2009: End of year thoughts.

Somehow I thought 2009 would end better than 2008.

Last year ended on a hopeful note. I thought this country and its voters had moved this country away from the point of no return. I thought people had finally come their senses and realized that electing conservatives and right-wingers into public office is a very bad idea, because said groups are incapable of governing nations.

And I think on most levels, so did most Americans.

So, what happened since then?

• The government that the people elected chose to put the large banks ahead of everyone else in terms of helping.
• Barack Obama didn't learn from the major event in Afghanistan in 2009 and essentially the Bush War On Terror, became his war.
• Our government failed its citizens again by putting the the health insurance and drug companies ahead, under the guise of health care 'reform'.

However it's not just that.

On a personal level, I found this year much harder. I found myself once again in a position of not knowing as much as everyone else around me, and always being the person with least amount of authority. Conveniently, I'm also usually the person who's forced to be the most polite. It makes me question whether what I do will ever be considered valuable and important enough to be treated with equal respect compared to those with 'technical skills'.

I let my family talk me into taking in a coprophagic dog who does nothing else but shit, sleep, and crave attention or food. Completely untrustworthy and disobedient. As the year draws to a close, I find myself weary of having to constantly fight the same daily battles with an animal whose personality I dislike.

I've no one to blame but myself. Essentially, I chose to allow these things to happen. I failed to ask the right questions, and failed to act when not all right with the answers. Perhaps it's because I chose to trust those around me in that I thought they were being honest, or that I relied on people to provide me information to do my work, in that I thought there were no hidden agendas and so forth.

I've always had problems trusting or relying on others.

I realized in 2009 that happiness only comes in this life when you are actively pursuing it. The moment one stops pursuing one's dreams, one is not living anymore, but functioning.

So, my goal in 2010 - move myself finally in the direction of pursuing my dreams. Some may call it selfish. They can fuck off. It's been too long for me to not care about my needs, my desires, and my dreams. I need to get myself back on that path to happiness. Of course, I mustn't neglect my responsibilities. The difference between 2010 and 2009 is that with the latter, I let those responsibilities take over to the point where my happiness was pushed out of importance. My goal this year is to work out a plan to balance both, while at the same time moving my life towards my happiness.

As with everything in life, it's a matter of focus.

You tell 'em Jane - The US Health Care Bill/Starter Home analogy put to sleep ...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/30/dear-sen-harkin-these-are-terrible-materials-for-building-a-starter-home/

"The bill is built on the extremely wasteful and inefficient private insurance system and contains one of the biggest rollbacks in decades of women’s reproductive rights. It, in effect, gives a permanent exclusivity to expensive biologics, and still denies Americans the ability to buy cheaper drugs from overseas. It has insufficient regulations and leaves the regulator enforcement purely up to the states, which have a poor track record enforcing the current regulations on their books. Regulation without enforcement is worthless. It throws good money after bad without fixing the underlying problems. The cost of the insurance will be too high and the quality of the insurance is too low. Funneling billions of dollars and forcing millions of Americans to buy a product that is frankly a terrible bargain is not a good foundation to build on. It is only a good foundation for the private insurance companies because it further enriches and entrenches them. Rewarding the failure of the private health insurance system with even more money and more customers is not how you want to build your “starter home."

The question is - is there time to stop this disaster from happening to the American Public?

Public Health care option reportedly removed from health care reform - a win for the insurance companies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/pelosi-backs-off-public-o_n_387197.html

The public health insurance option died on Thursday, December 10, 2009, after a months-long struggle with Senate parliamentary procedure. The time of death was recorded as 11:12 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Its death had been rumored numerous times over the past year, but the public option repeatedly and defiantly battled back. The Senate's insistence on 60 votes, combined with President Obama's decision not to intervene on its behalf, eventually proved overwhelming.

The public option leaves behind a Medicare buy-in for people aged 55-64, an expansion of Medicaid, a quasi-public option for those under 300 percent of the poverty line and a collection of national private plans managed by the Office of Personnel Management.

The one remaining chance for the public option rested with the House somehow forcing its will on the Senate.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pulled the final plug in a press briefing with reporters Thursday.

Yeah, unless Obama vetos the bill and sends is back demanding a public health care option, it's basically dead.

The kicker in the bill is that all Americans are legally required to have health insurance. The public health care option represented the only real alternative Americans would have, in view of all the insurance plans that we'd be locked into And if it was a viable option, it would provide the insurance companies a clear incentive to provide better health 'services' at lower rates.

The thing is, I suspect the insurance companies know what I known all along - if a public health option were ever to actually become law, and it were viable, I think the majority of Americans would go for it, en masse. We all know that the insurance companies offer bullshit and at ever increasing prices. To these companies, such a thing represents a clear danger to their profit margins, and more importantly the next step to a single-payer health care system. The public health care option is really the critical mass point, and the insurance companies know this. That's why they've fought so hard to have it killed.

I'd say it's not been a good few weeks for Obama, the country and the world -

• The demise of the public health care option
• Delays in dealing with global climate change (lack of action in the Copenhagen conference)
• Pending esclation of violence and bloodshed in Afghanistan ...

All of these things are happening due the wrong decisions being made.

How fucking nice .... United States Health Care continues to remain in 19th Century ...

... while the rest of the civilized world knows that basic viable health care for all is a given and a smart thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/assessing-reids-healthcar_b_386490.html

This fellow is cautiously optimistic about the latest compromise made to the insurance companies, drug companies, and the right-wing.

