Black Friday

There's desperation out there, folks. In the lead-up to 'Black Friday' it seemed as if companies were going to just give stuff away.

That's my kind of sale. Especially when I need something 'essential', but ordinarily too expensive to seriously consider. When I hear phrases like '60% Off' on that sort of item, I pay attention, even if doing so denies my own revulsion over the reeking depths of crass consumerism.

So up and out I went on the Day After Thanksgiving. Not at the crack of dawn, but early enough when shaking off the 'Food Flu' and making decisions with money. Like a groggy Neandertal kicked out of his cave to hunt for his morning's Elk sausage, I was tired but primed for the kill.

Alas, the prey did not materialize. No sales worth repeating on any of the expensive but suddenly necessary items on my list. A measly 10% off was the best I could find.

Now, 10% is nothing to sniff at on any normal 'sale', especially for expensive purchases, but on Black Friday? You lure me out of a nurturing and much-needed sleep with promises of 60%, and I all I get is 10?

That's a Crime. Punishable by firmly sticking my wallet back in my pocket and resolving to keep it there except in direst necessity. Or 70% off, whichever comes first.

Poetry Break: Revenge of The Gobblers

On Thanksgiving we Eat Turkeys

By the Ton, I'll bet!

But those birds have a Plan

It's Revenge they're gonna Get ...

Eat Turkey with some stuffing

Eat Turkey with some beets

With mashed potatoes,

cranberries, and sundry other treats

Follow it with pies - In Pumpkin we Trust,

But also Apple, Cherry, Pecan,

Even Mincemeat, if you Must

Wash it down with Wine,

or Cider,

or Tea

Now you're the most stuffed you'll ever be!

Next comes the bloating, the belching up of Gas

Just before the commotion emitting from your Ass

Ah, the Turkey's have their comeback

They've taken their Revenge

But you'll forget it all,

In time for Next Thankgiving's Binge...

Motorcycles: Standards of Nakedness

Wander into any motorcycle-selling establishment during the past ten years (longer, really) and you would likely view a sea of plastic-wrapped machines, with engines mostly or entirely hidden. If you were to ask anyone at these locations what happened to 'standard' bikes, they'd likely point to a Honda VFR Interceptor or something similar and say 'there'. They would do so since the VFR is a bike designed to be both 'sporty' and 'racy', yet comfortable enough to commute and even travel on. An 'all-around', practical bike - hence 'standard' by the terms of the modern ('90s onward) motorcycle salesperson.

Problem is, the VFR engine has been entirely hidden by plastic 'fairings' since the mid-'80s. And for those of us who like the power plant clearly in view, the VFR just doesn't fulfill that important component of our definition of 'standard'.

When met with this resistance, plucky salesfolk might then steer you towards 'naked' bikes, where the engine is at least mostly on show. Better. What you might see would be 'retro' bikes, old designs hotted up a bit by newer technology (but far from cutting edge), or lately you might see 'streetfighters' - minimalist efforts to strip the fairings off sport bikes to show the engine and provide a slightly-less-than-torturous seat and controls arrangement for the rider. Also better, but neither option quite meets the standard of 'standard'. The 'retro' can't compete (on technical or 'ego' grounds) with the best of fully modern designs, and the streetfighters, improved ergonomics and naked viewing aside, are hardly practical devices. Travel far on one? No. Commute? Maybe, but the bike (and you) will complain all the way.

There have been some brave attempts at bridging this gap but most haven't sold well, for various reasons often accompanied by the words 'ugly' or 'dull'. A few have been successful, most of these in a newer category alternately called 'dual purpose' or 'adventure touring'. But these bikes, though mostly 'naked' and not noticeably 'retro', are anything but thrilling to gaze upon, and are often too tall for normal humans. They just don't quite fit the 'standard' bill.

So what should a 'standard' be? To be honest, I know more about what isn't a standard than what would make one today. But for me at least, I'd be looking for near cutting edge power and handling with comfort, practicality, and a good-looking, mechanically impressive engine on full display. If I can afford it, sit on it without a step stool, and carry a few things on it without resort to saddlebags, tank bags, or backpacks, I would be happy.

(For a few of today's bikes some consider 'standard' take a look at this web page at motorcyclist online. See if any meet your criteria...)

Happy Thanksgiving '2' You!

