The Curmudgeon Speaks

Words

2013-02-25T11:23:00.004-05:00

This is a transcript of the speech I gave in accepting my induction onto the Ben Davis High School Alumni Wall of Fame, on February 23, 2013.

I work with words.

I am a writer. A wordsmith. I put together words to form sentences, and sentences to form paragraphs, and paragraphs to create whole narratives.

Now, writing might seem like a lost art in this age of texts and tweets. It's ironic that even though today we're communicating more frequently with more people, our social communication skills are diminishing -- especially among younger people.

That's a shame, because words are important. If you don't know how to write, you can't convince people, or instruct them, or entertain them and tell them stories. That's why words are important.

I know there aren't many -- or any -- students here today, but I do see lots of parents and grandparents. You need to tell your kids and grandkids how important it is to learn proper writing skills. When everyone around them is communicating in short 140-character tweets, the ones who can write and speak well will be successful, will become leaders. Everyone else is destined to be a follower.

I understand that technical training and standardized tests have their place, but they only take you as far as everybody else -- average. Learning how to effectively communicate is what puts you ahead of the rest. When you can write, when you can work with words, then you can convince, instruct, and entertain others. And that's what's important.

That's what we need to tell students today -- to learn how to work with words, how to communicate with others. That's what will make them successful.

Debt

2013-01-11T11:38:00.001-05:00

Why all the hoo-ha all of a sudden about dealing with long-term national debt -- especially when we're in the middle of a long and devastating recession? Europe is learning that austerity is the completely wrong approach to dealing with recession and job loss; it makes things worse, and quickly. Debt can be dealt with in time, after the immediate economic problems are addressed.

Look at it this way. Say you're laid off or your hours are cut back. You have a lot of credit card debt, you know that's an issue, but you also have to pay the rent and put food on the table. Do you choose to pay extra on your monthly credit card bill to pay down your debt, at the expense of not having enough money to buy food or pay the rent? Of course not. You deal with immediate needs now, and long-term issues when you can.

It's the same thing with the national debt. To continue to cut spending (and government-related jobs) now will only make the recession worse. Fix the economy and create more jobs now, then deal with the long-term debt.

In addition, there's a nice side benefit for fixing the economy first. As the economy improves, increased tax revenues due to greater employment helps to pay down the debt naturally. This is exactly what happened in the 1990s under President Clinton, when we were running surpluses, not deficits.

So deal with the current economy first -- spend whatever needs to be spent to create new jobs and stimulate growth. After we put people back to work and see the economy recover, then we can tackle the long-term debt problem. First things first, is what I say.

But that's just my opinion -- reasonable minds may disagree.

Hobby Lobby

2013-01-05T20:02:00.001-05:00

David Green, the CEO of Hobby Lobby (a retailer that I have frequented in the past) is bitching and moaning because new federal healthcare rules mandate that his firm pay for certain prescription drugs that he, as a Christian, objects to. (Read his position here.) I do not sympathize, or agree with him.

As I see it, the religious or political convictions of owners or management don't matter; if you run a business, you have to follow the laws of the land. All the laws, like 'em or not. What I do or don't believe doesn't put me above the law. Same thing for any business owner.

I look at it this way. Say one's beliefs were such that one didn't want to be associated with black people, found them inferior or whatever, and thus refused to hire them. That's obviously against the law here in the U.S.; religious beliefs or not, one cannot discriminate against any racial group. Should that particular religious belief (and you know some have held that belief and called it religious) trump adherence to the law?

If you're a public business, you have to follow the laws, period. You may not believe in paying taxes to the government, but you have to do it. You may not believe in various types of medical procedures or treatments, but if you offer health insurance, you have to cover those procedures and treatments. That's part of the deal. It has nothing to do with intolerance of any religion; it's about holding all citizens (and businesses) equal under the law. I don't get any exceptions because of my beliefs, and neither does anyone else.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in war or in government-sanctioned killing. Call it a religious belief or a moral one, whatever. But I can't not pay my taxes because those funds go towards the support of behavior I oppose. Why should Hobby Lobby be any different?

It's possible that this is all a scam to avoid paying for newly mandated healthcare benefits, much as the CEO of Papa John's is doing. I'll give Green the benefit of the doubt and say that he has a legitimate religious problem with said contraceptive-like meds. Fine. But that doesn't put him above or outside the law. As the CEO of an American company, he is legally bound to follow the laws that apply to his business -- ALL the laws, not just the ones he agrees with. To do otherwise would result in a lawless society where everyone does only what he or she likes, not what the law dictates. That is not civilization as we know it.

Naturally, reasonable minds may disagree -- but in this instance, the law prevails.

Entitlements

2013-01-04T15:24:00.003-05:00

I am tired of all the talk about "entitlement" spending -- Medicare, Social Security, and so forth. These programs are not "entitlements," they are commitments. We as a society (and our government) have committed to pay people from these funds. If we cut these "entitlements," we're really reneging on our commitments -- legal, moral, and otherwise.

As such, I think we all (including the media) need to start using the word "commitment" instead of the misleading e-word. Same goes for talk about company pensions and retirement funds -- all commitments that companies have made to their employees. Leave the "entitlement" word to talk about those truly entitled, chiefly the filthy rich.

NRA

2012-12-21T16:20:00.002-05:00

The NRA's response to the Sandy Hook tragedy is reprehensible beyond belief. No remorse, no outrage (except at the media who dares to bring up the issue of gun control), no respect for the dead or for how the nation is reacting to this tragedy. They had an opportunity to join an adult discussion of the various issues involved, and instead chose to double down on their goal of putting guns in the hands of every living American, no matter how (in)capable.

My thoughts:

1. If we say that schoolteachers need to be armed or have armed guards, aren't we essentially saying that our system of public laws and law enforcement isn't working? (Wonder how our police officers feel about that...)

