Southeast to Southwest

Is Facebook worth it?

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:03:20 PST

Over the time I've had a Facebook account I've often wondered whether the whole "social media" circus was worth the trouble and strife it causes. A couple years ago I even deleted my Facebook account and started a whole new one because over time I'd picked up dozens of people who did little but get on my nerves. I vowed that I would not make that mistake again and would limit myself to people I knew in the real world.

But here's the funny thing. A lot of the people I know in the real world cause a lot of grief. There's one person I was very close to and with whom I enjoyed spending time in the real world. Then, through Facebook, I saw a mean and ugly side of her. Racist rants against Hispanics and immigrants, rants against access to affordable healthcare, rants against "liberals" and Democrats, etc. I had a lot of trouble fitting that with how I had always viewed her. I found that I couldn't share in her Facebook experience because each time she posted those things (which was several times a day) I found myself grieving because I never expected such ugliness. I also found I couldn't look at her the same way in person. We drifted apart. I stopped planning days out, she stopped inviting us to dinners. Soon, there were no more shared meals, no more shopping days, no more movie marathons, no more shared holidays. We're still "nominally" friends on Facebook but I know that my posts are hidden on her feed as hers are hidden on mine. Rarely, now will we cross in a short comment on someone's profile we both know.

There's another friend I used to work with some years ago. We had a great time together. We sort of knew that we had different politics so following the old Southern rule of never discussing politics or religion we steered clear of the subject(s). We enjoyed our work time and developed a nice working friendship. Since I moved to Arizona we kept up a sporadic communication through email - sharing family news, commiserating over getting older and how her business was doing. Then we reconnected on Facebook and all that changed. Now politics and religion came into play because with the click of a button you can "share" things you normally wouldn't discuss in regular company. Sure enough, we began to drift apart. She posted photoshopped pictures of President Obama saying he wasn't a "real American." When I pointed out the photos were fakes she became upset with me. Now, we don't have a lot to say.

Some time ago, I reconnected on Facebook with an acquaintance from my high school days. He was an unusual character back then - think a blond Judd Nelson from The Breakfast Club. Yeah, there was a little bit of a crush thing going on for my part. Anyway, we connected and come to find out he's joined a very conservative religious group and is now a minister. OK, we could deal with that, right? Just keep it light, reminisce and have fun. It worked fine for about a month. When he asked about my home life I was honest and told him I was gay and happily partnered for many years. Then he realized I was an atheist. We suddenly went from reminiscing to him sending me long messages and posts more or less demanding I account for myself and my philosophy. At first I tried to be polite and explain things to him but it quickly became apparent I was some type of project. The messages became long lists of loaded questions. Finally, I had to tell him I didn't owe him anything - we'd known each other 20+ years ago and that was it. It was a very disconcerting experience. Would he have been that way in person if we'd met at a reunion? I don't know, but I can't help but think not.

Of course, as hard as might try to limit exposure to people who cause you distress - racists, homophobes, religious zealots, etc., with Facebook it's nearly impossible. Every "friend" your friend has is right there in your face 24/7. Maybe they're cool with ignorance or bullying or meanness, but because they're your friend you're forced to deal with it too. For example a straight friend posts something supportive of the LGBT community. Their "friend" is a homophobe so there's the homophobic rant right in your face too. Facebook is one of the few places I have been called a "faggot." It's just such a pain to deal with crap like that nearly every day you open the page.

So, I wonder, is it worth it? Sure Facebook is supposed to be able to limit the scope of posts, but honestly, the system is so arcane most people can't figure it out. It's not intuitive like on Google+ where it asks you point blank who you want to share with before you submit the post.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive. When I did a search for articles and posts about this topic I come up woefully blank. There were some but most were complaints about narcicisstic posts, Farmville, banal updates, etc. There wasn't much there about actual content. Seriously, I'd rather have 20 photos the kids than one photo of President Obama as the Joker from Batman with some racial slur attached.

I honestly like to keep my illusions about people I know. I like to think they're all wonderfully charming people who treat others with respect, dignity, charity and compassion. That's not a hard delusion to maintain in the real world when abiding by that Southern dictum that politics and religion are never discussed in polite company. On Facebook, there's just no way to maintain that illusion and the ugly truth is often shoved right into your face. After that it's hard to look at a real friend the same way again.