On the second Thanksgiving since starting this blog, I wish you good food, good friends, and a very good day. May it be spent with those you love and cherish. If not, then at least with those you can tolerate as long as they don't stay for the weekend.

If you think more needs to be said about this holiday, then check out last year's slightly more expansive comment. Enjoy the Day!

WAR Vs war

I don't know about you, but I've been bugged for about 8 years now by a misconception perpetuated by the press: it's that we are at WAR.

I know. I know. There's shooting and bombing and all sorts of warlike things happening, but is it a WAR? What is a WAR, anyway? If two groups face off and bombard each other with weaponry, is that enough to call it a WAR? (Or a healthcare reform town meeting?)

Actually, for fighting to become a WAR, I believe the Congress has to declare it one. And that's never happened. The sad vote to allow President Bush to use military action didn't quality as a declaration of WAR, and as far as I can tell no one has actually declared WAR on the US either.

Calling what's happening over in Iraq and Afghanistan not a WAR, must seem utterly nonsensical to those kids fighting and dying in those places. In the midst of combat there would be nothing to help you tell the difference. And it wouldn't really matter anyway - surviving would require the same actions, real WAR or not.

But back here in the US, it makes a difference, legally at least. George Bush knew it. That's why he ignored the Geneva conventions - only countries in a declared war are bound by them. The only problem was he forgot that it's either one or the other - declared WAR and be bound by the Geneva conventions, or undeclared war-like conflict and bound by our national (and some international) civil laws. You can't have it both ways, although Bush believed he could.

We started back in 2001 fighting against Al-Qaeda, a terroristic, extremist, fanatically religious group encompassing minions from several nations. Hard to declare WAR on that. Then we added the Taliban - a theocratic bunch of ruffians that ruled Afghanistan and harbored Al-Qaeda. Them we could declare WAR against, but didn't. Then came Iraq, ruled by a non-religious former ally who also happened to be a despot and once threatened George Bush the Elder's life. Another easy target for a declared WAR, but again we declined.

Even though WAR was not declared against Iraq or Afghanistan, the fighting there took on the traditional shape of WAR, but legally wasn't. Which lead to all sorts of confusion within the Bush administration and plenty of questionable decisions. Fighting Al Qaeda, was not a WAR and not traditional in any sense. Which is probably why the Bush folks dropped emphasis on finding Bin Laden and defeating Al-Qaeda from almost the moment the first bombs fell in Iraq - although we were reminded of them from time to time, when expedient.

When Attorney General Holder was deciding what to do with the 9/11 perps, some aspect of this history must have been in mind. If those murderers were working for an enemy in a declared WAR, then the rules are clear - try them either in a US military court or internationally for WAR crimes. If they are part of a diffuse terrorist organization against which we have not declared WAR then US civilian courts - AND the courts of all countries whose citizens were killed on 9/11 (and that is many), are appropriate.

Which is what Holder and President Obama have decided.

CSI: Where's Ray?

Morpheus must be fuming down in Zion ...

USA Today ran a commentary by Robert Bianco titled Fishburne and 'CSI': The Evidence is weak, which, cute title aside, perfectly summed up the situation faced by the actor and the show. Bianco rightly noted the horribleness of the recent CSI trilogy, which featured Fishburne's character, Ray Langston, but in the worst possible way. The article ended by nicely summing up the problem: Fishburne has lead billing but his character is in a subordinate role. How do you solve that dilemma? Bianco didn't tell us. He lamented the situation and hinted it was time for Fishburne and CSI to part ways.

Nice article, but he's wrong. Fisburne's Langston is a likable character, and the shows (trilogy excepted) have been entertaining. But CSI does need to move Ray up in the ranks and soon, to finish a journey which was obviously planned from his first appearance on the series, but has stalled for some unfathomable reason.

Ray Langston was a doctor. That gives him empathy with the pathologist. He was a professor and author on the behavior of psychopathic serial killers, which qualifies him as a profiler like the folks in Criminal Minds. In short, he has the qualities of a 'super-CSI'. And most of us who understood these strengths expected a rapid rise from learning the ropes to taking over the lead. That hasn't happened, and, as Robert Bianco noted, it makes for an awkward situation on the show.

The conundrum can easily be overcome. The writers need to complete the transformation of Langston from intellectual professor to intellectual CSI leader, and forego attempts to make him 'one of the gang'. Stop attempting to make him warm and fuzzy with the victims too. A 'heart on sleeve' approach won't work for the head of a CSI unit, so drop the attempt to humanize Langston - and soon.