2. Putting more guns in the hands of more citizens (whether schoolteacher or armed guards) simply puts more guns out there, and more guns equal more gun violence. (I'm a numbers guy; stats don't lie.) Worse, it puts more guns nearer the hands of school-aged children, and some will gain access to those guns, and more accidents or malice will result.

3. Speaking of guns in the hands of teachers, isn't this the same society that undervalues and underpays teachers? So let's go ahead and arm them and make them responsible for school security, too. Where's the logic in that?

4. Finally, I really don't want my grandkids going to a school that's essentially an armed camp. This isn't the wild west. I want better for my grandkids, and for all kids. It's a horrible message to send that they're in constant danger, and that only guns can protect them. Our country is better than that, or should be.

For anyone who says they really don't want to live in Australia or England or wherever that has stricter gun laws, I say, why not? Fewer guns mean fewer senseless deaths, period. Australia, England, et al have it right and we have it wrong. Second amendment be damned (and the intent of it is certainly open to interpretation), we have to reduce the number of unnecessary guns in this country, do something to tamp down our culture of violence, and ramp up and civilize our treatment of the mentally ill. Gun control isn't the only solution, but it's part of the solution. It's a tough situation, but that shouldn't stop us from attacking it.

Gun Control

2012-12-15T12:49:00.003-05:00

I believe that guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we should be as dedicated to their removal from our society as we are the removal of WMDs from unworthy foreign countries. If it were in my hands, here is what I would do:

1. Immediately halt the sales of all gun ammunition. Institute a program where hunters and qualified/trained professionals can obtain the necessary ammunition for their needs, probably one years' worth at a time, but make it difficult/impossible for citizens to purchase ammunition for any non-hunting guns they might own. (No current ammunition or weapons would be confisticated, although a government "buyback" program should be instituted to remove as much existing ammunition from the streets as possible.)

2. Whenever a gun is used to commit a murder or violent crime, immediately halt sales of that model gun in the U.S., forever. Require the manufacturer of that gun to pay $5 million (per incident) into a special mental health fund.

3. As soon as possible, convene a panel of mental health experts to determine how the new mental health fund should be spent, with the goal of identifying and helping those in mental/emotional distress and protecting the general public from potential incidents.

This plan would have the effect of reducing the number of gun-related crimes (no ammo to shoot), removing the most dangerous guns from the streets (those used to commit crimes), and improving the state of mental health care for those who seriously need it.

Feel free to discuss.

Costco

2012-11-26T12:05:00.002-05:00

The New York Times has an interesting article about how Costco pays employees (much) more and with better benefits than does competing Sams Club. What's especially interesting is how some Wall Street types are criticizing the company, saying it needs to cut salaries and benefits and raise prices. One analyst said: "He has been too benevolent. He's right that a happy employee is a productive long-term employee, but he could force employees to pick up a little more of the burden."

But here's the deal. The whole thing is a non-issue. Costco is making money and growing, and seeing its stock price increase, too -- so, obviously, its own investors don't see a problem.

And this is what's wrong with stock market-based capitalism today. Even when a business is doing well (and treating both its employees and customers well), there is still the call to cut, cut, cut, cut (and raise, raise, raise prices) to make even more money, if only in the short term.

Here's my favorite quote from the article, talking about Costco's CEO Jim Sinegal:

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

I like that. Doing the right thing for customers and employees IS good business. Fuck Wall Street. Customers and employees are who matter.

And here's another thing. Costco's CEO Sinegal takes a relatively low salary, compared to other big-company CEOs:

Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies.

"I've been very well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million thanks to his Costco stock holdings. "I just think that if you're going to try to run an organization that's very cost-conscious, then you can't have those disparities. Having an individual who is making 100 or 200 or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is wrong."

I like that. A CEO with a conscience who cares about his employees. He knows that when a CEO makes too much more than his employees it's just wrong. Sometimes, enough is enough.

So where do you want to shop today?

Election

2012-11-04T19:35:00.003-05:00

The big election is this coming Tuesday, and for anyone who cares here are my recommendations.

The Presidential Election

President of the United States: Barack Obama. It's a reluctant recommendation, because I'm sorely disappointed by his lack of accomplishments in many fields, as well as his continuation of the (probably illegal) Bush administration policies regarding drone warfare and the imprisonment-without-trial that is Guantanamo Bay. Still, Obama is a far sight better than the competition, the lying, two-faced, corporatist, social neanderthal called Mitt Romney. I'd rather have a smart, socially conscious president than a dim (re: Bush) self-interested (re: Romney) one. So Obama it is.

Minnesota Local Races

In our local races, I make the following recommendations:

United States Senator: Amy Klobucher. Really, there's no competition here. Senator Klobuchar is smart and effective, and her opponent is -- wait a minute, what's his name again?
United States Representative, 2nd District: Mike Obermueller. I'm not sure Obermueller has a chance against the incumbent John Kline, but we deserve better than a lock-step Republican who is out of step with the progressive nature of our state.
State Senator, District 56: Leon Thurman. Because we need to vote out the current obstructionist Republican legislature.
State Representative, District 56B: Will Morgan. Because he sent us the most campaign literature, several pieces per day over the past month or so. I feel like I know him personally. Plus I really dislike the positions of his opponent, Roz Peterson.
Dakota County Commissioner, District 5: Dave Giles. Because he isn't Liz Workman.
Burnsville Mayor: Jerry Willenburg. Another reluctant recommendation. I really don't think Jerry knows what he's doing, but Mayor Elizabeth Kautz has been in office too long and I'm tired of her personal projects and her reaping the rewards of office. While I wish there were other options, it's simply time for a change.
Burnsville City Council (vote for two): Steve Cherney and Mary Sherry. This is more a recommendation not to vote for right wing nutcase and closet Libertarian Bruce Johnson and the totally unqualified Suzanne Nguyen (who's actually a neighbor of mine). Cherney's been on the council before, so he should know what he's getting into; Sherry's an incumbent, pal of the mayor, and a bit ditzy, but she's better than the other alternatives. (Maybe I'll run for council myself, next time...)
Amendment 1 (Gay marriage): No. Why would we want to stop people who love each other from getting married? We don't have enough of that these days. Plus, even if you're not a fan of gay marriage, we don't need to amend the state constitution to take away people's rights; the constitution is about giving rights, not taking them away.
Amendment 2 (Voter ID): No. We don't need it. The verified incidence of voter fraud is nil. This is a solution (and an expensive one) in search of a problem, really just an attempt to disenfranchise the poor and elderly in the guise of civil service. We need more people voting, not less.