The romance of a Guillotine

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:45:26 PDT

I'll admit that in all the years I was groomed to teach history I never really got the French Revolution. Sure, on some intellectual level I understood the forces involved in the greatest upheaval of European society in the history of the world. But, I didn't "get"all the violence. After all, the French Revolution was preceded by the American Revolution and despite a war we didn't tend to have a prolonged period of bloody retribution. Sure, there was a lot of neighbor getting even with neighbor, particularly in the south. But, there was no Reign of Terror and we didn't spend several years lopping the heads off people. I just couldn't fathom all of that.

Of course, it's comparing apples and oranges. The American Revolution was more a philosophical debate that degenerated into violence. There wasn't real oppression involved, more the idea of oppression. People spent a lot of time bellyaching about taxes and what not without ever considering that someone has to pick up the bill for their protection and infrastructure. It didn't matter that Americans paid far less in taxes than their British kin. No, much like today, Americans didn't want to pay for anything but have it magically appear when they needed it. I suppose the more things change the more they stay the same here in the colonies.

In France, though, they had some spectacular oppression. The gap between rich and poor or noble and common was astounding. There were two different worlds in France. In fact, it's a lot like it is today in the United States. We have the super wealthy 1% of the population who control well over 90% of all the money in the nation. Think about that, of all the wealth in the United States 99% of the people share less than 10% of it! One day of work for a CEO at one of the top companies in America (say Johnson & Johnson) equals the annual salary of the average American - $35,000! That's very much like what it was in France before the Revolution. That doesn't even take into account the retained wealth of the top 1% families who work tirelessly to make sure not a penny of their wealth gets diluted or shared with the masses.

The more I read of, see, and experience the horrible income disparities the more I understand the violence of the French Revolution. After all, how much can people be expected to take before they simply cry "Enough!" and start dishing out payback?

Every day I see people on Facebook holding fundraisers so their friends or family can get medical care. Often, it's far too late and a disease has progressed to the point of no return. Yet, a surgery that could have saved a life might have been only a half day's wages for a CEO. Think about that. Let's say you make $15 an hour and work 8 hours a day. Each day you gross about $120. Now, let's say that you ran across someone whose life you could save with $60. Would you do it? Of course you would. It's why the middle class and poor turn out to bake sales and garage sales to contribute to people in need. It's why they sponsor kids through those hunger programs.

As I watch stories and documentaries about the super rich and in particular the super rich who have established dynasties for their families for generations past, present, and to come, I am maddened by what I see. These are people who own corporations but have never worked a day in their lives. They never have to worry about seeing a doctor or whether the car is going to start so they can get the kids to public school. They don't have to decide whether to buy a couple apples or spend their few dollars on the jumbo sized processed bag of chips so their family has something to eat. They don't need to worry where the rent is coming from this month because their baby needed to go the pediatrician or how they'll juggle the mortgage when the roof needs repairing too. No, their big concern is whether to spend the weekend at the house in the Hamptons or the one in Monte Carlo and which senator to buy with a few well placed donations and bribes.

That's why I've finally started "getting" the French Revolution. I understand the anger of the French peasants and shopkeepers who struggled daily to eke out the most eager living while the wealth continued to concentrate in the hands of hereditary nobility. We've established a hereditary nobility in America, too. Our Founders fought to prevent it but the Republicans have been working like mad to dismantle their ideals. You hear it every time one of them waxes on about "death taxes." You hear it every time one of them mocks the idea of the super rich paying enough in taxes to ensure wealth doesn't concentrate in the hands of a few. You hear it pretty much every time a Republican, who to a man, are owned by the super rich opens his mouth!

Yes, I understand the romance of the guillotine. I get it. I get the frustration. I get the horror of watching your nation become a joke and a toy for the super privileged. And I know that I would be hard put, just as many French people in 1789 were, to raise a cry of protest when the scaffolds are erected in the town square.