I can foresee an upcoming series of episodes where Dr. Ray rises up to lead the hunt for an 'unsub' ala Grissom's search for the 'Miniature Killer', perhaps doing a guest shot on a Criminal Minds in the process. The hunt will end with Langston a different man - and appointed the leader of the Las Vegas CSI team. Sure, there will be friction, since the other CSI's have been there longer, and in real life they'd be angered. But that can be managed through plot. The other actors might be a tad resistant to the move too, but that can be managed with contracts.

To save the show, Langston must move up, or as Bianco hinted, move out. If the latter, I would suggest an episode that begins with Dr. Ray picking up a phone and dissolving before our eyes, out of the 'Matrix' and back to his 'reality'. The remaining CSI team could lead the search for the missing Langston, but ultimately call for help from the FBI, which arrives just before the credits in the form of Keanu Reeves. (Cue closing music from The Matrix).

Poetry Break: Palinopia

Alaska's minus one,

Sarah's gone

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue

Juneau's loss is, well, perhaps

no loss at all

The rest of us haven't gained a thing

Alaska's Alaska, even if

Sarah's gone

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue

I think I'll take a cruise north,

now that Palinopia's fallen,

and Sarah's on the road

Selling books to would-be Rogues

Babble-On 29

Wherein my faith in the human race waxes and wanes ... (mostly wanes)

Much Ado About Mammograms - Kids, Kids! Can we all settle down and stop shouting? I haven't met the woman yet who likes getting mammograms, who clamors for the right to get them at the earliest possible age. Even so, the announcement from some panel somewhere suggesting that women wait to start regular yearly testing until age 50 drew outrage from numerous interested parties. I say 'parties' since I am guessing most individual women under the age of 50 met the news with a sigh of relief and an easing of dread. But I'll bet the mammography business is concerned about these new guidelines and have the troops mobilized in earnest. Including, surprisingly, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius. Does anybody in government talk with each other about these things before they are pronounced to the general public? I can't wait for the memo on colonoscopy.

Fox News Vs The White House - Is there anything the White House can do to get some positive press out of Fox News? Appoint Rupert Murdoch Ambassador to Australia? Wait, he's from there. And even if they did throw something Rupert's way, it wouldn't be enough. Fox seems to truly have it in for the Obama administration, giving a never-ending series of Republican representatives and think-tankers an uncritical platform for sniping. The 'reporting' is most definitely not 'objective', unless by 'objective' you mean some sort of goal or agenda. But Fox may be shooting itself in the foot. What would they do for news if a Republican administration was back in the White House?

Airborne Maneuvers - I've been flying around the country a lot lately, and I must say overall the experience has boosted my attitude about people around this great country. Today though, I witnessed the sleaziest example of petty self-indulgence I've ever seen while traveling. It was almost enough to erase that attitude boost. You know what I'm talking about - you, the woman and her companion traveling from Houston to Austin who scammed your way into the early boarding group by falsely claiming you were accompanying the young minor girl who was in line in front of you. Was it worth trading integrity to board a few minutes earlier? You pulled it off with great aplomb, though. I don't know what you do for a living now, but consider a new career on Fox News. And a colonoscopy ...

Slash, Beware!

While on the road, I like to intersperse bouts of work with bouts of watching TV programs I don't get to watch while at home. The latter includes just about anything on the National Geographic Channel, so I was happy to take a break from critiquing the work of others and tune in 'Expedition Great White'.

The show was about research being conducted at Guadalupe Island, off the coast of Mexico. Which just happens to be where I photographed my buddy 'Slash', whose grin graces this blog. Naturally I was interested.

After closing the laptop and turning to the TV, I settled in with a coffee in hand to watch my friends in action, anticipating them gliding about and generally looking pleased with themselves. The reality of what I saw had me spluttering coffee on my shirt and exclaiming my shock to the hotel room (and several floors above and below).

What I witnessed was a fishing trip, basically. A prolonged struggle in which a shark is hooked and drug about the ocean by a boat for an hour until its life seemed suspended by a slender thread. Then this magnificent animal is pulled onto a platform and hoisted above water, a hose shoved in its mouth pumping water through its gills (much faster and more turbulently than it would naturally). It then gets tagged, sampled, and generally gloated over.

