Can I just say, "What the #)%$U()???!!!???

Listen, I'm no different than anyone else (except in a couple of interesting ways that I'll not get into at the moment); I don't like to get subpoenas either. I mean really, who likes to get 1) an order from 2) the government 3) ordering you to do something that's almost no fun at all when you're already so busy. But, a subpoena is a subpoena and this is why God made lawyers. I say that with all affection and I mean it. This is precisely what lawyers are for.

So anyway, you'd think that after the past 7 years or so of the current administration essentially trampling on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I'd be used to seeing someone in government thumb their nose at a lawful order. I mean, when the White House tells some of the government employees that work there that they can ignore a subpoena from the Congress; well, anything's possible.

Now, I know there are arguments about those White House guys enjoying executive privilege and therefore they don't have to talk about private conversations they had with the President, but a subpoena says you have to show up. One may or may not have to testify. This is why God made the 5th Amendment and why someone made up the whole "executive privilege" thing and someone else came up with a bunch of other alternatives to actually testifying. But, in my limited layman's understanding, when you get a subpoena you're supposed to obey the law and show up.

Now after, as I indicated earlier, 7-plus years of some pretty legally questionable behaviour, we might ought be used to it. But now, we have this whole investigation going on in Alaska around Governor Palin and her administration and subpoenas have been issued and people are saying they're going to ignore them. And I understand this is not an "executive privilege" kind of thing. This is, "I'm going to ignore this because I can and if you want me to show up, well, make me."

Oh, there's the usual "they're only doing this 1) to embarrass the governor; 2) because it's politically motivated; 3) and it's not even really a case." Of course, none of that matters. If the subpoenas were legally issued by a legal body allowed to issue subpoenas (I tried subpoenaing a lady once and she referred my name to a law enforcement bureau, but that's another story) and it was all done legally then they should at least show up. Again, this is why we have a legal system and lawyers. And incidentally, don't tell me you're all about law and order and system of government and justice and then announce to the world that you're going to ignore a subpoena. Mutually exclusive stuff, in my view.

So this is all very aggravating for me, but it brings up a larger point: what are people supposed to tell their kids about respect for the law and for law enforcement when leaders go out in public and tell the world that they're ignoring a subpoena. And telling me that most kids don't know what subpoena is or they don't understand the 5th Amendment or executive privilege is not an answer.

John Donne wrote: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." I know it says Europe, but insert "the United States" and it's still the same message. It's all connected. Our leaders can't go around breaking laws big and small and believe that their actions don't have implications for all of us.

Dang, but I'd love to have some leaders in this country who would demonstrate some integrity from time to time. They don't have to actually have any; they just need to demonstrate some.

I was for it, before I was...no, I've always been for it and I don't even know what it is

Politics is complicated. Either that, or it's really simple.

I know a guy who recently won an election by campaigning only to a small minority of people that he knew 1) voted in the last three elections; 2) lived within a few blocks of each other; and 3) could be counted on to show up at the polls and vote, presumably for him and not against him.

He didn't spend much money trying to "get his message out." He didn't spend a lot of time walking the precincts or going door-to-door and meeting the electorate. He bought a few direct mail pieces that he sent to the folks I mentioned in the first paragraph. And he won.

Now I like politics; I always have. Wait. Let me clarify: I like the idea of politics--the give and take, the wrestling of ideas, the articulation of policy and position. This is why I have a degree in Political Science. It's also why I don't run for office.

Running for office has nothing to do with any of those cool things I just mentioned. Running for office is about scaring people; telling them what a tool your opponent is; reminding them that you're just like them and your opponent isn't; and, promising them that if elected you'll do a lot of stuff for them that you have absolutely no ability to do. Makes you wonder why anyone would run.

I asked a guy who was running for office why he was running and he gave me some cockamaimy answer about wanting to serve or feeling like he had something to offer. So, I asked him how he was going to get anything done. Was he going to work with "the other side?" He blanched and then mumbled something about how he was going to get stuff done because there was stuff to be done and he was just the guy to do some stuff.

He didn't have a clue. But, he did get elected.

And that's the thing: no matter how much we hope for something higher than ourselves in our elected officials, the truth is it's just about getting elected. And getting elected is just about knowing how to do it. It's the reason they call it political science. There's a real science to knowing what levers to pull and buttons to push to garner more votes than your opponent. It's not about having the best ideas or being the most pragmatic and willing to work with people to get things done. It's about being able to work the process.

Whew. Man, did I just bum myself out.