This commenter sums up my initial thoughts to a tea ...

"Not only have the democrats shown their lack of back bone and made Insurance companies richer, they were pulled by their nose by the Republicans to ensure that if a bill was passed, it would piss off the democratic base so Republicans would be back in power in 2010. You guys are idiots not to see that you are giving both the Insurance Companies and the Republicans exactly what they want."


Time will tell.

Wow Costco really steps in it big time ....

Hosting an interview with a Noble Prize winner - good thing.

Hosting a noted right-wing skeptic as a rebuttal, without checking said skeptic's credentials fully - very bad.

' ... respected scientist ...' ?

Oh really, Costco?

This guy Singer has been a discredited indivdual, who's taken money from the oil industry.

Don't people at Costco bother to do any research on people they bring abroad to refute a Nobel Prize winner? All it took was five minutes to save their reputation from embarassment.

(h/t to http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com/2008/12/fred-singer-is-climate-scientist-and.html)

"Now S. Fred Singer may be a lot of things (including a man with a couple of decent university degrees, an extended work history in atmospheric physics and a published author), but a reputable voice on climate science he has not been for some time.

As far as I can tell he is fatally compromised by his perceived longstanding relationship with Exxon and other big oil/energy companies as well as his association with the discredited Frederick Seitz petition and, his constant repetition of a fear that developing climate change policy will in turn distort energy policy, a principle argument that there is no global warming trend and there might even be a cooling trend and, an assertion that an emissions trading scheme would just be a tax ruse.

Indeed Singer has been a denialist since at least 1998 when this correspondence occurred.
However, almost every argument he has floated over the years seems to be easily refutable by academics and working scientists.

This has led Singer to assume the position of front man for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) which appears to represent the published opinion of around 23 authors who reputedly are not all scientists and, his Science & Environmental Policy Project founded in 1990 is beginning to sound distinctly nutty.

Now I am aware that there has been legitimate scientific opinion which has swum against the tide in the past and later been proved right, but Fred Singer appears to have done no independent or collaborative science in years and apparently relies on a anti-global warming stance he developed years ago before much of the current data had been either gathered or collated.

The fact that the NIPCC document published this year online has purportedly 'peer reviewed' the same primary sources as the UN international panel does not give cause for comfort because of the small number of participants involved.

As Singer has reportedly also published his doubts about the links between second hand smoke and lung cancer and between UV rays and skin cancer one has to wonder at anyone citing him as an expert."

Costco is trying to create an equivalency between Gore and Singer in (under the guise of 'balance'; just like the corporate media), in an attempt to create hype and increase book sales. It's no surprise - at least online, the bigger battle seems to be more between Walmart and Amazon.

But there is no comparison.

The bottom line on global warming is that one side of the debate is based on research and study of the facts, while the other side isn't interested in debate or even willing to acknowledge that there is a even a problem, or that people are the ultimate cause.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is with the former. And people like Singer are part of the latter.

Congrats Costco, you fucked up big time.

Big corporations win in Canada - again.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/27/supreme-court-walmart-union.html

While I can understand that a company can make business decisions (i.e. something not profitable and so forth), the reality is, everyone knows the real reason why Walmart closed the store - it was because of the forming of the union.

On the bright side, this commenter sums it up best -

"If organzing a union shuts down a Walmart then it's time to organized unions at all Walmarts."

Palin fooled again by a Canadian.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/26/palin-tricked-by-comedian_n_371698.html






The only thing about this article I take issue with is the following -









Yeah, 22 Minutes was around long before the Daily Show and Jon Stewart and his Bob Saget/America's Funniest Home Video routine.

But apart from that, it's just another reminder that Palin is just a media figure, and figment of importance only the media's mind, and not the public at large. She's not electable, let alone competent when it comes to public government, and I think most Americans know that.

The pursuit of happiness

So I was originally going to bloviate on about the pursuit of happiness and so forth, when it dawned on me -

I really don't have a lot to say on the subject.

I mean really - what the fuck could I say that would have any impact on anyone? I'm not a philosopher, and I don't think this site generates nearly the amount of attention I'd like.

I suppose I could go around saying "JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST!" about 10 billions times, and still no one out there would really respond, let alone react. If anything, it might attract a bunch of religious nutcases to comment in a mean and nasty way (as if religious nutcases would comment in a polite way).

On the other hand, maybe I'm not 'monitizing' the site very well.

In all honesty, I'm actually quite frustrated. I consider myself a decently intelligent human being, and yet, it's very hard to get people to actually listen to what I say. It's even harder to actually get people to do what I suggest.

It almost seems like a sense of powerlessness.

To illustrate -

Recently I walked into the office and had some issues with the latest software build. I suggested to one of the developers that perhaps I should run some script as a workaround. I was told no, that's not necessary, it should all work, you don't know anything, you're an idiot (okay, maybe the person didn't actually say that last bit; but sometimes I wonder if people think it). Anyways, to make a long story short, I spent the whole fucking day trying to get something to work and it didn't.

And guess what happened? No, really .... guess?

Before I left, the developer ran that script, unblocked everything, and is now probably being hailed a great hero for moving the stupid bottom feeder forward.

And yet, I kept thinking to myself as I was heading home - didn't I suggest that earlier in the morning? Why doesn't anyone listen to me when I have something useful to say? This is not an original moment in my career, I've had similar moments like this before.