Civic Boosters

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:17:11 PDT

If there is one group of people who can irk me to no end it would be the perpetually upbeat civic booster. You know the type. Wherever they live is the greatest place that has ever existed in the entire spectrum of human history!!! (Exclamation points are theirs.)

They're the kind of people who just chafe at the idea that anything in their town or city could possibly be inferior to another town or city. They consistently refuse to see reality because they're too busy "promoting" their town to people who don't care. It's not their job. They don't get paid by the tourism folks or convention bureau, they just feel the need to chirp on and on about the "uniqueness" and "charm" of their city. And, I swear, if I hear one more vomit forth some platitude about how "organic" the people who live in their city are I think I might actually vomit on their shoes. We're not talking pesticide free either. Organic has come to mean the local hippies throw some shindigs that are always in financial disarray but full of "spiritual" platitudes.

There are great benefits to almost any town or city. I loved Halloween in my hometown where hundreds of kids took to the streets of our historic neighborhood. That was "organic" in that no one organized it. Everyone just pitched in and made a great party for all. By the same token the local civic boosters would go overboard on things. When they redid a 19th century opera house to the tune of $6 million the boosters had a field day. They decided to start their own opera company in a town of 30,000 people and no established classical music teachers, singers or programs. Within months they had the temerity to compare themselves to the San Francisco Opera or the Met. Seriously, that is how deluded civic boosters can get! The operas were horrid by any standard but amateur, yet they wanted people to believe their quality rivaled that of Covent Garden or La Scala, and they had the ticket prices to prove it!

I now live in Tucson, whose Halloween sucks for trick or treaters incidentally. For the most part I like the city and its people. If I had my 'druthers I'd be in New England where I'd have some modicum of equality, but since I'm in Arizona, Tucson is the place to be. But the civic boosters here are quite a breed. The downtown is falling apart and dirty. Their development board can't get its act together so the place is a mishmash of uber trendy bistros, junk stores, abandoned buildings, and offices. It's all layered with a fine coating of dirt and grime that make me think of the flight from the cities in the 60's and 70's. The city has mismanaged millions of dollars on some development project for a convention center and hotel that dates back a decade or more. Nothing has ever come of their grand plans except lawsuits, recrimination, and wasted cash. It's like no one has a clue about downtown redevelopment here. Their general approach is to raze any building no matter how historic if they can't think of an immediate use and without any type of architectural board throw up whatever anyone wants. They tore down an historic hotel to put up a glass and steel monstrosity for the power company. When I mentioned it was a horrible waste not to mention blight in an historic area I was taken to task by a civic booster who thought the building would put the Louvre pyramid to shame. Seriously!


Signs from the Occupy Tucson rallies.

As the Occupy Wall Street protests have spread, a local group here joined in and occupied a city park. The protest has been moderately successful with a few hundred people the first day and about 75 the second. I'm sure the number will drop during the week but I hope it will rise again on the weekend. Yet, that has not gone without a goodly dose of civic boosterism. Of course, they don't seem to be decided yet whether a protest is a good thing or a bad thing. That, my friends, is hilarious to watch.

You have one civic booster who touts the protests and is really into them. Tucson has the best around! Woo Hoo! Then you have another civic booster who comes from the "protesting is so messy" camp who delivers a backhanded compliment but quietly complains that Tucson has so much more to be proud of than protestors - after all the city is so "organic" and "while protests have their place" we should focus more on the "organic nature" of Tucson's "vibrant" scene. (ugh) Then a civic booster chimes in about how nice the police in Tucson are. After all, they aren't ACTUALLY arresting people. Just issuing them citations and summons that could include fines as high as $2000, a misdemeanor conviction, and jail time if the fine is not paid. They are also dating the citations so everyone who receives one will have to leave the park (if the protest is still going) to appear in court on the same day at the same times or face jail. Of course, those citations are for EVERY DAY the protestors occupy the park. But, hey, the police are the nicest police in the whole wide world because they're only using financial measures to squelch free speech, not pesky pepper spray and batons.

Seriously, this is how loopy civic boosters get. They must continually find the silver lining in every aspect of their town even if reality dictates there is no silver lining.