Other Races

I urge my friends and family back home in Indiana to vote for Joe Donnelly for the U.S. Senate over the neanderthal Richard Mourdock. (I used to vote for Dick Lugar, myself -- who the Tea Partying Mourdock ousted in the Republican primary.) And I urge any friends north of the Twin Cities to vote for Jim Graves in the Minnesota 6th District, so we can forever purge the odoriferous Michelle Bachman from our sacred land.

But these are just my opinions. Reasonable minds probably won't disagree.

Fundamentalists

2012-10-21T17:23:00.000-04:00

There's a great article on the CNN site that asks the question, "Is Obama the 'Wrong' Kind of Christian?" This is a very nuanced and well reported story, and well worth reading. A few thoughts:

What right does anyone have to question someone else's religious beliefs? If Obama says he's a Christian, we should respect his beliefs. Do you want someone else questioning whether you really believe what you believe?
This, unfortunately, shines a spotlight on many fundamentalist Christians who think it's their way or the highway, that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do are just wrong, wrong, wrong. (And probably going to hell.) This, dear readers, is why religion has a bad reputation among many.
The article does a great job, IMHO, of pointing out the difference between the contemporary Protestantism of the Social Gospel, prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, with the revived fundamentalist movement, which has been around since the early 20th century (remember the Scopes Monkey Trial?) but has come on strong in the past few decades.
Where mainstream Protestants tend to be a bit more inclusive and certainly more socially conscious, the fundamentalists seem to view everyone else as heretics and dismiss social responsibility. For example, Rev. Gary Cass, the conservative Christian president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, goes as far as to say that Christians who talk about “social justice” are often practicing “warmed-over Marxism." Really. That's what he thinks. (I guess this means Jesus was a Marxist. Who knew?)
Speaking of extreme viewpoints, Rev. Steven Andrew is quoted in the article as saying that President Obama is trying to change the national motto from “In God we Trust” to “Out of Many, One,” and that the president has ordered the Pentagon to remove biblical verses from its daily report. (Really? I hadn't heard that one.) The Reverend also says, and I quote, "I think he’s an anti-Christ." Of course he is.

So is the rise of the Christian fundamentalist movement the end of progressive Christianity as we know it? Or are these just a bunch of extremists who'll bark their way to oblivion soon enough?

I'd like to hope it's the latter, but the numbers say it could be the former. God help us.

Bully

2012-10-17T12:16:00.002-04:00

There's a difference between aggressively defending your position (and calling out lies and half-truths) and bullying. In last night's second presidential debate, the president acted... well, Presidential, while his opponent acted like an entitled, boorish brat. Mitt Romney bullied the moderator, he bullied the president, his position seemed to be "Of course it'll work. I'm doing it." Plus he lied a lot, and got called on it. Romney is a man who will do and say anything to get what he wants, because he believes he's entitled to it.

To me, the most telling moment was when Obama addressed the killings in Libya, taking full responsibility and calling Romney's politicization of the affair "offensive." It was a very Presidential (with a large P) moment, and Romney should have stopped there. But instead, showing no respect whatsoever, Romney harped on a minor point about whether Obama had called it a terrorist attack. It wasn't so much that Romney was wrong (which the president and the moderator both pointed out, and which is getting the most press afterwards), but rather that he argued the point at all. A better man would have let it drop; only a self-important boor like Romney would try to have the last word on such a somber issue.

There's no way we should entrust our country to such an out-of-touch, blustering, entitled egotist. Not that Obama's perfect, but at least he thinks of others besides himself, and has some semblance of decency. Romney doesn't. He's a rich, self-centered bastard. We don't need more of them running things.

Greed

2012-10-13T16:46:00.004-04:00

What's wrong with capitalism? The same thing that led to the downfall of small-c communism: greed. In fact, greed is the downfall of just about every economic system so far envisioned.

Greed is what makes communism fail; if just one person covets more than he needs, the entire system falls apart. Greed is also the corrosive exterior of capitalism, and why regulation is necessary; without adequate regulation, greedy capitalists do whatever they can to exploit the system to get more for themselves.

Because of that very human failing, neither economic system is perfect, but at least regulated capitalism is known to work okay. Unregulated capitalism, however, is a bitch to deal with -- as we continue to recognize. (You'd think we'd remember and learn from our mistakes, wouldn't you?)

So I'm not a communist, in spite of what some of my friends on the right might think. I'm also not blindly capitalistic. To combat unmitigated greed and all the damage it can do, we need regulated capitalism. Proper regulations don't inhibit, they protect -- and everyone, at one time or another, needs that protection.

Frustrated

2012-10-12T16:43:00.006-04:00

One of my friends suggested that I'm a bit frustrated by the political system today. Yeah, I am.

I'm frustrated by a group of politicians whose sole intent over the past four years was making the president seem like a failure by blocking every item proposed by the opposition.

I'm frustrated by a group of politicians, led by Misters R & R, who worship the Orwellian playbook by lying (excuse me: "misspeaking") about every point that can be lied about; if the sky were blue, they'd call it red today and orange tomorrow and then deny all of it.

I'm frustrated by a group of politicians who worship the rich and powerful and pay lip service to the hardworking men and women of this country, who are intent on enriching the already enriched and dismantling the middle class as we know it.

