Jul 31 2004

Enough About Nam!

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 11:26 pm

Sometimes you want to write about something and you put it off. You let it fester, hoping that the frustration will go away. You want to avoid opening a can of worms, or worse, offending someone whom you respect. Ultimately, you either have to toss the idea or go with it. Disagree with me if you like, but at least respect me for being honest.

No pulling punches here…I’m going to come right out and say it:

I’m sick of hearing about Vietnam.

I hope that I don’t offend anyone in the audience by saying so, but it’s the way I feel.

President Clinton avoided military service through a deferment. This wasn’t an issue for Democrats during his campaign or during his time in the White House. It was, naturally, an issue for Republicans.

Now, we have those same Democrats who once downplayed the military service issue parading Vietnam soldiers as fast as they can ship them into the town of their latest rally. And we have those same Republicans who were so quick to condemn Clinton for not serving either making excuses for Bush or ignoring the criticism altogether.

Come on, people…can we not see this foolishness for what it is? We had soldiers returning home from an unpopular war in the 1970’s as the country basically turned their back on them. Since then, those same soldiers have been put on display every four years by whichever candidate (or candidates) served with them as if that candidate’s party invented military service.

I never served in the military. Undoubtedly, from what some people have had to say in praise of John Kerry and in criticism of George W. Bush, this fact makes me a second-class citizen of this country. If you feel that way, you might want to re-evaluate your position: the Constitution does not require military service as a prerequisite to either be president or vote for one.

The issue of whether a presidential candidate served in the military is a sham. The argument that it is “unfair” for a president who has never served in the military to expect “our sons and daughters” to fight a war he wouldn’t fight is ridiculous.

Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief. But do you really believe that no president can be effective as a Commander-in-Chief without having fought a war? If you do…if you genuinely believe that, then please explain this:

We hold the president accountable for the nation’s debt and economy, but the president is not required to be a financial whiz — or even a great mathematician, for that matter.

We hold the president responsible for protecting the environment. But the president doesn’t have to be an expert on ecology.

We blame the president when we aren’t happy with education. Yet nowhere is it written that a candidate must have spent any period of employment in our public school system as a teacher.

We point our fingers at the president when we are dissatisfied with our health care system. Show me where it says the president must have a medical degree.

The president is the Commander-in-Chief. If you think that only those who have served in the military deserve to be president, I have two questions:

Have you ever voted for any candidate who didn’t spend time on the front lines during a major war? If so, how can you possibly justify that vote?

Second, what have you done to campaign for a Constitutional amendment redefining the requirements for holding the office of president to add military service? If it is really a serious issue for you, I would expect that you have done more than gripe about it.

I mean no disrespect to our soldiers. My father served in Vietnam. I respect those who have served, because I know that they are the ones whose blood, sweat and tears have strengthened our nation to the point that the rest of us are not required to serve. I appreciate that. I don’t accept that gift lightly.

It angers me when I see these veterans being used as pawns by whichever political party has the “war hero” of the hour as its top attraction. Because I never served, I can’t fathom the horrors of war. Because I have been used by others, I can at least imagine what that feels like. I hope none of our soldiers would let either side use them just to receive some of the recognition they’ve been owed for so long.

If military service alone is the reason you will vote for the man you choose, I can’t begin to imagine what you’re thinking. Blame it on the fact that I’ve never served, but it’s not even remotely an issue for this voter. It wasn’t a big enough issue to stop me for voting for Bill Clinton several years back. (Does that surprise you?) And it’s not a big enough issue to decide who will get my vote this year.


Jul 31 2004

Saturday Six - Episode 16

Tag: Saturday SixPatrick @ 6:30 pm

And we’re back again with another edition of the Saturday Six…the 16th set of six. And what would be more appropriate for the “Sweet 16″ edition than a question about a nude beach?!?

For those of you who haven’t played before…(and for those of you who like to hear the same thing week after week)…answer the questions here or put the answers in an entry on your journal…either way, just be sure to include the link to your journal in the comment so that we can all find you. On Tuesday I will post a recap of the players with links so that you can see how your neighbors answered the same questions you’re about to! And it gives them the chance to visit your journal as well…possibly for the first time…a symbiotic relationship at its very best! Enjoy!

1. Which do you most enjoy receiving from someone you know: a telephone call, an E-mail, a handwritten letter, or a comment in your journal?

2. You are invited to a nude beach. You do not know any of the people who will be there, and it is certain that you will never see any of them ever again. No one you know will find out you had gone unless you tell them. Would you go?

3. Not counting work uniforms, what color do you wear most often?

4. What was the last movie you watched that you thought couldn’t end soon enough?

5. What is the farthest you’ve ever called someone long distance?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #14 from From NZforME: “If you were to get a personalized/vanity license plate, what would it say?”

Have a question you’d like to see asked on an upcoming edition of the “Saturday Six?” Just click that white envelope icon in my “About Me” panel and E-mail it to me.

MY ANSWERS:
1. An E-mail, which surprises even me.