Let's face it compare your city to any other half dozen and you'll come up short in at least a few areas. No city is perfect and pretending problems doesn't exist or whitewashing them doesn't help your city improve. When there is a problem the rational thing to do is simply assess and address it, not shut your eyes and start pointing at something else while singing "See, that's good! See, that's good!"

Yes, Tucson friends you have a Blues Festival. I come from a place that has Spoleto USA, an international arts festival that brings in the top performers in classical, jazz, and contemporary music from around the world as well as performing artists, comedians, visual artists, and lecturers. Yes, you have the All Souls Procession which is way cool. But New Orleans and Mobile have Mardi Gras festivals that are world famous. Honestly, you need to have a little perspective. Just because it happens to occur within the city limits of Tucson, AZ does not make it the best version of anything ever done. And that goes for everything in every other city as well.

Face it, you'd oppose the American Revolution...

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:34:30 PDT

As a British Officer at Ninety Six National Historic Site in South Carolina.

When I did living history many years ago I was always either a British soldier/officer or, in my civilian role, a dedicated Loyalist. This may seem strange and I was one of the very few civilian interpreters to don the mantel of King and Country. But, it was natural for me. Firstly, my family were Loyalists for the most part during the Revolution. Sure, by the end of the thing they'd made peace with neighbors and nominally embraced the rebellion but at the outset they all fought in Loyalist militias or assiduously avoided publicly joining the revolution. Secondly, I loved tweaking the noses of ultra conservatives who saw themselves as natural "patriots."

As one of the few voices of the Loyalists at events I often took great pleasure in pointing out just how misused the word "patriot" is today. One of my exercises was to lead people who considered themselves modern patriots to admit they would have, without question, been a Loyalist in 1775. Today, with the Occupy Wall Street protests going on nationwide it seems a wonderful time to revisit those ideas.

Do you agree that protestors should not be allowed to flout local laws that govern when and where protests can take place? For example, if they want to protest in a park but don't have a permit or permission from the city should they be arrested or the protest broken up? Or if they stay past the park's "closing time" should they be subject to arrest or citation? If you do, you would be a Loyalist in 1775.

A woman is arrested in NYC for demonstrating in public.

In the 18th Century it was not uncommon for local officials of the crown to break up protests or demonstrations by people who were angry over some act of the government. Whether peaceable or not, protests were met with swift and often lethal force. Reading the "Riot Act" was not just a turn of phrase back then but an actual prelude to violence by militias or regulars against citizens seeking redress from the government. If you have ever waxed "patriotic" over the Boston Massacre but feel that the Occupy Wall Street protestors in various cities around America have no "right" to stage a protest without government permission, permits, or outside proscribed times - then you are a hypocrite and you would have been a Loyalist.

Do you think that a "flat tax" or sales taxes or other types of "equal" duties should be implemented or raised so that landowners and the wealthy can enjoy lower taxes? Would you rather have everyone pay higher sales tax and no income or property taxes? If you do, you would probably be a Loyalist in 1775.

The people who love to tout sales tax laws as a way to do away with property taxes or income taxes are definitely following in the footsteps of Great Britain in the colonies. After all, a sales tax is pretty much what the duties that kicked off the American Revolution were. You place a tax on a product to generate revenue for the state so that it can do things like - keep up military spending (more on that in a moment). Today, the people who call for flat taxes which disproportionately hit the poor and middle class as well as those who advocate for unconscionable sales tax rates are wanting to impose the same types of taxes with the same economic disparity as Parliament in the 1760's and 1770's. We even have kept the Stamp Act intact in America to some degree although we don't use it on paper anymore. Today we have other items that must be "stamped" to be legal in most states: Tobacco, playing cards, and alcohol are common stamp act items! If you buy a bottle of Jack Daniels bearing a tax stamp without public protest you probably would have had no problem purchasing other items in 1765 with a stamp!

Do you take great pride in the military might of the country? Does military spending bother you - not that we spend too much but that we spend too little? Does the power to reach into nearly every corner of the world with our military muscle fill you with joy? Do you see no problem with a disproportionate degree of our debt going to pay for costly wars or weapons systems? If you do you would have been a Loyalist in 1775.