I'm frustrated by media, including the so-called mainstream media, who repeat the lies of the reactionary conservatives in the guise of presenting "both sides" of the story, and who fail in the most basic task of informing the populace.

I'm frustrated by a political system that is ruled by big-money donors and lobbyists, and by the aforementioned media that benefits from all that money, in the form of campaign advertising.

And ultimately I'm frustrated by a willfully ignorant populace that accepts these failures and refuses to even vote in its own self interest. So yeah, I'm frustrated. Sue me.

Old Joe Speaks

2012-10-12T14:12:00.001-04:00

This was the telling point in last night's vice presidential debate, IMHO, by the one politician today who respects and cares for the working men and women of this country. Take it away, Joe Biden:

These people are my mom and dad — the people I grew up with, my neighbors. They pay more effective tax than Governor Romney pays in his federal income tax. They are elderly people who in fact are living off of Social Security. They are veterans and people fighting in Afghanistan right now who are, quote, “not paying any tax.”

I’ve had it up to here with this notion that 47 percent — it’s about time they take some responsibility here. And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we’re going to level the playing field; we’re going to give you a fair shot again; we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

47 Percent

2012-09-23T13:17:00.001-04:00

Mitt Romney's latest "47%" musings offer a fairly honest glimpse into how he sees the world -- which is straight line Ayn Rand social objectivism. That is, Romney believes in what Rand would have called "rational self-interest." In normal people terms, it's a winners vs. losers sort of thing; the people who are on top are on top because they're better than everybody else, and the losers deserve what they get for being lazy or not as smart or whatever.

Don't believe me? Note Mitt's focus on "moochers," which is the same term Rand used for what she deemed the non-productive classes, people who took forced handouts from the more productive members of society. Forget that some people actually need a helping hand; for die-hard Randians, there is no virtue in charity or community, especially that dictated by the government.

Now, I know a lot of folks agree with the whole Randian objectivist thing. I guess they believe that there are natural leaders who deserve the spoils, and everyone else are lesser beings who don't deserve as much. I see this view as naive, self-centered, and extraordinarily selfish. Yeah, it's good to be on top, but that doesn't always come from being smarter or working harder; there are a lot of other factors that determine where one ends up in life. (Not the least of which is where one starts out -- and Mitt started out pretty well off.) Romney and his pals believe they're better than everyone else; I don't necessarily agree.

I bring up the Randian connection only because I think it's informative as to how Romney thinks and how he has acted in the past and is likely to act in the future. I think he honestly believes what he said at that covertly recorded fundraiser -- that half of all Americans are unproductive moochers that unnecessarily take from the natural ruling class in our society, and to hell with them. I find that cold hearted and selfish, but obviously there are folks who agree with that sentiment. Nobody likes a moocher, after all.

So here's the thing. If you think that it's okay for the rich and the powerful to think only of themselves, and not to share their bounty with those less fortunate and more in need, then vote for Romney. If, on the other hand, you feel that all of us have an obligation to help each other and work for the good of the greater society, then vote for Obama.

Myself, I find no virtue in selfishness. I'm all for rewarding hard work, but also for sharing the bounty and helping those in need. I know how I'll be voting in November.

Jobs

2011-08-30T12:11:00.000-04:00

Here's my advice to President Obama on how to solve the unemployment problem. He can use it for free, although it'd be nice to see a little attribution:

Here's the plan: Hire the unemployed as teacher assistants in our public schools. One per classroom, maybe a few extra to help the maintenance staff. Pay them minimum wage, give them free breakfast and lunch and daycare if they have little kids. Let the principals and teachers decide how best to use them -- an extra hand to handle larger classes, extra talent to help reinstate cut programs (music, phys ed, etc.), whatever. Leave the implementation up to the schools, leave the funding to the Feds. It'll cost a little bit, but we're already so much in debt, who'll notice?

Whatever the cost, it's a great investment. Beleaguered schools and teachers get much-needed assistance. Kids get more attention and a better education. Unemployed adults get short-term employment and cash in their pockets. And maybe, just maybe, we inspire some of these short-term teaching assistants to become teachers themselves, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Everybody wins.

If you like this idea, pass it along.

Greatest

2010-09-25T18:04:00.000-04:00

VH1, the channel that used to play music videos, recently released their list of "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," as voted on by today's so-called artists. The list is a joke, of course, as by "all time" they mean "the rock era," as no one bothered to mention Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, or J.S. Bach. Even taking the list as a rock-era list, however, there are some issues.

VH1's top 10 "greatest artists" were as follows:

1. The Beatles

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bob Dylan

4. Led Zeppelin

5. Rolling Stones

6. Jimi Hendrix

7. Prince

8. Elvis Presley

9. James Brown

10. Stevie Wonder

It's hard to argue against the Beatles heading the list, of course, but there's a lot wrong otherwise. I mean, there' no way Michael Jackson ranks over Dylan or Elvis, and there's really no justification for Prince to be in the top ten at all. It's really indefensible.

The problem, as I see it, is defining "best." It's just too subjective. My "best" isn't going to be the same as yours. Heck, my own definition of "best" will probably differ from day to day, depending on how I'm feeling about things.

So, given that most of the artists interviewed for the TV show talked about how big an influence a given artist was on them, personally, I'd like to change the criteria and suggest a list I'll call the "Top Ten Most Influential Artists of the Rock Era." Here's who I'd choose:

1. The Beatles

2. Bob Dylan

3. Elvis Presley

4. Chuck Berry

5. Berry Gordy

6. Phil Spector

7.Aretha Franklin

8. Madonna

9. Joni Mitchell

10. Rolling Stones

Note that these aren't necessarily my ten favorite artists, or even the ten I'd call the "best," however that's defined. Instead, these are the ten who I think most influenced the music of the era.