At that point I could watch no more. I assume the shark was shoved back in the water at some point, and a voice over probably said the shark would be no worse for the experience. Don't you believe it. There's no way a struggle like that would leave a shark unharmed. Great Whites have amazing recuperative ability it's true, but it takes time to recover, and one luxury no creature in the great food chain that is the ocean ever has enough of is time to recover from wounds, recover strength to fight rivals (and Great Whites do compete with each other), or recover strength to capture prey.

Instead of beautiful science, I witnessed gross and unnecessary cruelty. I hope true marine scientists and conservationists the world over will voice their concern over this 'research' practice.

The shark I saw when I tuned in had Slash's dappled sides, but I hope that was just a coincidence. I hope Slash was well away from the Island that day and that he and his brothers and sisters can find some peace.

Space: Live from Houston

For some odd reason I don't think of Space when I am in Houston. Even though there's a 1/15th scale Shuttle in Houston Hobby Airport and the phrase 'Houston, we have a problem' is a settled part of the language.

When I think about Houston I think of Oil, Lyle Lovett, and 'Middle Age Crazy'. And strangely I think of Larry Hagman, even though his J.R. Ewing stalked the streets of Dallas. But I guess there's some logic embedded there, since Hagman played an astronaut in 'I Dream of Jeanie'.

Despite my lack of recognition, Houston is all about Space. It is the home of NASA's Johnson Space Center, from which our missions into Space are controlled. Growing up as I did a stone's throw from the Cape in Florida I always wondered why the big control center would be in Houston and not in Florida. The reason, of course, had everything to do with President Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, and not geography. I was proud of Florida and ticked at the perceived slight. But it could have been worse. Johnson could have hailed from Alaska (Nome Space Center?)

All this thinking of Space was conjured up by a headline in the news today of the Space Shuttle Atlantis rocketing off to resupply the International Space Station. And another headline about the Leonid Meteor Shower - supposedly the 'strongest' of the year. North America should see about 30 to 60 meteors and hour and in Asia, 200 to 300. Reading those two together made me think: Is this really a good time to be sending up the Shuttle? I mean, is there a possibility it could get shot-peened, and not in a good way?

Well, maybe those meteors are small, about the size and consistency of dust bunnies, and won't cause any harm. Just in case, though, here's hoping NASA has it's heat resistant tile repair down pat. Or insurance. Do Geckos live in Houston?

Blogoversary the First

October 29, 2009, was the first anniversary of this blog. But there was no time to stop and celebrate, since I was busy traveling for my paying gig.

Turns out that oversight was OK, since the last item posted on this blog was the 200th, which means two milestones to cheer.

When I started this list of rants, I hoped to share a few observations and have a little fun.

I also needed an outlet for the verbal magma building up deep within the volcanic chamber that is my mind. My friends were getting a little tired of eruptions all too frequently interrupting dinner conversation. The digressions, soap box speeches, and stream of consciousness diatribes strained relationships. They had to stop. Hence this blog.

And I am happy to report some progress. Maybe in another year and another 200 I'll have the problem licked.

In the meantime, If this column of sorts provides a little light reading for you out there in the websphere, that's great too. Let me hear from you now and again ...

A Brave Move

In the short time he has resided in the White House, Barack Obama has made some gutsy and controversial moves. None quite match the bravery of his recent decision to put the 9/11 suspects on public trial in New York City, the scene of the crime.

I say 'his' decision, although Attorney General Eric Holder is the man directly responsible for the move. Even though the Attorney General is independent of the Chief Executive, it would be hard to imagine Mr. Holder operating without the President's approval on this matter. So let's give Mr. Obama a big thumbs up on this one. It's a brave move. And it's risky.

First off, all of the juicy information garnered through 'enhanced interrogation techniques' by the minions of the Bush Administration won't be admissible in a civilian court. That leaves the prosecutors only evidence gathered through legal means. Hopefully the Bush team remembered to do enough of that in between waterboarding sessions.

The move is also risky since defense attorneys will have plenty of ammunition to claim forced confessions, inappropriate venue, and all sorts of misconduct, in their efforts to get charges reduced or even dropped. In our country, the defense in criminal cases often gets a bad rap -except in TV shows from the 50s, 60s and 70s, when they were heroes - like Perry Mason. In this case even Perry Mason would be booed on the streets for his efforts. But providing a vigorous defense for even the obviously guilty is the most important component of the foundation of our justice system. Hard to swallow at times, like this time, but true.