It's that sense of powerlessness - the inability to get anyone around me to listen and do as I suggest. Where does it come from? Am I really that stupid-sounding? Is what I say dumb? It certainly feels that way at times, especially around more 'technically-minded' or 'experienced' people in the industry. And I do tend to stutter, so what comes out of my mouth can sound pretty stupid at times.

And as you see, I can ramble on for quite some time, and it's barely coherent.

I used to think it was something in my face (it is rather big). I used to think it was the color of my skin, the length of my hair, did I shower that day, how assertive I am, etc. Or maybe it's some combination of those things - that leads people to perhaps enjoy telling me off, or put me in my place, so-to-speak.

Perhaps it's those things.

Or ... perhaps it's that I lack any authority in what I do, that causes people to not take what I say seriously?

I find I have similar problems in pursuing happiness. At times (okay pretty much all the time) I feel like I'm tied down by responsibilites. Being a husband, a provider, a father - those things I don't consider jobs. They are responsibilities which I take seriously. But does it make me happy? On some level it can I suppose, though I don't really see it now. Oh sure, it'd be nice to have my wife and kids be able to pursue their dreams, and I'd be happy that fufilling my responsibilities to them helps them get there.

But the fact is, it's hardly really happy to me. Is that selfish to say? Is it really? Hardly - it leaves no time for me to pursue my dreams and goals. I have so many ideas going through my head, it's a challenge just to capture just 1% of them.

Maybe my trouble is time - there aren't enough hours in the day. There could be some credence to this, as I'm writing all this while the whole family is asleep. But I figure having *more* time would only end up with trying to conduct more responsibilities.

Throughout all this, I remind myself that I'm no deity. Life is pretty finite, just like time. One the moment passes, it's gone.

Then it occurs to me - maybe the reason I'm unhappy, maybe the reason I feel so powerless in my own life, is that I allow things to happen. I spend so much time trying to control what others do, that I forget to stop and look at myself and figure out what's best for me.

Happiness may result from actions I take (or undertake) but it has to start within me perhaps. Maybe it happiness really is a state of mind. I may not control what others do, or what could happen next, but I can influence what I think, how I react, and how that maps up to where I want to go. That is, I should never lose sight of what it is that makes me happy and always know that as long as I'm thinking about it, as long as I'm planning it, as long as I write it down, as long as I talk about it (even to myself), I can be a little more happier than the day before.

And maybe ... just maybe ... I'm closer to finding what makes me happy. Because I figure the moment when I stop trying, stop thinking, stop dreaming, stop putting down ideas, stop making plans, stop talking, then I really am powerless - because I chose to let it all go.

So there ... perhaps the key to this life is figuring out what makes one happy - and spend the days going after it.

Because as long as I'm pursuing happiness and my dreams - there's always a chance I'll get there.

BackTracks

Yes I know it's shameless ... but come on! This is really cool ...

Collectors Edition Box-Set: The 12"x12"x4" (30cm*30cm*10cm) exterior box is designed to resemble a vintage AC/DC guitar amp – complete with the original logo that was spray-painted onto the rear of Angus and Malcolm’s speaker cabinets in 1975. The “head” of the amp has a handle that lifts the top off to reveal the contents housed within. Oh yeah, the head is also a WORKING GUITAR AMPLIFIER! That’s right, one watt of pure AC/DC makes this box a truly unique collector’s item. You can PLAY the box set while LISTENING TO the box set!

What you get with AC/DC Backtracks Deluxe Collector's Edition

Collectors Edition Box Set:Also a working guitar amplifier!
plus

3 CD's: Studio Rarities andtwo discs of Live Rarities!
plus

2 DVD's: "Family Jewels" Disc 3 &"Live at the Circus Krone" 2003
plus

164-Page Coffee Table Book: Rareand unseen photos spanning '73-'03!
plus

LP: 12 unique studio raritiesmastered specifically for LP!
plus

9 Pieces of Memorabilia: Button, sticker, tour flyer and more!

More here -> http://www.acdcbacktracks.com/pages/3999219/

Friday the 13th (13-NOV-2009).

In honor of today, I thought I'd share,

I received word of the following from Facebook, regarding Friday the 13th -

I'm sure any and all lifeforms out there in this universe that can view our planet are thankful they aren't here to deal with people like this and their fairytales.

Commentary: Microsoft job cuts - part of a bigger problem? Part II – perspective.

(The following are based on my opinions and conclusions based on my observations while working at Microsoft. I've done my best to avoid revealing any confidential information, and attempted to steer clear of ad-hominem attacks on anyone who has worked there, past or present.)

So how is this relevant to what's going on?

Layoff handling and H-1B issues aside, there’s a problem I’ve observed brewing in my time at Microsoft. And it appears that since I’ve left, the problems are not only still there, and not only have they apparently existed in most groups, but that it’s growing, and infesting its way into the management and executive teams.

It's a belief that one can code one’s way around any problem, and that all should be grateful for the solution. That is, any issue can be resolved technically. It's an almost Western frontier attitude - ' We have the biggest most powerful guns, and can draw faster than any other hombre!' It's as if they think they can out-gun or out-code any competitor into submission.

To put simply -

innovation=coding

But having the smartest people, and the best software coding resources doesn't always translate to a best solution, or the most profitable. Microsoft has trying to compete with other companies in a number of areas on a laregly technical basis when others clearly are more established and successful. It's one thing if the plan is succeeding and one gains success. It's another when it only helps the competition. Granted some things take time (5 years, 10 years, beyond, etc). And perhaps because of the Internet and the Software/IT business itself, such things are more compressed. But being in business more than 10 years and still trying to out-code the competion in the face of the latter's increasing dominance is not the mark of resiliance, but a lack of executive vision, a failed business plan and poor management.