As to specifics, I'd agree that it's debatable whether Dylan was really more influential than Elvis, but that's the way I see it; Mr. Zimmerman really influenced the way songwriters wrote. As to putting Joni Mitchell on the list, while she's obviously not as talented as Dylan and the Beatles, she influenced and inspired several generations of female singer-songwriters. (Without Joni, no Jewell -- which I'll forever hold against her). Same thing for putting Aretha on the list; she inspired the creation of the female vocal diva, which rules to this day. (Without Aretha, no Celene Dion -- again, I hold this against the Queen of Soul.) And the same for Madonna -- I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that Lady Gaga and her ilk are.

I put Phil Spector and Berry Gordy on the list, even though they're not performers, because as producers they strongly influenced the sound of the music of the 60s and beyond. Gordy, of course, helped create the Motown Sound, which led to the Philly Sound, which led to just about all soul and R&B music of the past 50 years. Spector's Wall of Sound influenced everybody from Brian Wilson to Bruce Springsteen to U2, so he gets on the list easy.

The others are fairly self explanatory. The Stones, while not my personal favorites, influenced generations of bad boy rock and rollers, as well as the punk and grunge movements. Chuck Berry pretty much invented rock and roll and defined R&R guitar, so there's no way he's not on there. Dylan, as noted, changed the way songs were written, so he's a given. Then there's the Beatles, who head up any list no matter how it's defined. There was pop music before the Beatles and pop music after the Beatles, and that's just he way it is.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Taxes

2010-09-09T16:53:00.000-04:00

Everybody hates taxes. Their taxes, anyway. But we all love what our taxes buy — public schools, police and fire protection, snow removal, etc. We don’t want any of these things taken away, but we also don’t want our taxes raised. It’s a glaring inconsistency.

Frankly, I like having the snow plows clear my street in January. I like having music classes in our high school. I like having police and fire protection. I’m willing to pay for these things. Now, if those costs go up (and they have and will), then we have to pay more for them — which means increasing taxes, one way or another.

That said, I’m never happy for my own taxes to increase, but as long as everybody’s paying their fair share, I can live with it. What I can’t live with are people much wealthier than I who don’t pay their fair share. Hell yeah, raise the taxes on the wealthy — or at least remove the unwarranted tax cuts that the Bushies gave them during the last administration.

People who earn two, three, ten, twenty times more than I do can afford to pay a little more in taxes. Try raising those taxes first before you raise taxes on the rest of us. Then, if we still need increased taxes to pay for the necessities that we like and need, then by all means do so. That’s part of our public duty — paying for the services we use.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Kindle Update

2010-07-29T18:45:00.002-04:00

As if I didn't dislike the Kindle enough as-is, my brand-new Kindle broke just 24 hours into use. (The screen went all wonky.) So I not only don't like how it works, it simply doesn't work. What kind of piece of crap is that? (Or is it simply more proof that Amazon should stick to selling other people's stuff, instead of trying to make their own; they're really kind of sucky as a tech hardware company.)

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Kindle

2010-07-28T14:59:00.002-04:00

Just got a Kindle yesterday, for a project I'm doing. I am not impressed.

This thing has horrible readability in low light (why not add a backlight?), annoying reverse blink whenever you change pages, and relies too much on the small and virtually unreadable keys on the keypad. Along the same lines, the interface to the Amazon Kindle store is in extremely small, unreadable, and unresizeable text. (As you can probably tell, I'm big on the unreadability thing, especially as my eyes age -- small type doesn't work well in my apparently dark and dreary world.)

I'm not tethered to any particular container; I care more about the content than how it's delivered. But the Kindle makes reading somewhat less enjoyable, at least to me. Bah.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds (or people with better eyesight) may disagree.

Apple

2010-07-17T12:53:00.000-04:00

Here's a great example of how NOT to do great customer service.

Regarding the iPhone 4's reception problems, Steve Jobs says (1) It's a faulty design, but (2) Everybody else does it, too, and (3) Not too many customers complained, so (4) We'll give you a cheesy looking "bumper" as a quick and dirty patch, but (5) If you don't like it, we don't want to sell you one, anyway, so there.

What an arrogant S.O.B.! Combine this with the signal strength bars thing (they've been lying to us since day one -- you're okay with that, aren't you?) and the rash of iTunes Stores hacks (Got a problem? Contact your credit card company, not us), can one imagine a consumer company with a WORSE attitude towards the customer? Hey, we're Apple, love it or leave it, chump. We don't have to provide any customer service -- you'll buy our stuff just because it looks cool.

Honestly, would any other company get away with this crap? I'm having big problems justifying upgrading my current iPhone. Why should anyone buy any product from this arrogant, self-centered bunch of assholes?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Healthcare

2009-07-08T16:58:00.002-04:00

Healthcare in America stinks. We pay more than other civilized countries, and get worse results. We wouldn't accept this when buying a car, would we? Imagine comparing your car to your neighbors -- I paid twice what you did, and have twice as many repairs! What kind of value is that?

The problems are many. Too many people don't have any health insurance. Those of us who do have insurance pay too much for it, or are forced to buy plans that don't have enough coverage. (So-called high deductible plans.) If we go to change plans (when we move, or when we change jobs), many of us are denied coverage because of "pre-existing conditions." All too often the health insurance companies deny treatments and medicines recommended by our personal doctors. It all costs too much, as well -- we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other Western nation. And, despite the costs, the results are abysmal, no matter how they're measured.

Let's look at these points one by one.

Why, some might ask, must everyone have health insurance? What right does the government have dictating whether or not we have health insurance? If a person decides to not have insurance, why should I care? This one's really simple, as explained to me by my old doctor back in Indiana. He was for national health insurance, for this reason: "I don't want the guy next to me on the bus to have pneumonia." It's a selfish reason, but a good one. When everyone has good health care -- good preventative healthcare -- there will be fewer sick people around. And the fewer sick people around, the less likely it is I'll get sick from them. Ta-da! Beyond that, there's the simple humanitarian aspect; if somebody is sick or hurt, we should help them; who's paying for that service shouldn't enter into it. Think of it this way: If your child is sick or hurt, you want him to be cared for. It's not a matter of health plans and deductible and payments, you want your kid to get better. It's no more complex than that.