I'm Blogging the Talk or the Walk or something

The first time I heard the phrase, "You can talk the talk; can you walk the walk?" was in that great Kubrick film, "Full Metal Jacket." Joker (Mathew Modine), a Marine journalist writing for Stars and Stripes, was shooting off his mouth to a battle-hardened Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin. Mother strolls up to Joker after a particularly pointed remark and says, "You can talk the talk; can you walk the walk?" Thankfully, Eightball (the estimable Dorian Harewood) steps between the two and staves off a fight. Ever since then I've heard this poignant and pointed phrase butchered by the wise and the idiotic.

"Well, he can talk the talk, but can he walk the talk?

"That guy can walk the talk, but can he talk the walk?

Ladies and gentlemen, please write this down: Talk the talk; walk the walk. Simple. Direct.
There is no walking the talk or talking the walk.

"Walk a mile in my shoes." Learn what it is to be in my situation before you judge me. "You got to walk that lonesome valley..." You have to live on your own and learn what life is for you.
That's the walking part. The talking part goes more to "well, he certainly talks a good game."

Clearly "talking the talk" means that one can shoot off one's mouth and sound really good, but it doesn't necessarily mean much. "Walking the walk" means that one has and/or is living a life and engaging in it on a day-to-day basis. Clearly "walking the walk" is respected and revered; "talking the talk" is reviled and considered small and worthless.

If you're going to use these really good and illuminating phrases, use 'em right people!

Next post I'm going to take up that maligned Jimi Hendrix phrase, "'scuse me while I kiss this guy."

It's the net, but it's not neutral

Friends, colleagues and hapless victims, today's post may be a tad esoteric, but stay with me because I'll be addressing one or two universal truths while, at the same time, coming up with some pretty amazing leaps of logic and thought pattern.



There's this new thing, you see, called "net neutrality." Net Neutrality is the notion that I, or you, or that ham sandwich over there should be able, if not enabled, to send anything we want over the internet at any time. I'm not talking about the content of your content. That's not what this is about; it's not a First Amendment thing. If it were, I'd be wrapped in that like a turkish bathrobe. No, this is about the size of things you send over the internet.



For example, if you're like most folks, your use of the internet is limited to e-mail, sending and receiving a photo or two, downloading a video or two from YouTube; stuff like that. There are, however, the pointy headed guys who send around full size copies of "Heaven's Gate" and the like. Giant files. Truly huge-ass down and uploads. Fortunately, they don't live next door to me.



For you see, your internet service provider's system is a little like the highway: the less traffic there is, the faster you can go. So when I'm doing my e-mail and photos I'm not taking up too much room so I, and those like me, can go pretty fast. But if you have one or two guys sending and receiving giant, steaming piles of movie or music or whatever, well they really gum things up.



To combat the gumming up part, internet service providers usually have a bandwidth management plan that says that any one user can't send and receive more than "X" amount of data at any one time. The Net Neutrality guys say that the internet is public and therefore they should be able to do, send and receive anything of any size at any time. Well, the internet is public, but most internet service providers, the guys who provide the wires and servers and all the stuff that enables us to get onto and off the internet are usually private. Government doesn't own 'em; private individuals and companies do and we all pay for the privilege of using their gear to help us find the best porn.



The Net Neutrality crowd, thwarted as they have been from time to time in hogging all the speed on some systems have now gone to the federal government. They say that (here's some really good logic, by the way) a) because the internet is public; and b) they're the public; and 3)they use the internet; 4) the private owners of the systems that get us to the internet should be forced to let them do whatever they want. They're asking the government to force private owners to abandon their efforts to protect the vast majority of internet users and allow the unfettered hogging of space by a few, well, hogs. And this, to them, amounts to a First Amendment issue.



Well, of course, it really isn't a First or any other Amendment issue, but the thinking is that if you wrap yourself in the Constitution or any of the amendments thereto you'll have a better chance of getting the government to give you a break over the next guy. This has nothing to do with content (much like my blog). This has to do with private enterprise and the ability to police your private stuff.



Now that we're buried deep in the bowels of this posting I will tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, that my employer, Cox Communications, is an internet service provider and I fully agree with their position on net neutrality which is to oppose it. But I would oppose it whether I worked for them or not. Net neutrality says that I can do whatever I want with your stuff that I'm using and you can't do anything about it. That's plainly wrong in this blogger's opinion.



Suppose I rent cars for a living. Suppose they're really nice cars; Chevy's or something. I have a rule that says that anyone renting my cars is not allowed to take them off-roading; got to keep them on the streets and highways. Net neutrality, in the world of auto rental, would say that I can't have that rule. Anyone who rents my cars is allowed to do anything they want to and even I, the owner, am not allowed to prevent it. That, I think, is kind of nutty.



From an owners' point of view, I would like to be able to make rules for the use of my private property. From the point of view of a reasonable user of that private property I like the idea that my provider is able to make rules that ensure that everyone gets fair use of the property; that it's not overused by some clown in a way that makes my usage less than it should be.