This arrogant attitude is what I think fosters the perception of Microsoft. And it causes people (regardess of how smart they are) to be truly blind to what's happening. And when you have such thinking infiltrate the upper levels of the product planning, it makes for a failed set of long-term business strategy, and eventually decline.

Yes code is important and is part of innovation, but how one arrives at that point, and where it goes from there are far more important.

I've met a lot of people there with this singular 'innovation=coding' attitude, and it's not restricted to just one group, like developers. Imagine now, that such individuals move up and become leads, managers, directors, even VPs, and still foster this thinking.

What many teams at Microsoft have largely apparently never been able to understand is –

1. That the customer’s experience with the product or service (not the just code that generates it) it is what matters.


2. Products and services should not be emerge in their entirety solely in silos. Eventually, one has to see how it fits in its surroundings, and how it interacts with others to really understand how it's going to be used. This has to be tied to a business strategy and vision.


3. Software Testing is a function of your overall plan for success. Your project or product leaders need to understand that testing software is a 'honest broker' service to the project.

 I think I've covered 1. and 2. somewhat. Regarding 3 ...

I've observed that Microsoft for some time has been eliminating actual testing jobs in favor of SDETs who are treated largely as 2nd-class employees. They spend more time creating tools, rather than actual testing. It’s no wonder many of them eventually move to being SDEs because that’s what the software testing has become there: a stepping stone to software development. Indeed, I've observed this in all three groups I worked in. It's almost as if software and software development are one in the same.

Yes software quality assurance (SQA) involves assessing the process in which the product is created, in addition to verifying requirements, logging bugs, and verifying defect fixes. And yes, Software Quality Management (SQM) involves being tied to business strategy, short- medium- and long-term product planning, usability and marketing research, integration with other products, partnering with other product teams to determine interoperability, release management, quality improvement, and so on.

But those things take time, and really only work once you have a coherent product evolution strategy in place, along with a tremendous thrust for moving the product foward. And this should always go hand-in-hand with always knowing what your customer experiences.

And that's the key point there -  it should be tied to what the customer actually experiences, and works to improve both it and the product’s quality. One must never lose sight of that. And while some teams make the effort to do some of these things, I never observed anyone doing all of those things.

And quality improvement should go hand-in-hand with Innovation. Indeed, that's one of the founding principles of any Defect Prevention strategy (ironically, this is from a book that came from Microsoft. It's unfortunate that many teams there don't apparently read much of their best literature). But again, preventing defects, and analysing them should never be considered a replacement of actual testing. They go together and are linked.

To me, true long-lasting innovation involves thinking, planning, strategizing, and smart design on an idea, in addition to coding (development), testing and support. And in this day and age, one has to always think about implications along short-, medium-, and long-term. Of course, everyone in this day and age wants something now and yesterday and last week. The pressures of being first-to-market seem to be increasing on an almost daily basis (The number one term I repeatedly kept hearing in my final days was 'market-share'.) Everything becomes a competition. After awhile, internal teams start fighting amongst themselves. Meetings to review software issues are termed 'war rooms', as if everyone should bring their armor and armament and be ready to do battle.

And yes, I see the importance in being first in a market.

But being first under this 'build it first' approach doesn't always lead to it being the best in market, or the most successful. Indeed, Google Search wasn't the first web search engine out there. I've heard some comment that the solutions for Microsoft should be to just 'let the developers have control, again'. I think people say that because they believe that developers are the most creative people at Micrsoft. While it's true that many of the designs on how to implement an idea might be skillfully acheived, it's largely useless without any foresight.

Successful leadership in such times require vision, planning, and execution. What's missing at Microsoft these days from that is a sense of vision and direction. Oh they execute. But usually quite badly without the first two. And usually what also tends to get missed when not doing those things is a plan for quality. Without those things, such calls revert back to the innovation=coding mantra, which when unchecked and allowed to grow and fester, I think will lead to the very same problems they now face.

I'm not saying innovation should be stifled by process. Rather, I think when one has an idea, they should think it through and plan for it to be successful, instead of heading to their machine and banging out code to improve it later. Innovation only works when coupled with an intelligent vision, strategy, planning and execution. This includes things like planning, strategy, quality.

Till Microsoft realizes this, and works to change these attitudes, I don’t think you’ll see much improvement in the situations currently unfolding. Indeed, these layoffs are just the beginning.

Commentary: Microsoft job cuts - part of a bigger problem? Part I - My backstory.

(The following are based on my opinions and conclusions based on my observations while working at Microsoft. I've done my best to avoid revealing any confidential information, and attempted to steer clear of ad-hominem attacks on anyone who has worked there, past or present.)

I was an IT Test Engineer, who became a Software Test Engineer (STE), then a Lead, and finally a Software Development Engineer in Test (SDET). I think it's rather funny that within the software industry, the term 'engineer' is commonly used in job titles for software developers, even though there rarely are actually any real engineering principles followed. Granted I don't think it necessarily applies to software testing either, though the concepts of independant software verification and validation do conform to some key systems engineering principles.