Then there's the paying for it. In years past, it didn't cost that much -- especially if you got healthcare through your employer. But costs keep going up and up and up, so that not having insurance might be the only option for those with low incomes. It's even a problem for employers, who are facing increasingly substantial costs for this employee perk. In fact, it may be the employers who finally push healthcare reform this go round; even the biggest corporations are getting on the bandwagon due to increasing costs. (In addition, our system is blatantly unfair; the poorest fifth of Americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, while the richest fifth pay only about 3% of their incomes. That's not right.)

That said, those who have insurance as part of their jobs are the lucky ones. Go out on your own -- change jobs or move or whatever -- and you're likely to be turned down for coverage. It's the old "pre-existing condition" deal; if you're taking any type of medicine, even if that medicine helps to reduce your long-term medical costs, insurance companies don't want to pay for it. It gets worse the older you get; hell, at 50 years old, I am a pre-existing condition! So just qualifying for care (at reasonable rates) is a big issue these days.

Just having insurance doesn't guarantee you can get the care you need, however. How many of us have had their insurance companies deny some sort of treatment recommended by our personal physicians? Most, I'd wager. Every time my old doctor tweaked my medications, it would automatically be denied by my insurance company. EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've heard it said by people who work for insurance companies that they're instructed to automatically deny every claim the first time; even if they end up approving a second request, a certain percentage of people immediately give up, thus saving the insurance company from paying. That's cold, folks. I really don't need some minimum wage flunky in an insurance company cubicle overruling the advice from my personal physician.

So this overly bureaucratic system works hard to deny healthcare to millions, but despite that, it costs the country as a whole much more than it should. I suppose I could live with lousy service if it came cheap, but here in America we pay Rolls Royce rates for Kia quality. That's the gold ol' U.S of A., paying more than any other civilized nation. In 2000, the United States spent 13% of its gross domestic product on health expenditures. That's 22% more than the next most expensive nation, Germany (10.6%). Why are our costs so high? It's a combination of things. First, because so many people are uninsured or underinsured, they don't get proper preventative care, and they wait longer to see a doctor -- and this later, more emergency care costs more. Second, our system is a for-profit system, most health-related companies are public companies trying to meet quarterly profit goals for their investors. Third, these companies are heavy on the expensive management, and we all know how that works. Fourth, there is really no organized pressure to keep costs down, as there is in other countries; witness the lower costs for prescription medicines across the border in Canada. Fifth, there's the simple cost of bureaucracy; the administrative costs of private insurance run 16% of the total budget, while Medicare (that's a government-run program, for those keeping score) costs run only about 3%. (Ask your doctor how many people he has employed who do nothing but deal with insurance companies; you'll be shocked.)

The worst thing is, even paying so much for our healthcare, we get worse results than countries who pay much less. The statistics are overwhelming on this point. The WHO ranks the U.S. 32nd for infant survival and 24th for life expectancy; the Commonwealth Fund ranks us 15 out of 19 with respect to preventable deaths before the age of 75, and last in terms of both infant mortality and life expectancy. We pay more and get less in return. Would you accept this for anything else you buy in life?

So what is the solution? Well, it calls for a complete overhaul of our healthcare system -- not minor tweaks, as some might suggest. That means rethinking everything. We have to reinvent what we have; simply switching from paper records to electronic ones isn't the solution.

Our options, fortunately, are many. We're not the first country in the world to embrace national healthcare; in fact, we're just about the last. So we have the luxury of observing what other countries have done -- we can see what works and what doesn't. Take one from column A and two from column B, and build the best healthcare system in the world.

There are several approaches used in various countries around the world. One approach has the government run everything; the insurance companies go away, and all doctors and hospitals are government run. Another approach keeps doctors and hospitals private, but has all costs paid for by the government; again, no insurance companies are involved. A third approach keeps the insurance companies, but they're forced to provide low-cost coverage for all citizens; in return, they can upsell fancier (and more profitable) coverage to those who want it.

Each of these approaches has its pros and cons; none is 100% perfect. But all of these approaches cost less and get better results than we have today. Changing to any of these plans would be an improvement -- for all of us.

Big change has to happen, and happen fast. Unfortunately, we can do this only if our politicians have the willpower to do so -- which they don't seem to have. Right now, even the most populist politicians are sounding like rank and file conservatives, primarily because they're well funded by the healthcare lobby. The healthcare industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of politicians of both Democratic and Republican persuasions, with the result that few elected representatives are willing to embrace the total change that we need. "We must preserve the status quo," they cry, even if that status quo benefits only their big money donors. Us regular folks, who overwhelmingly embrace public healthcare, are left in the lurch.

This is the time for a populist uprising. All of us need to write our congresspeople and senators and president and make known how much we need and want dramatic change. Yes, we're talking public healthcare, and that will mean some disruption (mainly in the insurance industry, those fucking leeches), but it's what we want and need and must have. The insurance agency (and their well-paid lobbyists) be damned, we must force our elected official to do what is right and what is needed. This is no time for compromise (hear that, Mr. Obama?); this is time for action. Otherwise, the United States will continue to be the laughingstock of the world community, paying more and more to become less and less healthy. It's not right.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Jackson

2009-06-27T17:10:00.003-04:00

Michael Jackson is dead, and the media is going apeshit 24/7 with Jacko coverage. Frankly, I've had enough. It's just not that important.

IMHO, Michael Jackson was never the "king of pop." His best records were his first ones, with the Jackson 5; they had a youthful exuberance and represented the next generation of the classic Motown Sound. (Due more to Barry Gordy and his producers and writers than to the performances, I'd wager.) Jackson's most famous records, as a solo artist, certainly sold well, but they weren't groundbreaking. They may have represented the logical culmination of then-current producing and recording techniques, but they didn't push the envelope in any way, shape, or form. You want groundbreaking, you listen to Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye. Jackson's stuff was entertaining, but that's it. Not an innovator at all.

