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