So I'd say, hey Mr. Government Man, just say "no" to Net Neutrality. Keep the internet safe and fast for those of us who will never do more than scratch the surface of it.

Well, it's just my opinion...but it's pretty darn interesting

What makes me think that anyone in their right mind (and that could be the key to the question) would give a hoot about my opinion? And yet, here I sit blogging myself silly. It could just as easily have been called "opinionating."

I'm not full of facts. Oh, I know some things, but I couldn't tell you that I'm going to sway any one person to a point of view because of the astounding command I have of facts and figures. I only have my opinion, but through the magic of this blog server I can offer up every little nugget of sludge and drivel that I can think of on a host of topics. And you, my friend, have come along and are willingly reading this and thinking, "geez, what a jerk." Well, you my friend, are the putz because you're willingly reading it. Just think, by the end of this post, you could be stupider than when you started. All because you read my blog.

Unfortunately, I think this is what we've become: a nation of opinions based on little more than our gut feeling and upbringing (although I'm certain some things have my parents rolling in their respectie graves, God rest their souls when they're through spinning.)

"Well, that's just the way I feel."

"Well, I may not know much, but I know how I feel about ...."

"Hey, I'm no expert, but..."

So here I sit both pronouncing my opinion and, at the same time, decrying the fact that
I can so easily express it. Is this a great, ironic country or what?

The beauty of these bloggy things is that they're not a meritocracy. I am not compelled to stop blogging because nobody reads my posts. If this were a business, I'd be broke by now because so few people read my stuff; so few people really even know about it. But it's not a business. So I can just keep on flapping my fingers and if you happen to fall into my blog (and out of the gazillions of things that are on the internet to capture your attention, if you fell into this you really have my sympathy) you'll read some of it. You might even be intrigued for a moment or two.

And then, with any luck, you'll realize that I'm just as full of c--p as the next guy and go back to hunting for porn.

With friends like these...

Colleagues, there's the old bromide that you can't have too many friends. Could be true, but more to the point, I think we don't have enough enemies. God knows, I don't. At least I don't think I do. In fact, I'm not sure I have any except those which I've manufactured. Which brings us to the point of this missive: the need, nay, the necessity of enemies.

Back in the day, one could have enemies. Whether it was the British or the French or the Indians or the Blacks or the Whites or the Democrats or the Confederates, everyone had enemies. And they were mortal enemies, too. They'd just as soon kill you as look at you; you felt the same about them. And the important thing about them was that they defined who were your friends. How can you have friends if you don't have any enemies?

Today we have what we call "friends," but in too many cases, they're really just really good acquaintances. They're folks that we "know" by sight and whose names we remember (although we rarely remember both their last AND first names; we usually refer to them as "bud," or "pal," or "hombre" or any of a number of names that almost certainly telegraph that we don't have any idea who they are). Anyway, we think we like them and that they like us and in truth they and we probably do, but we don't know if they're our "friends" because we don't know who our enemies are. Sad fact: we may not have any.

Oh, I'd like to hate the Republicans or the liberals or the conservatives or the commies or the hillbillies or the hippies or the Methodists or the Scientologists, but I can only do so in the abstract. Like when I'm sitting here blogging, those bastards. Or when I read in the LA Times what boneheaded thing they've done or said. Why, if I had a gun...

But the reality is that if given the opportunity to stand in front of them and confront them, I'd like them; I'd like having dinner with them. I'd enjoy them as people.

Oh, I've know a few real jackasses in my years; folks that I would cross a busy LA street to avoid if I saw them coming, but they are few and far between. And despite the minor enmity that I feel for them I'd be hard pressed to say that I hate them or that they're truly mine enemy.

If we had enemies, we'd know who to hate at any given moment. It wouldn't matter what the did or said; we'd just hate 'em simply for taking up space on the planet.

These days, we're civilized. We're sold on the idea of free speech. That whole thing of, "I will disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is a wonderfully civilized sentiment. It takes the edge off what all the pinheads in the world do and it makes it not just hard, but virtually impossible to hate them.

That kind of sentiment puts us all on the same footing; it recognizes that we all have opinions and that we should respect the opinions of everyone and expect that they will respect ours. We don't have to agree with them, but we have to respect their right to have their opinion and their right to express and our right to disagree with it. It's very adult. Very civilized.

It never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can beat the crap out of each other in court and then walk down to the corner and have a beer at the end of the day. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to simply shoot your opponent on the steps of the courthouse for making you look like a horse's ass in front of your client? Aren't they enemies? Wouldn't it be easier to beat up on your opponent if you really hated his living guts?

Seems to me that if you don't hate his living guts you're probably just play-acting. You're probably just pretending. Why, you're probably committing malpractice on a grand scale every time you set foot in the courtroom!