Jackson's music was popular, however, for various reasons. Well, it had a good beat and you could dance to it, of course. It also helped to break genre and color lines, especially in the world of MTV and music videos; in this way, Jackson was more of a cultural phenomenon than a musical one. But the songs, the records, they just don't have any staying power. Does his stuff get played on any radio stations today? (Well, other than the 24/7 mournathon we're currently in, that is.) No, it doesn't. The earlier Jackson 5 stuff does, because it endures. "Thriller," "Billie Jean," all those songs, they're easily replaceable. They don't stand out, they're too representative of their time; they simply don't wear well over the years. That's not great music, folks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, Jackson was a captivating entertainer and dancer. So compare him (probably unfavorably) to Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, not to Elvis Presley and John Lennon and other true musical innovators. You want musical innovators, talk about Chuck Berry and Little Richard and the Beatles; don't talk the so-called "king of pop." If anything, he was the king of cloying pap. Nothing more than that.

But I don't think he was a king at all, and I'm tired of hearing Michael Jackson talked about as if he really, truly, changed the world of music as we know it. Even his so-called accomplishments were really collaborations with (and driven by) Quincy Jones. What were Jackson's contributions? A few squeaks here and there and the introduction of the moonwalk -- which was itself an appropriation of existing dance steps. I'll give him one thing; he helped to turn pop concerts into singing-and-dancing extravaganzas, complete with synchronized dance steps and a troupe of scantily clad dancers. So we have Michael Jackson to thank for Britney Spears. Oh joy.

I'm sick and tired of the cult of artificial celebrity, which has reached its zenith with the enshrinement of so-called reality show stars like Jon and Kate and all those other losers who never accomplished anything in life other than acting out their pitiful lives in front of the video cameras. Michael Jackson was a talented performer, but nothing more. Let's not treat him as a god on his passing; let's not pay any more attention than that deserved by a has-been hitmaker with some very serious personality disorders. Michael Jackson, meet Frankie Lymon; that's your comparison, right there.

Enough is enough. That's much more than I ever intended to say about Michael Jackson, dead or alive, so I'll just stop now.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

One

2009-05-10T13:49:00.002-04:00

It was just over a year ago that I moved to the Twin Cities, and shortly after that when I got married. That's two one-year anniversaries to celebrate and reflect upon, which I'll try to do here.

First, moving to the Twin Cities. I was a life-long Hoosier, not because of any great love for the place but mainly due to inertia. Central Indiana is an okay and extremely inexpensive place to live. The people are nice enough, although there's a decided lack of education and respect for intelligence among many. There's also little to no arts scene, and in Indiana, Republicans rule. So there wasn't much to miss when I moved, other than friends and family.

The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is definitely a much larger and more sophisticated metropolis than the Indianapolis area. Lots of great restaurants, a terrific music and arts scene, just a general big-city vibe that Indy aspires to but has never reached. The people up here are, perhaps, nicer than the folks in Indiana, although I suspect that what they call "Minnesota nice" is really just an advanced form of passive-aggressiveness; they're really nice to your face, but they talk a lot behind your back. Still, it's nice to be around nice people.

That passive-aggressiveness comes out in their driving, however. Nobody up here can negotiate a simple roundabout (not that there are that many up here, especially when compared to Carmel, Indiana, the roundabout capital of the U.S.). Half the time they enter the roundabout then stop halfway through to let someone from the outside in. I want to get out of my car (and I have time to, since traffic has come to a halt), pull them out of theirs, and beat their little pasty white heads against the pavement. I guess I haven't gotten into the Minnesota nice thing much, myself.

The arts scene in the Twin Cities is terrific. My wife and I have seen more music in the past year than I saw in a decade in Indy. They love and support all types of music up here, jazz especially, and the Dakota is the best jazz club I've ever seen. (Better even than Indy's Jazz Kitchen, which I still love.) In the past year we've seen Nanci Griffith, Brian Wilson, Booker T. and the MGs (twice), John Pizzarelli (also twice), James Hunter, Gordon Lightfoot, Manhattan Transfer, Irma Thomas, Ruthie Foster, Lura, and Sophie Milman. (There's so much good stuff up here, I get annoyed at the acts we have to skip because we can't fit them into our schedule.) All were good, but the very best were Brian Wilson and Nanci Griffith, both legends of their own type. Hearing Brian and his wonderful backing band do "God Only Knows" brought a tear to my eye, it was just so perfect. That moment alone made the move to Minneapolis worth it.

Of course, the real reason I moved to the Twin Cities was to get married. My wife Sherry came from Indy, originally, but has been living up here for the past twenty or so years. We've known each other since high school, but hooked up again about three years ago and did two years of very long distance dating. (I put a lot of miles on the old convertible...) I finally talked her into making an honest man of me, and so we got married a year ago April.

Married life is a bit of a change for a 50 year-old bachelor. Not only am I sharing my (new and bigger) house with my wife, I'm also sharing it with her dog, her teenaged son, and, during school breaks, her college-aged daughter. As an added bonus, her younger daughter is going through a divorce, and she and her two toddlers are also living with us. I originally thought a five-bedroom house would be overkill, but now I sometimes wish for even more room.

Room aside, I kind of like having a full house. I really like the grandkids, two year-old Collin and his one year-old sister Hayley. Collin and I are great pals, and he likes to do just about anything he sees me doing. Yeah, Sherry and I spend a lot of time babysitting that we could be spending doing newlywed-type stuff, but I wouldn't give up the time with the kids. After spending a half-century alone, I treasure every single minute with my new family. (For those interested, pics of the grandkids can be found here: Mike and Sherry's Family Pictures)

Sherry has one more child, a daughter who is married and living in Winona, about two hours away. (That's also where the other daughter goes to college, conveniently enough.) So there's one more grandkid in the mix, with a fourth on the way. I wish we could spend more time with little Alethia, but the distance precludes this. Again, I treasure the time we spend with her.

