Horror XIX.

 

Some early W.Va. voters angry over switched votes

Jackson County touch-screens switched votes, 3 residents say

 

 

By Paul J. Nyden

Staff writer

At least three early voters in Jackson County had a hard time voting for candidates they want to win.

Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

"When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.

...

More details at http://wvgazette.com/News/200810170676?build=yes.

 

 

When people look back ...

... on this election, they'll probably ask what McCain did that caused him to tank with voters. To get all Russert-like -

 

• Some might say he really wasn't going to ever win - I've always suspected that he wasn't the right-wing's first choice.
  
• Some might say that it all went downhill when he picked Palin - for the longest time, I subscribed to this point.

But I suspect much of the analysis will look back at the economic problems that hit at the same time, and how McCain dealt with them.

 

This comment from Steve Benen sums this up nicely -

 

"The conventional wisdom has been that McCain dropped in the polls after the crisis began in earnest because voters' attention shifted to the economy, which is McCain's weakest point. That's largely true, but it's incomplete. McCain dropped because his response to the crisis has been ridiculous. This was an opportunity for McCain to not only show some leadership and a "steady hand," but also that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy. He's failed miserably."

 

That being said, I do think there's a larger issue going on.

 

Part of it lies with the idea that the American public is finally seeing the American Right Wing (as housed in the current incarnation of the Republican Party) ideology for what it really is. All those years of scandals, fake issues are insignificant now. What I'm hoping is that this will be the start of the public finally realizing that the American Right should be kept far away from government. They are very good at getting into power, but running government is something that should be left to those who know how to govern for all, not use government as a vehicle to reward a select few.

 

 

Right-wing pundits upset over McCain and Palin ....

Here's one from David Brooks -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html

Here's the thing -

All the polls, voter registration numbers, and momentum are moving towards Senator Obama and the Democratic Party for the coming election. I think Mr. Brooks is looking for someone else on the right-wing to blame besides Senator McCain. Choosing to direct his ire at Sarah Palin is not really going to really accomplish that (that is, if you assume that it was Senator McCain himself who picked Governor Palin as his running mate).

Further, where was he with this kind of piece when Governor Palin was introduced by Senator McCain? It was pretty obvious within an hour of announcing her that she wasn't qualified for any public office, let alone the one she currently occupies.

For that matter, where was he and perhaps others when George W. Bush was running for President back in 1999/2000?

This is why I don't have much respect for conservatives and their movement as it is these days. I can respect someone for having opinions (even if I disagree with them). But Mr. Brooks, and many other of his political stripe who apparently had these types of concerns about Bush, yet chose to keep quiet because they probably saw it as a chance for their movement to dominate all levels of government, as did much of the corporate media (even though we all know Al Gore won in 2000, as did Senator Kerry in 2004). They are now playing a game of CYA with their readers because the country has gone down the tubes thanks to Bush and his cronies, and voters are largely not buying into Senator McCain's ideas, campaign, or judgment (perhaps because it's really similar to Bush).

That these pundits knew and chose not to speak makes them hypocrites to be angry now. That's why I don't respect them.

I think the pending Obama election victory result will be the first salvo in the Republican Party civil war, fought between the three main factions (foreign policy hawks, corporate interests/lobbyists, and religious/social conservatives). These are I think some of the first sets of rumblings.

Pictures of a wedding

No, not mine again, but rather my brother's ...

 

Meet Sonia, my sister-in-law, and George at their engagement and wedding:

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/georgejoseph.pattara0/GeorgeSoniaSMarriagePhotos

 

They got married in India some months back.

 

Enjoy!

American Vice-Presidential Debates

Vice-Presidential debates are primarily about one thing - they are a defacto-test of the candidate's judgment.
 
In a lot of cases, the picking of the VP is something a candidate must think long and hard about. Will the person complement them, not upstage them? Can the person play the role of attack-dog, but not serve to be an irritant? Can the person stay on message, but demonstrate personality and character? And most important, if something were to happen to the candidate, can this person pick up the mantle an carry on?
 
Watching the VP candidate debate last night, it's clear to be that each person selected validated all these points. That is, they truly represented the judgments of their respective candidates.
 
Watching Biden, it's clear he had spent a lot of time prepping, but it didn't visibly show. Why? Because he spent years, decades preparing. He was truly ready and he delivered a great performance. He was calm and clear. And he managed to expose Palin and McCain for the frauds that they are without being rude, weak, or mean to his opponent. He also spent a lot of time doing something Obama did in his debate with McCain; that is ask the viewer to think about the two sides' positions and compare what's going on today with what could happen tomorrow. On that note, Biden succeeded. And on a more higher level, he confirms Obama's judgment in picking the right person for the job.

 

Now all Obama and Biden need to do is stay focused, stay on track, and get voters registered and to the voting booths.
 
As for Palin - all about ambition, nothing else. Her sad fake routine (very reminiscent of Bush) will fool only the incredibly ignorant. One can hope that the country, having endured close to eight years of this with Bush, will learn from that mistake once and for all. Her lack of substance demonstrated she really should not be in public office at any level. And it confirmed one thing about McCain ...
 
Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman must have said no.