My guess is the defense will start their case with a motion to change venue, claiming the defendants won't get an impartial hearing in New York. That's not a difficult claim to support, so the judge will have a tough decision. But where to hold the trial if not New York? I really wouldn't want to be that judge.

Finally, the riskiest aspect of this bold move is the opportunity it may give the defendants to attempt to legitimize the 9/11 attacks. Such an attempt wouldn't change the outcome of the trial, but it could serve as a powerful recruiting tool for anti-US extremists worldwide.

Still, we have to trust the President and his Attorney General on this move. Their motive in doing this is clear - to change this 'War on Terror' into the international, cooperative, civilian police action it should always have been from the beginning. To separate the hunt for Al-Qaeda (and Bin Laden) from military efforts to settle the Bush legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And that's a good thing. And a Brave Move.

Eight Plus Ten

Listening to the radio news the other day, my attention was seized by a commentator's report that some in the US Armed Forces believe we might be in Afghanistan for as long as ten more years.

Pardon me? TEN MORE YEARS ?

If I am not mistaken, we've already been there for nearly eight long and bloody years. Another ten of those can hardly be contemplated.

I recall our leaders back in late '01 and early '02 telling us we would go in there, straighten things out, get the populace (a sturdy and resilient bunch) back into good trim, and then get the hell out. I remember them bristling with indignation when anyone suggested we'd be there for more than a year, let alone three, five, or (unthinkable) eight.

I remember talk of self-reliance. After all, native Afghan militias run by friendly warlords did most of the Taliban butt-kicking, with a little help from US air support. There was no talk of any US troop requirements long term. We were just there to find Bin Laden and cart him off to Gitmo.

But somehow, while we were focused on the morass of Iraq, things changed in Afghanistan. Or, the false reality we were fed was lifted to reveal the truth of the matter. Or, the reality was changed to suit someone's best interest (but not ours). No matter why, things were suddenly different, and instead of the done deal we thought it was, the little country that has thwarted invaders for thousands of years has retaken center stage as our thorniest problem.

Luckily, this problem can be de-thorned and resolved quite quickly. Simply stated, let's get out of there as fast as our planes, trucks, and ships can move us. Say 'Goodbye and Thanks for All the Dust' to that corrupt guy Karzai and pick up our chips and leave the table.

Tough as it is to walk away from all that effort, to leave all that human sacrifice of lives and time unrequited, it is better to do so than suffer through ten more years. We do not want or need another decade of our presence irritating the locals into ever deeper levels of mistrust and hatred, until there's not a US sympathizer left and all hope of a positive US influence on the region has been dashed.

Let's back way and take a different tack. Allow the Afghanis to work out their government as they see fit, and when they do, step in with help and aid in rebuilding their country (or building it in the first place - heck, we have lots of unemployed engineers right now). Or, if we find the government they form distasteful, we can just leave them alone and focus our efforts on helping Pakistan and India (i.e., the guys with the nukes), and, lest we forget, Iraq.

Eight Plus Ten? Fool Us Once, But Not Again ...

Welcome To The Fall

Sitting in Los Angeles you wouldn't know Autumn was upon you. Nights become slightly colder and gradually longer, yet the days stay warm and bright. The End of Summer sneaks up, leaving you blissfully unaware until some event wakes you up to seasonal reality.

For me, in LA, that Event was always Halloween. Hunting for last minute costumes for the kids, gathering with friends, and eating candy, perhaps by the first lit fireplace since March, all get me in the mood for the colder slice of year. All-Hallows tunes me up for the grander Holidays, and girds me against the coming of slightly less warm days and much colder nights.

This year, a business trip took me to the Great Midwest, where the changing color of the trees offered a spoiler to this year's Pumpkin Fest. I was reminded that folks living in many areas of this great country receive earlier (and harsher) cues for the arrival of Fall.

Leaves of red and gold may be beautiful to look at from the warmth of a heated car, or when seen through the window of a cozy house, but I'll pass on the frosty experience of viewing them outdoors. I believe I can live with my usual timing, my unawareness until Halloween taps me on my skull, points to the calendar and says 'Wake Up, It's Fall'.