Dang, I hate lawyers. But not really.

Dang.

The Tyranny of Availability

So, now I'm a blogger. I've joined the blogosphere. I've become blogerriphic. Politicians will fear me. Other bloggers will revere me for my witty and insightful...

Never mind.

I'm a blogger because it's pretty easy to do. Google, the monster search engine and affiliated companies, makes it painfully easy. They have templates to make your blog look like something. They have the means to allow me to change the font in which I blog and to change the color of the fonts and the background and the borders. And, they'll host it for me so that anyone putting just the right search words into just the right syntax into Google will find my blog. The only thing Google can't do is make this or any blog interesting. But easy? Oh, yes, they can make it easy. Which is the tyranny of it.

These blogs are vanity press to the nth degree. I and thousands like me can kill untold hours sitting at the computer writing and posting on my blog the most tedious, banal, mindless drivel imaginable.

Oh. And did I mention it's free?

So today everyone has a blog. A blog about bicycles and cycling; a blog about Rastafarianism. A blog about soccer; a blog about "scrap booking." There is, more than likely, a blog about anything and everything imaginable.

And, in all that detritus, there are probably some nuggets, but not as many as we need.

I'll bet if Google or any of the other blog engines charged $5.00 a month there would be about a zillion fewer blogs.

Better it make it $10.00 a month. I'd continue doing this blog if it was just $5.00.

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

The other day General Wesley Clark made a remark. He said that he didn't think being a fighter pilot and getting shot down qualified someone to be President. The hue and cry went up that he was besmirching the heroic service of candidate McCain (you see, he was a fighter pilot who not only got shot down, but spent six years in a North Vietnamese prison.) McCain's been proclaimed by folks all over the tube as an "American Hero."

It's true that McCain was a pilot; that he was shot down. Question is: does that make him a hero? He was doing his job, it went wrong, he went through hell before it was all over, but does that make him a hero?

Likewise, are the people who died (God rest their souls) in the 9-11 attack heroes? They were in a building that got attacked and they were killed. That sounds more like they were victims to me.

I think the word "hero" gets tossed around quite a bit these days because it evokes sentiments that politicians or pundits believe will motivate the masses. They can evoke sympathy (9-11 victims) or they can invoke patriotism (war prisoners). And it works, but why?

It works because we have so few real heroes in our midst these days, at least at the highly publi level. The paucity of something like heroism tends to make it more valuable. So, at a time when there are few real big-time heroes, labeling someone or some ones as heroic makes it especially poignant.

With this in mind, I think we need a few rules around who can be a hero.

In order to be a hero you must:

1. Selflessly save someone else's life. It would be a bonus if you lost yours while doing it. Not a requirement, but as I say, a bonus.
2. Selflessly help someone who really needs it. Pretty broad, I know, but if you find someone that really needs some help--no matter what it is--and you step up, you're a good candidate.
3. Selflessly keep your mouth shut about saving someone's life or helping someone out.

You are probably specifically not a hero if:

A. You join any uniformed service. There are great career opportunities in the uniformed services. Pays pretty low, but the health benefits are good and the retirement benefits are excellent, I'm told. And, you might get an opportunity to be a hero (see #1 and #2 above). But just joining up doesn't make you a hero. Some of the most unheroic SOB's I've known wore the uniform.
B. You take up a vocation that helps people. More good careers. Again, pays low, benefits are generally bad; retirement bennies are almost non-existent. But you might get to be a hero. The vocation doesn't automatically make you one, though. There are plenty of molesting priests and thieving non-profit executives.
C. You are injured in some way while doing whatever it is you do in A and/or B above. Unless, of course, you're injured while doing #1 or #2 above.

Keeping these simple rules in mind we can all probably think of someone who's a real, bona fide hero. But it's not who you'd think.

Is it just me or...never mind. It's just me.

Watching MSNBC today and heard that "they" are dismayed with candidate Obama because he's slewing hard toward the middle. Bob Herbert, in the NY Times, made some thinly veiled snide comment about Obama lurching toward the middle and enraging his constituency.

Is it just me or is the middle where most Americans are; where most voters are? And if we're all pretty much in the middle and Obama's "lurching" toward us, isn't that a good thing?

I've never been partisan. I'm a pretty practical, non-ideological guy. I like things that work the way they're supposed to and I like to get things done. These two notions would put me seemingly on the outside of the mainstream of American politics. That's too bad because I'm also a pretty political guy. And I believe that there are more of me than there of them. And I don't have a problem with anyone who wants go make things better generally and wants to get things done, and wants to give people hope (in lieu of scaring them to death) lurches generally in my direction.

On the other hand, if there are so many of us in the middle why does the mainstream media feel the need to skew one direction or the other?

It's entirely possible that I'm really full of crap.