It's a big lifestyle change for me. Friends say I'm either a saint or a crazy person; I admit to the latter, but don't find anything wrong with that. It's a different life, but one I'm trying to live to the fullest. There's less private time, but a lot more love.

What do I miss about my previous life? My Indiana friends, of course. But also the little things, like Cajun food (none at all up here) and my old coffeehouse. During the month of May I tend to miss the goings on at the Speedway, but that hasn't been the same for a decade or more, anyway, so there's less to miss. I don't miss the thickheaded rednecks in my old hometown; I do appreciate the more liberal bent up here, as well as their great enthusiasm for all things social and political. (And Norm Coleman should just give it up and go home, already.)

All in all, it's been a good year. I hope to have many more with my new friends and family here in Minnesota -- and with my old ones in Indiana, too.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Paul Harvey

2009-03-29T16:33:00.003-04:00

The voice of Middle America is gone. Paul Harvey has passed away.

Like many listeners, I first heard Paul Harvey while on family vacations, interminably long trips to Florida or Colorado when I was a youngster. There is absolutely nothing good to say about the flat desolation that is Kansas, other than at twelve sharp you could turn the AM radio a few turns left or right and hear the voice of Paul Harvey. There was a dry stretch while I was in high school and college, but when I got older, I got hooked again, listening to Paul Harvey News & Comment when driving to lunch on almost every Saturday. At a still later date, Paul (along with the pre-merger XM Radio and old Bob & Ray CDs) kept me sane while I was long-distance dating my future Minnesota wife from my home in Indiana. It didn't matter where I was en route, Paul was always on some station somewhere.

I might have disagreed with his politics, but I appreciated the way he presented them. Instead of the bile and hatred that is right-wing talk radio today, Paul was decent and civil, putting his point across without viciously attacking those who disagreed with him. Rush and Sean and all the other blathering heads could learn something from Paul's honorable approach.

What I found most appealing about Paul Harvey was the same thing I appreciated about Johnny Carson. Both men had kind of a Midwestern decency about them. They may have hung out with movie stars and corporate bigwigs, but they didn't act like it or sound like it. Each of them seemed like the guy who lived next door, maybe a special uncle, someone who paid special attention to the old lady standing behind them in line at the grocery store. Paul and Johnny were just as interested in the couple celebrating their 50th anniversary or the old woman who collected potato chips as they were in the short-lived "celebrities" of the day. A true interest in everyone they met or read about, that's the common factor, and the ability to directly relate to their listeners and viewers. I miss that about both of these men.

I certainly will miss having Paul Harvey to listen to on the radio. Even though he wasn't there every day in the past few years (illness, old age, and the death of his wife cut into his schedule), noontime was always a little special when that booming voice came over my car radio speakers. I was always ready to "stand by for news," and my day wasn't good until Paul said it was -- with his trademark long pause. He may have been a product of another time, but there must have been something worthwhile about those days to produce someone as interested in and genuinely excited about human affairs as Paul Harvey.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Mortgages

2009-02-25T16:09:00.002-05:00

The whole mortgage crisis has me of multiple minds. On one hand, I'm not that hip on bailing out folks who made bad decisions and got in over their heads with overly-large mortgages. On the other hand, I'm also not that hip on forcing families out on the street and leaving large chunks of real estate to sit vacant in neighborhoods across the U.S. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation.

Excessive rhetoric by the media doesn't help things. In particular, there's little good to be said about the inflammatory comments by CNBC ranting head Rick Santelli about the Obama administration subsidizing the mortgages of "losers" and promoting bad behavior. Except, of course, that there's more than a little truth in the content behind the blather. Forget the tone and the source, and you're faced with the reality that it's the folks who screwed up who will probably get bailed out, while those of us who didn't (or haven't yet) screwed up have to keep paying our often-excessive mortgage payments. As a guy who has dutifully paid his various mortgages on time for the past twenty years or so, that kind of burns my ass. I play by the rules and don't even get a thank you note, while the bums who skip their payments get a hand out -- subsidized by me! Thanks, Big Government, for the appreciation.

On the other hand, I have much sympathy for those folks who either got talked into ill-considered mortgage products or who've recently lost their jobs and may soon lose their homes. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and we should do something about that. I'd rather these folks get a little help than a boot out the front door.

On the other other hand, lots of folks who took out excessive mortgages really shouldn't have. They should have known they were getting in over their heads, whether we're talking lower-priced housing or a second McMansion. Sometimes it's okay to rent and most often there's little to be gained from trying to keep up with the Joneses. Some fools, rich and poor, deserve what they get.

But not all, and certainly not the folks we know, and most certainly not our neighbors. Thus the appeal of some sort of bailout for these mortgage holders.

Still, I'm left with the feeling of being royally screwed by being a good on-time payer all these years. It's not that I begrudge the help to those who need it, but what about me?

This, I think, is the difference between insensitive blowhards such as Santelli and more reasonable guys like myself. Calling all families with mortgage problems "losers" is extremely unsympathetic to those who really are the victims of misfortune. I'm sympathetic to their plight -- I'd just like a little consideration for doing what I was supposed to be doing all these years. (And I'm also aware that anyone -- me included -- could have similar misfortune and need similar assistance in the future. There but for fortune, and all that.)

What I'd like to see is some sort of plan that helps everyone, not just those in default. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'd lean towards some sort of universal principal and/or rate reduction. (I'd be real happy refinancing at 4% or so, if anyone's listening...) That sort of plan would benefit those currently underwater as well as those of us who've played by the rules all this time. Yeah, and maybe a few "losers" too, but that's what happens when you cast a wide net.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.