In the first Microsoft group I was in, I came to observe that management didn't really respect the ‘Test Engineering’ discipline. They saw individual contributor (IC) IT testing roles as a merely a stepping stone for people to move to other areas (over to IT development, or program management (PM), or to business IT groups), and not something that was important on its own. None of those avenues were available to me anyways. My visa prevented me from moving to PM, and I wasn't interested in being an application developer. And while I wouldn't have minded moving into IT test management, there were too many people in front of me that were too wired into the aformentioned management team.

So, despite getting a promotion and some strong reviews, I moved to a product group.

In the new area, and over time I worked my way into a Lead track. It was a lot of hours and a lot of effort. Over time, however I saw the writing on the wall in with test team I worked with. I knew it was a matter of time before they would be slowly absorbed into the development team.

(I found out later that this in fact did happen.)

I joined a great team in helmed by a great manager. We did meaningful work on v1.0 of the product. It was new and exciting, and for the first time in a long time, I felt like I was doing something important. We delivered our results. The other teams involved evidently didn't like what we reported, as our management’s response to them was to shut us down and dismantle our team. I got moved out the track I was on, and into an IC SDET role with one of those teams. That would've been something I could've survived ...

Except right around this time, our team was reorganized ('re-orged') into a larger one. One of the demoralizing things that happened was listening to the new Senior Vice President talk about his idea of success. After listening to him speak, talking about 'must-have software' and 'delighting our customers', and knowing what groups he was responsible for, the question I kept asking myself over and over was, "Was this guy really responsible for that product's success? He just doesn't seem to get the problem space, or the market they exist in.").

Even to this very day, this guy is hailed as a genius in the industry. But, I found out later that I wasn't the only one who came to the same conclusion.

It didn't matter though, as all the work that I was a part of was considered poison to the new management. I was now on a team where the development lead was essentially running product management. It slowly but eventually became a dead-end job.

I saw the signs of being 'managed out', and knew if I stayed, I was going to receive a bad performance review, regardless of what work I delivered. Knowing what was to come, I started looking for actual Software Quality Assurance (SQA) roles outside MS. I knew leaving on my own was better than being forced out so I took control and left. It's been a wise decision for a number of reasons.

Since then, I've been tempted to comment about what's been going on there.

In that time, Microsoft has cut jobs -

• In January 2009
• In May 2009
• And again, recently in November 2009

I've remained silent, as I felt some time needed to pass as it was always possible my point of view might change. Facts remain constant, but certain kinds of observations can vary depending on point-of-view and perception and time.

Is that the case for my views?So what's really going on?

(Part II to follow)

...

Ah, the dream guitar amp ...

If only I could plug in that cool Gibson Explorer into this-

http://www.marshallamps.com/heritage/jcm800/jcm800_03.asp

Running that Explorer through this amp, and a pair of 1960 BV cabs (though I'd settle for the illustrated ones!) and hit the A chord. I'd be happy for days.

Microsoft finally ends the misery - Windows Live RIP

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Windows+Live+dead&oq=Windows+Live+dead&aq=f&aqi=p-p2g2&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..35i39l2j0l2.1170.8549.0.8705.29.18.5.0.0.0.765.4525.0j8j5j2j0j1j1.17.0...0.0.H_sLC8LWT9k&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=59b793db69310d53&biw=1440&bih=677

I badly want this guitar.

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Explorer/Gibson-USA/7-String-Explorer.aspx

But unlike most 'nu metal' types, I'm not interested in having a low B string. I find that electric guitars have much of their tone in the mid-range and treble. When one starts to tune to lower notes, much of the sound is lost.

I'd rather put that seventh string on the other end (tune it to say B over the high E string) and play a lot of leads. Of course, one has to actually learn how to play leads and solo. But as someone who mostly plays rhythm (i.e. chords and riffs), I think it would make it easier to play a solo. Maybe I'm lazy. On the other hand, could I not say the same about all those de-tuners and the strings hanging over the pickups?

Has anyone noticed something odd about recent New York Yankees World Series championships?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/story/2009/11/04/sp-yankees-phillies-gamesix.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Championships_of_the_New_York_Yankees

Since 1961, the Yankees have only won a World Series Championship when a Democrat was President.

World Series Champions
New York Yankees
1961 and 1962 (Kennedy)

World Series Champions
New York Yankees
1977 and 1978 (Carter)

World Series Champions
New York Yankees
1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 (Clinton)

World Series Champions
New York Yankees
2009 (Obama)

They never have won a championship when Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and W were occupying the White House.

I wonder what that means?

The wonderful world of toddlers.

I've got two kids. One boy who is 3.5, and a girl who'll be 2 in a week.

The joy of our house is the 'dialog' between the two. They fight over just about everything.

They sit across from each other and the dinner table. So I get to hear their 'discussions' in stereo.

The big thing recently was farting.

"They're MY farts!"

"NO! They are MY FARTS!"

This repeats constantly. And so is the joy in our lives.

Daylight Savings Time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_United_States

So this morning, setting all the clocks back an hour was done. But was anything really accomplished? It's not like I got an extra hour of sleep.

Ah the joys of progeny.

Thank you Energy Policy Act of 2005!

This seems to be a common theme ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/medias-credibility-not-pu_b_334767.html

 

Great article - but there's something I think worth mentioning here.

 

• These media instruments don't care about being right or wrong.


• They don't care about credibility.


• They don't care about reporting facts, questioning information, or performing any real degree of journalism - objective or otherwise.

 

They are largely owned by a handful of big conglomerates that have vested interests in keeping things as they are, because it allows them and their advertisers to continue to make great sums of money. And should they be forced to face any large mistakes they make? The taxpayer bails them out, and ultimately pays the price.