One of the most overlooked aspects of the American Revolution is what started it - really. During the Seven Years War (or as it is known in the US, The French and Indian War) Britain sent troops to North America to preserve the colonies from invasion by France. In addition they were fighting France in Europe. It was actually a pretty major world war. In fact, you could almost call it the REAL First World War. Regardless, all those troops, ships, and guns didn't come cheaply. Someone was going to have to pay for the huge national debt rung up during the war, not to mention all those forward operating bases that were now peppering North America to keep the French out near the Mississippi and away from the American colonies. But who was going to pay? Parliament figured it was only fair that since the colonists were the ones benefiting from not being invaded by the French they should at least share in the cost! It's only fair, right? How many Americans argued that after the Iraq invasion we should use their oil resources to offset the cost of bringing them democracy? And how did they approach taxation? Well, first, it was going to be taxing property. That sounds vaguely familiar to Americans who pay property tax on everything from houses and land to jet skis and motorcycles. But modern Americans chafe against those taxes just as their 18th Century counterparts so there are always those who are proposing ways to "eliminate" those taxes. Most involve various income tax schemes or - more usually - sales tax schemes. Exactly the same process instituted just before the Revolution. When the Penns get in an uproar about having their vast land holdings taxed they hire the best lobbyist, Benjamin Franklin, and the government switches to some other form of taxation - import/export duties and sales taxes. All of this economic disparity came about because of the need to maintain a vast global standing army. Exactly the same problems we face as Americans today with out vast global standing army and mini empire of forward operating bases around the world.

You see, on most of the major issues around the American Revolution today's citizens would have been staunchly Loyalist. In fact, the conservatives, Tea Partiers, and other "patriots" would have been the most zealous in all likelihood. They don't see this because they equate the wrong principles with patriotism. They conflate the ability to own a gun with being a patriot. That was not even an issue in 1775. Everyone in the colonies owned guns for the most part and Britain never passed a single law restricting that right either at home or abroad. The whole gun ownership thing comes from a mistaken understanding of what a militia was in the 18th Century. If you think of the militia like today's National Guard you're getting there. While not as formal as today's National Guard, a militia in the 18th century was still supplied by the state to a large degree. Thus, their weapons and ammunition cache were either funded or provided by the government (just as they are today). So when troops went to Lexington and Concord to secure weapons stockpiles and keep them out of the hands of rioters they weren't going into people's homes to steal their guns. Just as we would likely do today the army simply was making sure their property wasn't used in a riot against the government. I doubt a single Tea Partier today would grumble if some Occupy Wall Street protestors broke into a National Guard Armory and tried to take all the weapons but were stopped by the army. Guns and gun ownership were non-issues in the American Revolution.

Likewise, people often confuse "Freedom of Speech" with patriotism. However, in most circumstances we don't care too much for it in America. We enact laws at nearly every level of our society to restrict speech (and here I include freedom of assembly as well). We institute curfews for protests or gatherings. We institute permits and permissions that must be obtained from the very government being protested. We require onerous financial burdens to be able to exercise the freedoms. This usually comes in the form of requiring massive insurance policies (into the tens of thousands and even millions of dollars in premiums) to be able to secure permission to even assemble publicly! Yet, we do not protest the limitations on speech and assembly in America. We consider them the price of living in a "stable" society - just as our forebears in England did. So, nominal attention to these principles is not the same as the actual exercise of them.

Freedom of religion is another big bit of patriotic jibber jabber. Was freedom of religion restricted in Great Britain in the 1700's? Not so much. In America there were large numbers of religious denominations before the Revolution (just as there were in England). Quakers, Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Huguenots, Congregationalists, Jews, and many other sects who didn't survive. None of these groups were prohibited. There were some laws that restricted government positions to Anglicans only. However, this was a reaction to the religious wars that had plagued Europe for the past 200 years or so. Mostly they were aimed at Catholics and Puritan Separatists who were seen as destabilizing influences because of attempts to overthrow the government on the one hand (Catholics) and attempts to dissolve the Church of England on the other. Yet, today in Great Britain none of those restrictions remain. Nominally the C of E is still the official church of the nation but its influence is greatly diminished today. So, religion wasn't much of an issue before the Revolution. In fact, it's mainly mentioned in the Constitution not in reaction to England but because the chief authors of the document had concerns about one religious faction in America becoming so dominant they could force everyone to adhere to their point of view. In fact, Jefferson would probably argue with those Republicans who have stated publicly that anyone who does not believe in a "god" is unamerican. In effect, our ideas of "religious liberty" today are not so far from those of Great Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. If you listen to any GOP debate, just substitute Catholic for Muslim or Puritan for Atheist and you'll still here the same religious fear today.