Talking about Charlton Heston was larger than life - Movies- msnbc.com

Mr. Hartl,

I too admired Mr. Heston for his acting ability. But let's face facts - he was the head of a crazy organization. Whether I believe and support the right to bear arms is inconsequential to the fact that, I certainly would not let the National Rifle Association speak on my behalf.

After all, this is an organization that believes one should carry firearms at National Parks. Hello?

Keeping ready-to-fire guns in out of the country's National Parks is not about Second Amendment "rights"; it's about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

If the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don't need to go into them.

The rest of us rational people can camp in peace. This is about our rights, not a specific segment of the population's selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation. Something the NRA and Mr. Heston just could not comprehend.

Their lunatic-like obession with guns is the biggest reason there is so much violence in America today. But I bet you didn't think of that when you were insulting Michael Moore and his film.  Frankly, if Mr. Heston was unable or unwilling to answer serious questions posed by Mr. Moore in his movie, he should never have been ithe NRA's head.

Geniality and heading the NRA is a recipe for hypocrisy - and Mr. Moore exposed that for what it really was.

Next time, Mr. Hartl, please use some common sense when writing your obituaries in future. Mr. Heston's acting, demeanour were no excuse for fronting such rabid supporters of violence.

The future of TV for me ...

The issue I have with the end of all analog (NTSC) TV transmissions in the US on February 17, 2009, has not so much to do with - 

 

• politics (the issue of whether the NTSC, an arm of the FCC is really nothing more than a tool of the corporate media; where private interests/technology are influencing decisions on national public airwaves);
  
• nor the actual technology of HD TV (though I’ve heard they apparently burn more energy than regular TVs, and I question the long-term impact on one’s vision);
  
• UHF channels at the high end of the band being decommissioned and sold for other uses (who gets to buy them, and for what purposes);
  
• or even the voucher program (under different circumstances, I would rather see 100% compensation for the purchase of converter boxes with ATSC tuners, rather than just a voucher).

No, the issue has really gotten me thinking about television in general. In my time here in the US, I’ve perceived the quality of TV programs to have decreased significantly. I base this on the not just a noted decrease in watching television in general, but the reduced number (and types) of programs I watch.

There are essentially three type of television shows that really dominate the prime-time television line-up; ‘reality’ ‘reality-game show’ and the ‘Sex And The City’ clones. None of which I have any interest in. And they have largely replaced sitcoms and drama television programs as the dominant prime-time programs viewed by the public at-large.

And as to what sitcom and drama shows do remain,  the quality and availability of such shows that I do watch has decreased.

By in-large I tend really to watch four types of television shows –

• Local News
  
• The Simpsons
  
• Law and Order
  
• Live Sports events  

Looking at each one -  

1. Local news stations are - by in-large - extensions of the global media conglomerates which dominate the US broadcast television networks and airwaves. Each of them (News Corp, Paramount, Disney, and GE) are major contributors to right-wing and Republican politicial establishments. I’ve observed, much of the news (even at a local level) I find tends to have a right-wing bias, often gets many facts wrong, or even spreads false information. Basic elements of most newscasts (camera work, live feeds, and visual articulation), I’ve found to be remarkably unprofessional in presentation. Elements of the news (like the weather forecasts) are often full of bluster, rarely ever right, and almost never acknowledge errors in predictions. With their bombastic music, most of these stations’ own TV commericals during these local news casts are often self-absorbed, about the station patting itself on the back for its bluster and ‘coverage’. I find I get more accurate, consistent (and reliable) information and coverage from sources online.

 

2. While I still enjoy the Simpsons on re-runs, I do agree that newer episodes aren’t as funny as perhaps 6-7 years ago. And I’m disappointed that the makers are apparently not permitted to criticize/lampoon the Republican Bush administration (of which News Corp has been major political donor and propagandic sponsor through its cable channel). Mr. Murdoch apparently had no issue with them making fun of the previous administration’s key figures.

 

3. Similar issue with Law and Order (the show really went downhill when they brought in Fred Thompson. And especially after 9/11, the show went increasingly more right-wing). But on a more general level, the show has (IMO) become more unrealistic even for its own universe. And its reputation has been hurt by the sister spin-off shows (all of which generally contain poor acting, and really weak storylines).

 

4. I have a lot less time to watch MLB and NFL games, and the occasional soccer match. I have mixed feelings whenever the occasional NHL game is broadcast. I’m not very happy with the overall direction of the game of hockey, as presented by the NHL (too much fighting, not enough hockey). And even if I do put that aside and try to watch anyways, often it’s broadcast on networks which lack the profressional analytical skills I’m used to seeing on Canadian broadcast television. The points are moot, as most sports events are largely televised on cable, of which I have other issues with. 

 

Most of what I watch nowadays are older TV shows, on DVD. We should be able to watch those on our old TV set. And if a new TV show does come along that I’d like to watch, we can rent it from Netflix, or perhaps view it from iTunes with an iPod.

What I want to get away from are the broadcast networks, with all their product placements in TV shows, and endless commercials around them. I have this theory that attention span decrease will be traced to watching too many TV commericals.

The bottom line is, television – whether HD or not -  is not worth pursuing.

 

It’s because of this, that I have decided to simply not bother with broadcast television come February 17, 2009. I think I'll be better without it.