 

The corporate media's goals are to sell what ever works to their audience for as long as possible.

 

 

" ...the cardinal rule is to keep them playing and to keep them coming back. The longer they play, the more they lose, and in the end, we get it all."

 

Pretty disturbing (and perhaps ironic) that quote is taken from a film about mobseters.

 

I try to get my sources of news and information from other places - especially ones where they consistently get stories reported accurately, and commentary (i.e. debate) can be initiated.

 

Hopefully the more people do this, the better we'll all be.

'Cable News'

Recently I was contacted by the folks at FDL regarding some media personalities and the comments they make to entertain their viewers.

 

In essence, I was asked to join them in saying "Basta!" to Lou Dobbs and ask my friends and family to do the same, with the following link -

http://bastadobbs.com/action/org/fdl/

 

This was my reply (I've edited it here to include a link, and correct an error) -

 

Normally I read your emails, and take action when possible. In this case I feel compelled to reply.
 
I understand that the need to take action against Mr. Dobbs's behavior is a warranted one. And I also understand the impact of his words. And I note folks like Media Matters do the public a fantastic service by pointing out misinformation in the nation's established media. However Media Matters and others fail to ask a larger question within their public published works - why is this constantly happening?
 
In constantly monitoring and observing both these endless falsehoods and requests for actions, I've reached a conclusion. If not Dobbs, then someone else. Glenn Beck is a key example; he was on CNN, now he's on Fox News. They are entertainment for their audience. The nation's established media is not - and has not been for some time - objective journalism and commentary on issues affecting the public. The reason why I think so might have something to do with sad fact that the nation's established media is largely owned by a few, large media/entertainment corporations. Their bottom line is revenue, not public interest. So their goals is sell as much ad time to their sponsors.
 
Enough public outcry over an issue might compel them to act (occasionally). But it also serves to draw more interest and attention to them, and in effect generate them more revenue.
 
Getting Lou Dobbs off of CNN is a noble idea. But I suspect though he'll just move somewhere else. I think a better idea is to find a solution that involves revealing to the public the larger truth about these established media and their pretend-journalism; if one really wants a true end to all this misinformation in our public discourse.
 
I've found the only way to really fight back is to not tune into cable news or their sister media wherever and whenever possible. They need my spending power and tune-in time more than I need their lies, misinformation and propoganda. I then get my sources for news and commentary from other sources.
 
This is what I do now. I understand that it's almost impossible to really completely do. I started by not having cable, and turning off network television in my home (we only use the TV for movies and DVDs).
 
This might be construed as a ban of the nation's established media. Perhaps it's is, I cannot think of a better word at this time.
 
I'm aware that doing so is in conflict with your request for action below. While it's good to take this sort of action, I'd like see the debate over media in this country move in the direction of really questioning the motives behind all this car-crash media and really develop long-term actions that will have a more positive impact on the nation, and the world.

The failure of organized religion in the world.

I think this picture summerizes very neatly the reasons why organized religion and particularly 'modern' Christianity is slowly but surely losing its grip on influencing society.

This isn't to say it'll disappear anytime soon. The one thing people who have power fear most, is losing it.

Maybe the reason there is such a decline in attendance, is that people (particularly younger people) have long figured out that these religious leaders cannot 1) even remember their own teachings, and that 2) they cannot adapt to a changing world.

Think I'm being cruel? One of this place's recent signs said 'Forgive your enemies. Nothing irritates them more.'

To me, most religions today are in 'broken telephone' mode. While many of them had teachings and things that people can learn, that knowledge has been transferred so many times through so many generations, that's its meanings are largely lost.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 ...

... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-speech-video_n_315324.html

 

Funny how this messes up the American Right-wing pretend-world they've created for themselves in cable news and traditional media.

 

What's clear is that the American Right-Wing do not react to reality or the real world very well.

 

This comment sums up the right-wing perfectly -

 

"John Bolton and his Republican crackpots who cannot be civil to our Commander In Chief remind me of cow pancakes in the pasture. The pancakes only stink when stepped on; otherwise they dry up and blow away as fertilizer."

 

At some point, if you try to engage with people who harbor views that are virtually absent of reality, all one ends up doing is getting dirty. Best to acknowledge what they say and move on.

 

Think it's just the right-wing? Check the long-discredited Time Magazine -

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090031

Rocket Robin Hood finally coming to a store near you!

Yay!

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Rocket-Robin-Hood-New-Release-Date/12783

After a nearly two-year lull, it's good to finally see this is coming out.

At minimum, it's my hope that the release will be in the same style as the '67 Spider-Man TV Series issued on DVD.

UPDATE - oh the never-ending confusion -

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Rocket-Robin-Hood-Volume-1/12794

Argh! No wonder it's cheaper. Perhaps it's not all the episodes. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

What does health-care reform mean in the United States?

Here's Michael Moore's view -

 

1. No cost controls on insurance companies. The coming sharp increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. will quickly outpace any projected protections from caps on out-of-pocket costs.

2. Insurance companies will continue to be able to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.

3. No restrictions on insurance denials of care that insurers don't want to pay for.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/why-the-current-bills-don_b_302483.html.

Walmart appears to support this reform - now I know why.

It's always amusing to read online the opinions of people in the US who believe oppose a single-payer or national health care system for all; that it is somehow socialism. Have these people ever experienced living in one of those countries, or raising a family there? Well I've done the former, and would gladly prefer a system like Canada or Switzerland here.