Let's face it. Most of the people today who consider themselves most "patriotic" would have been truly patriotic in 1775 too. By truly patriotic I mean they would have been loyal to king and country and opposed the rabble who were agitating and stirring up trouble for businesses and companies. Yet, today those people don the garb of the rabble who protested in the streets against a government they saw as unjust while simultaneously disparaging their fellow citizens who embody that spirit by taking to the streets demanding a voice in their own government again, economic equality, freedom of speech for the private citizen and not the corporate giant, and the right to be secure in their homes against predatory banks and lenders. Now, who's the true patriot and who's the true loyalist by the standards of 1775?

National Coming Out Day

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:08:47 PDT

Today is National Coming Out Day in the USA. If you're in the U.K. please wait until tomorrow to come out. (Don't ask me why they're a day later.) Regardless, I can remember when this all begin it was sort of a big deal. October 11 was a big day for "the talk." I don't think it's quite so fraught with tension anymore because more and more people come out at younger ages. I can remember when it wasn't uncommon to run across guys in their 60's who'd never admitted to anyone they were gay. And let's not forget all the elderly "spinster sisters" who weren't really sisters at all.

Today, people tend to be more open, although there are lots of folks who insist on hanging out with the coats and hats in the back of the closet. Personally, I've been out publicly since about 1986. I never got to have the big "I'm Gay" talk with parents or siblings. Everyone knew I was gay it seems. My mother and father knew so well that they arranged for me to spend school vacations with my gay brother in San Diego instead of hanging around a little southern town. When I struggled at Clemson University - in part because I was gay and had a lot of trouble hiding or "fitting in" with the pussy hounds and party boys - they arranged for me to transfer to a college in San Diego. That's where I had my big coming out moment, for what it's worth.

I worked part time in my brother's travel agency in the Hillcrest area of San Diego. If you're not familiar with Hillcrest think tamer version of the Castro mixed with octogenarian Jews and Italians. I was actually a natural with computers and this was the age when computers were quite the mysterious gadget. They hired me to compile their customer lists and eventually I began doing reservations and walk in bookings for flights, hotels, and weekend trips. Since I handled the walk in business which consisted of lots of old ladies needing a plane ticket to either Las Vegas to gamble or Fort Myers in Florida, I had the front desk. Each afternoon the letter carrier (postwoman) would come in and drop off the mail. She was a very, uh, butch lesbian. She was also really friendly and funny. One day she dropped the mail on my desk and casually said: "So, are you gay too?"

This was sort of to be expected. After all, the agency employed all gay men at the time. I thought for a minute then said, "Yeah." She smiled. "Cool! Well have a good day!" and walked out.

Behind me I heard one of the agents pick up a phone and begin whispering, "He's out! He came out!" Soon, the little office was abuzz. I couldn't figure out what the fuss was about. After all, in my mind I'd never been IN the closet. I never dated women to cover, I never told people I was straight. Of course, I didn't run around Clemson University screaming "I'm a faggot!" out of self preservation. Still, what was the big deal?

It seems to them it was a big deal. Until I had stated publicly my sexuality it was taboo for anyone to mention it. This was in the days when there was still a strict code in the gay community about "outing" people against their will. Until I'd said it aloud it was something that just couldn't be discussed in the open. Now that I was officially "out" I could become part of the group and I could also be invited to parties, events, or nights out.

I never got the tension fraught coming out scene, thank goodness. I feel sorry for people who do have to go through that and deal with family strife or friends who drop them or even hate them. I'm sorry for the people who come out to their churches or communities only to be attacked verbally or physically or even killed. I'm very lucky to have a family that supported me and friends who cared about me.

So, if you're not out, why not make today your day? Isn't it time to throw off the shackles of denial and kick open the closet door? Who knows, it may not be nearly as difficult as you think and the world outside is a beautiful place!

You'd think the guy was Jesus Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:57:45 PDT

I swear, if I have to read one more "news" story, watch one more local reporter broadcast from an Apple Store, or hear one more pundit compare Steve Jobs to Edison, I'm going to scream.

I get it, he's a popular guy. I get it, he's as rich as god. I get it, his gadgets are super trendy and cool. But, the guy is not Edison, Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, or the guy who invented the wheel. In fact, I feel sorry for the guy who invented the wheel because he doesn't get any credit at all and he certainly didn't get a cut from all the various uses of his invention not to mention he didn't have the good sense to keep it a "proprietary" format.

Steve Jobs was a nice guy from all accounts. He was a little quirky but people seemed to like him for the most part. That's great. Sure his company produced some interesting gadgets but I contend he did not "change the world." Why? Because most of the gadgets he "made" were actually made by other people even if they were credited to him. Even worse were all the designs and gadgets his company took from others and then reworked under their own brand and sold. That's not invention, it's just tinkering. Edison at least invented a few of his things himself (although many were contributed by his employees too). The same can't really be said of Jobs whose gift was marketing and refining the ideas of others. He was a great businessman. Maybe he's the Carnegie of our time but he's not the Edison of our time.

One commentator I heard on NPR attributed the computer to Jobs. This is about as accurate as Al Gore inventing the internet. Seriously? The computer was Steve Jobs' invention? Funny, there were computers long before Jobs came on the scene. What he did was take something someone else did and refine it. Sure, that was a big deal and we all get to spend endless hours wasting time on Facebook thanks to Mr. Jobs (or more accurately Mr. Wozniac because as usual Jobs was the marketing guy). But, he did not invent personal computing - he simply took it from the realm of business to the realm of entertainment. Yay for him, but it does not make him Edison or Einstein.

I love the "he changed the world of music" analogy followed by the reference to iTunes. Really? iTunes was actually the creation of two other guys and Jobs and Apple bought their designs. Likewise, I'm getting sick of the "he created the digital music revolution" line. The iPod was not the first digital music player by any stretch. Jobs' company simply took what others were doing and figured out a way to make it proprietary at the outset. That tied in nicely with his other new business - selling music. He did not invent a single thing that "revolutionized" digital music. He simply repackaged what others had already done. And when you think of all the rigmarole over pirating, loss of revenue to artists along with the increased scrutiny of our own activity online because of file sharing, are we really that much better off? Not to mention the increase in general rudeness of people walking around 24 hours a day with their little earbuds in so they don't have to interact with a single other human being - unless it is post to Facebook or Twitter via their iPhone!

Let's stop for a moment to consider something. When Edison invented the phonograph no one had ever recorded the human voice before. Think about that. Until that moment in history once a word was spoken or a note played it was gone forever. We can never hear George Washington deliver his Farewell Address. We could never hear Lincoln deliver the stirring Second Inaugural Address. We couldn't hear Mozart play his own piano concertos. Until the moment that Edison sang "Mary Had a Little Lamb" into the bell of his phonograph no human voice could be recorded and replayed later. That is a pretty big deal. Compared to that, being able to listen to Lady Gaga while power walking just doesn't rise to the same level.

Listen, I know Apple fanatics are devoted to Jobs and Apple. They think the guy shit gold bricks and peed Chardonnay. It's nice, even if a little creepy, to have that kind of devotion to a corporate guy. And let's face it, Apple's history of lawsuits to squelch competition blows apart the whole "hippie ethic" line that is being repeated like a New Age pseudo-Buddhist mantra. Jobs and company made damn sure that anyone trying to do what they were famous for (taking a design by someone else and reworking it to make a profit) would be met with legions of lawyers not incense and herbal tea. Heck, when they lost their prototype iPhone did they just shrug and release it to the universe? Hell no, they impersonated cops (illegally) and strong armed anyone who might have even seen the thing! Not too hippie cool.