The stories one never hears about ...

Seem outlandish?

Not true?

Big shock?

Even bigger shock?

Read about it here - http://wweek.com/editorial/3547/13109/ and decide for yourself.

 

Read more here  - http://www.projectcensored.org

 

'The Politico' - Stenographers for the GOP.

There are a lot of good liberal, progressive, and left-of-center policy- and research centers out on the web today (one of the best is the Center for Media and Democracy). It's a far cry from how it was 10 years ago. There are also great discussion forums like Daily Kos and MyDD that continue to offer debate on issues of the day.

 

And I'm all for having opinions that differ, existing in these environments. I think it's very important that differing viewpoints (be they liberal, conservative, or otherwise) be evaluated and the most logical, reasonable, intelligent, and forward-thinking ideas should prevail in any kind of debate.

 

I find such things don't really exist within most Conservative counterparts. I find they also largely don't exist in most mainstream media (hence the existance of Media Matters). There are no real debates - just lots of talking points and trolling. Of course talking points are all one has when one doesn't have any real arguments.

 

But real discussion of issues isn't very appealing to do where there isn't any real debate, like most conservative outlets. So often such viewpoints and trolls end up in more non-conservative sites. I find that's done to really poison the public debate going on elsewhere, or to really derail debate altogether.

 

But right-wingers also know that's not the only way to derail public debate. They have their own pretend mediums - like cable news.

 

But contrary to what many may think - I don't believe Faux News is the propoganda arm of the Republican Party. Their audience consists of conservatives, right-wingers, libertarians, and various other groups and such, so they appeal to them. In a sense, they are entertaining their audience, in order to sell their sponsors' products. This should come as no surprise in that Faux News is owned by a large entertainment media congomerate.

 

(Hey, by that argument, aren't pretty much all major networks owned by large entertainment conglomerates?)

 

By the same argument, I don't consider Rush Limbaugh the de-facto head of any political party. He's an entertainer, his audience is mostly conservative and right-wing. He's saying whatever sells his sponsors's products the most to his audience.

 

'The Politco' is a different story.

 

Exhibit A - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/ipoliticois-thrush-apolog_n_296585.html

 

"Thrush was handed a truncated quote that came bundled with an official statement from the NRCC, which Thrush included in his original report. There should have been a moment, prior to publication, where Thrush questioned the neatly wrapped gift he received from this party operative."

 

Indeed. A real journalist would've questioned what was given and verified the data was accurate.

 

Hence 'The Politico' is not - and never was - journalism. Unlike Faux and Rush, I consider them a publisher of the American Republican Party spin. Their entire existence came about from various right-wing sources - read Glenn Greenwald's Politico origins.

 

(Check this out for a more recent Politco takedown - courtesy Mr. Greenwald).

 

Any person or persons using Politco as a source of anything is diluting their own credibility in a debate, or otherwise.

 

The Obama Healthcare plan ...

   ... in 4 minutes.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/21/784906/-Pass-it-on:-President-Obamas-HealthCare-Plan-in-4-Minutes

 

While I'm happy that there is a public health care option, I wish it wouldn't just be restricted to those who don't have coverage, or for those who are changing jobs or starting a new business.

 

Lots of people have crappy insurance through their employer and pay up the nose every month.

 

But still, I'm glad it's there.

The Internet - The Last Frontier on Earth.

Net Neutrality Shifts Into High Gear

For as long as perhaps when people started walking the Earth, we have been destroying it. Land, water, people, air, you name it. Causes of such things include disease, war, hatred, greed, money, power, and violence that has come and wrecked those things and those we cherish.

Now, our planet is at a point where the decisions made over the next few years I think will shape our planet’s collective future. The generations that succeed mine and those before will have to deal with the fallout of those decisions.

One of the things that may decide this is the battle over the Internet. It is one that I think years from now, will be seen as the decisive battle between corporations, governments, military and the establishment(s) vs. the people of this planet.

For a long time, these interests have acquired a massive amount of political, financial, and economic power, much of which has little to no accountability.

The Internet represents a domain where knowledge can be a great equalizer between the rich, the poor, and those in-between. Those that have the ability to access it, to learn, and to act on what they learn will not only survive, but succeed.

It can also be a great medium of communication that can bring people together and solve many complex problems facing all of us, as well as help us get further in resolving conflict. Indeed, it has shown that it can turn things around – I think the 2008 US Elections would not have achieved the result it did, without the existence of the Internet.

But in its current state, I believe the Internet also represents the last real chance people of the Earth have in fighting off the dominant control currently being held by those interests who seek to maintain what they have, and increase it to what they don’t have.

For if those forces succeed in boring out the tube of connectivity and determine what flows through and how much, I fear we as a people will reach a point-of-no-return in being able to tackle some of the great problems facing us - that number one issue being Global Warming.

Unless a true form of net neutrality is formed and enforced by all countries, I fear there will be no hope.

Information will be doled out based on who pays, and who has access. Content will be controlled by who ‘owns’ the pipe. In a real sense, this battle is one over power, control, and information over all of us. The Internet will become less of an information superhighway, and more of a controlled content distribution system.

And make no mistake, those that control, those that wish to control - they are getting ready. And because of their already existing connections to those with political power, they have a headstart.

At this point I cannot say what till happen. I'm not even sure what I can do. But I know - I know I have to pay attention. I know I'll have to reach out.

And I know - I know that whatever happens, I must not fail to stop trying.