Yes, it's very sad he died. Pancreatic cancer is a particularly horrific way to go. It's painful and agonizing and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. A day of reflection would be appropriate for a business person but weeks and weeks of what appear to be the beginnings of some beatification process are really over the top. Steve Jobs was not Jesus Christ, he was not Thomas Edison, he was certainly not Albert Einstein. He was a businessman who made a very large fortune entertaining people to the point of distraction. Think about it, is life really "better" with your iPhone and being plugged into a fake reality 24/7?

Day Trip: Apple Annie's Orchard & Farm

noreply@blogger.com (Buck) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:42:48 PDT

Apple Annie's Orchard in Willcox, AZ

Fall fell on Tucson in a big way. Sometimes it seems we have two seasons: Summer and Winter. It's either 100 degrees out and dry as a bone or it's chilly and damp! Today turned out to be the latter in Tucson.

I've been wanting to make a run down to Apple Annie's in Willcox for awhile now. They have apple orchards as well as a large farm that grows veggies. I figured it would be a great way to spend to a day and pick up some excellent farm fresh produce for the kitchen. Buying stuff at the market trucked in from Mexico and South America does get a little old when you're from the south a used to farmer's markets and roadside produce stands everywhere.

I'm not sure Michael was 100% convinced it was a good idea. It was overcast and drizzling rain in Tucson at noon when we finally decided to leave. The temp was hovering around 55 degrees and I had to go back inside and pillage through the drawers until I came up with some long pants! Good news, though, my weight loss is evident as I had to really pull the belt tight on the pair I haven't worn since March!

Michael in the Orchard

Despite the weather we hit I-10 toward Willcox and arrived about 2:30 in the afternoon. This was plenty of time to pick some apples for ourselves before closing time. Alas, being a weekday the place was dead. I finally found the one employee in the "bakery and fudge shop" and we got supplies to hit the orchard. It was a nice walk if a little windy. The sun was shining in Willcox and the temperature was about 70 degrees. But the apples were not to be seen. There were dozens that had fallen and were inedible but very few on the trees. We saw maybe one or two worth picking during our entire walk around the orchard. Finally, we decided to just buy some of the pre-picked ones they had in their bins. I got some Red Delicious which Michael enjoys, along with some Granny Smith to either bake or make into a pie or something. Michael also got some Apple Bread and Apple Butter in their little store. Amazingly, they also had cheese curds but since they were not made in Wisconsin (who heard of Cheese Curds from Ohio?) Michael wouldn't have them.

We were hoping for better luck at the farm so drove the six or seven miles down the road. The pickings were better there. The fields were beautiful and full of peppers and sunflowers as well as gorgeous orange pumpkins. We ended up with a huge bag of squash, zucchini and cucumbers. We also got some green beans and a big bag of sweet corn. They had huge displays of pumpkins and other squash so we got a little pumpkin and a larger one for our Halloween decorations. I'd seen some Apple Cider doughnuts at the orchard but managed to resist temptation. When I ran across them again at the farm, I couldn't hold out and had to try some. Yes, they are delicious! I did exercise some modicum of control though and did not eat the entire half dozen!

Lady Snow among the Pumpkins.

We decided to stop off at a Popeye's and pick up some chicken and have a picnic at a rest area between Willcox and Benson. Since we had Snow with us we didn't want to eat in a restaurant where we'd have to leave her in the car. We'd stopped at this rest area as we came into Arizona in 2008. At the time there was snow all over the boulders that surround it. Honestly, it felt almost cold enough to snow when we got out! The thermometer said 63 degrees but with the wind and being in the shadows of the hills... it felt about 30 degrees!

When we finally made it home Michael decided to try some of the corn and put on a couple ears to eat while watching TV. It really was worth the trip - sweet and delicious.

Despite a cold and rainy start to the day, we had a good time and it was nice to get out of town for the day. We've been in Arizona for 3 1/2 years now and there are so many places we've never even bothered to explore. Lots of places Michael has been to years before and he's the type of person that doesn't care to see some place twice. If he's seen it, that's it. So, I relish those times when we actually go somewhere further than the center of the city or the yearly jaunt up to Prescott Valley for the holidays. I inherited my mother's wanderlust but just like her managed to settle down with a man who prefers home. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.