The stakes are high, and so are the consequences. The moment we as a people tune out, stop paying attention, stop caring, stop fighting, that's when I'll know that the establishment has won.

All of us will lose - and will pay the price.

When war becomes the main export, the empire is already in decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-a-clarke/more-troops-to-afghanista_b_283466.html

 

As much as I respect Richard Clarke and his views and opinions, there's fundamental disagreement I have with this viewpoint.

 

And I fear that (on the anniversary of the events of 9/11), we've already lost the chance to learn anything.

 

It's a fallacy - the underlying notion that the United States, has the unilateral right to invade other countries. This should not be confused with ensuring one's nation is secure, as security doesn't just involve invasion. It would include shoring up our defenses, work to prevent attacks, work with other countries, etc).

 

To me those are two different things. The latter is something nations do - the former is something empires do.

 

This commenter sums it up best -

 

"Any strategy we use in Afghanistan will be the wrong one, for the simple reason that the U.S. presence there is the main cause of the violence. But conventional thinking in Washington is now so imperialist that our officials think they have the right to invade any nation they want, for as long as they want, as long as it suits our politicians. I doubt that anyone seriously thinks any Af-Pak strategy will work. It's just a matter of stalling and kicking the can down the road so some other president gets the humiliation of the eventual pullout. Vietnam all over again. But's it's great for business, isn't it? Just think of all the gasoline, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, etc. that's used. "

Bloc-heads – Who are supporters of the Bloc Québécois and why?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/09/08/gilles-duceppe.html

 Let’s assume for a moment that I agree with those residents of Quebec who believe that it is a nation that exists within Canada – that I agree with this person’s definition of what a nation is –

“A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.”

Okay.

So following that, why on earth would I believe that somehow, miraculously, the Bloc Québécois is going to make that happen?

If you assume that they can via being part of the federal government that would presume that the either they would form a majority government, a minority government, or be part of a coalition.

1. The first scenario will never happen – I don’t think Canadians en masse will vote for a group that claims to only represents the interests of one province (‘nation’ if you will) only to have that same group then leave the country.

2. The second scenario is plausible only if no other party gets enough seats, though I cannot see that lasting for very long. Eventually, I think it would revert back to the first scenario.

3. The third scenario is also plausible, but again, it won’t last long enough to achieve any type of sovereignty-type solution.

This leaves the Bloc Québécois as an Opposition Party (i.e. not in a position of power), which has been their default position since their formation.

• What have they really accomplished for Quebec since then?
• What legislation have they passed, or laws they’ve enacted that demonstrate they can accomplish the tasks for the people they represent?
• What action or actions have they taken to demonstrate to residents in Quebec that they are one step closer to achieving their goals?

The Clarity Act? – I would argue this was done to rope in the sovereignty movement by establishing and framing any debate on the conditions of when a province or region can leave Confederation.

So I ask those who insist that they’d vote for the Bloc Québécois in a pending Canadian Federal Election? Why would you vote for a group that can never accomplish what you’d want, under any possible legal rational circumstances?

As for what I really think elections can do for the Bloc, well .... I think I've covered that one before.

What does it mean today? Has the dream come true?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream

 

"I Have A Dream" is the popular name given to the public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke of his desire for a future where blacks and whites, among others, would coexist harmoniously as equals. King's delivery of the speech on August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement. Delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters,^[1] the speech is often considered to be one of the greatest and most notable speeches in human history and was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century by a 1999 poll of scholars of public address.^[2] According to U.S. Representative John Lewis, who also spoke that day as the President of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, "Dr. King had the power, the ability and the capacity to transform those steps on the Lincoln Memorial into a monumental area that will forever be recognized . By speaking the way he did, he educated, he inspired, he informed not just the people there, but people throughout America and unborn generations."^[3]

 

 

Today I wonder, has that dream really come true? Do we as a people really co-exist harmoniously today? Are we really all equal?

 

I wonder if that's true.

 

I've heard many point to Barack Obama's election as President of the United States of America in 2008 as a definitive 'yes' to such a question. And it's true that it's something truly awesome to expereince.

 

But the context of it isn't completely clear for me. For one thing, this country on many levels have been (and a largely still are) a very large mess of problems, many of which are unsolved. People's lives are more screwed up due to their loss of jobs, loss of their homes, loss of financial security. Many more face health crises, and even more face additional health care costs crises. Some of us wonder if everything we've worked for will mean something later on in life. I wonder if I'll have any money left to take care of my family when I can no longer work. Then I wonder about the state of the world. I wonder if I'm really doing my part to make the world a better place for my kids. I wonder why people in the country are not really doing more to address some of changes going on with our globe (i.e. that it's getting warmer) and why it's not being done now.

 

I ask that of others, but perhaps I really need to ask myself first.

 

And it's within this larger context - that is, people's lives are so much more messed up that they either hit or are near rock-bottom - that they finally decided to change who represents them in government.

 

And what further messes will they - and other kids - have to clean up, in addition to the ones mine and previous generations have failed to resolve?

 

And will my kids truly be seen for who they are. Often times, it doesn't matter how smart or how nice or how strong one is. Sadly, I think in this day and age, a lot of people still think with their eyes. They see a skin color and their underlying assumptions of what that means to them really dictate the way they treat the person in front of them.

 

There's no doubt the dream still persists. There's no doubt many of us still pursue it. To me pursuit of the dream of equality is just a part of the larger dream - the pursuit of liberty and happiness.

 

And I really think - there is still so much more to be done.