2. No. That would not be a pretty sight.

3. Blue

4. The Last Samurai. Most people loved it, I know…but it just wasn’t my kind of picture.

5. From Virginia, I called a friend in Southern California. Mapquest says the distance is 2659 miles.

6. Since I work in TV, and since most of my work occurs during commercial breaks, something like “B RYT BK” (”Be right back,” as in a pitch to a commercial break) might be cute. Then again, the fact that I felt I needed to explain it sort of makes me doubt that. I once had a vanity plate that said “Pattboy” so until I come up with something better to deal with TV, I’ll let that be the story I stick to.


Jul 31 2004

What Did Kerry Deliver

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 8:58 am

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

After reading mostly glowing reviews of the Democratic convention and in particular the speech delievered by John Kerry, I was beginning to wonder if I had somehow watched a feed of a Democratic convention from an alternate universe.

I didn’t find Kerry’s speech nearly as informative as some of his diehard supporters apparently have. I’m not a diehard supporter of either candidate at the moment. Lest you wonder, I don’t expect an eloquent oration from George W. Bush when he takes the mic in September…there have been times when it has been painful to listen to him speak. I don’t expect any less rhetoric from Bush, I do expect more. But I did expect more content from Kerry than what I felt I got.

The trouble is, I kept listening to people who were fired up by the convention giving their reviews. I kept hearing them say how well they now know John Kerry. They never went into specifics, of course; they just stopped after claiming to know him better.

I remain convinced that if you ask a group of people what they do know about John Kerry, the first thing they will tell you is that he is a war hero. Immediately thereafter, they will add that he won three Purple Hearts. The third fact might just take a little longer.

Yep…Kerry fought in Vietnam while Bush was in the National Guard. Kerry was on the front lines. He won three Purple Hearts. Got that much memorized, thank you.

Then I visited Ron’s journal, “Think It Over.” His entry, “Who is John Kerry?” includes links to some op-ed pieces which put the situation into words that wouldn’t immediately come to me.

He cites a passage from Dick Morris, who questions what accomplishments Kerry has to talk about after 20 years in the Senate. I didn’t get the sense that much, if any, of this information was included in his speech.

What Kerry did say in his speech about those twenty years was this:

“When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America.

And then I reached out across the aisle with John McCain to work to find the truth about our POWs and missing in action and to finally make peace in Vietnam.”

That’s it.

The complete text of Kerry’s speech is here. Maybe there’s something there that I’m missing?

Ron points out that it is possible that Kerry doesn’t give us a long list of highlights of his two decades in the Senate because there isn’t one. At a campaign stop, Bush said pretty much the same thing. That’s possible. But then again, I’m not sure that it’s a completely valid argument. I imagine that most of our elected officials don’t have laws that bear their name or huge accomplishments for which they alone are responsible. Does that mean they don’t have the right to run? Of course not.

What I find interesting, though, is that Kerry prefaced the all-too-brief comments about his Congressional tenure with this:

“I ask you to judge me by my record.”

That’s what’s been bothering me about it: what record am I supposed to judge him by? Because I wasn’t already convinced that Kerry was the right man for the job, I was expecting that speech to supply a much deeper look at the politician who would be leader, including his prior political record. I can’t say that it did.

When you consider that anyone can take the stage and promise the moon, but that only those politicians who are able to work with others of the opposite party to actually pass any of the measures they want have any success in fulfilling those promises, one might expect that prior accomplishments carry more weight than good intentions.

If Bush is to be accused of “duping” Kerry and other prominent Democrats into voting for war in Iraq when he knew the charges were groundless, what ability does Kerry have when it comes to getting people of a different party to support his initiatives when his intent isn’t regarded as insincere?

Later in the same speech, Kerry promises that as president, he will ask the “hard questions” and demand “hard evidence.” As a voter, that’s what I am doing now.

So what’s different about Kerry versus Bush in Iraq?
According to an article from Yahoo! News, (otherwise known as Reuters), not much:

“John Kerry made a determined effort to define himself as a clear alternative to President Bush at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday but on the key issue of Iraq, he held out only the prospect of greater international participation. “

International participation? Sure, that’s very important. It would be great to have more of our allies on our side, sharing the responsibilities and the costs. That way we could stop splitting hairs about whether the budget deficit is acceptable at $445 billion because it didn’t live up to initial projections of reaching $521 billion.

But to accept Kerry’s position that he can singlehandedly repair the damage Bush has done to America’s image with its allies because of his stubbornness requires that you then back away from the extremist view that Bush has done irreparable damage to those relationships.

Kerry wants to increase involvement in working out the Iraqi situation. He wants more people at the table. That much is definitely reasonable. But those who have been holding out hope that Kerry would be the man to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately must have realized that it won’t happen with him. We’re stuck there for a while with either candidate, folks.

The article also carries a quote from Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who suggests Kerry has failed to realize the enormity of the disaster that is Iraq: “He’s not offering anything new. His position seems to be a carefully calculated to not alienate undecided voters by shying away from a real alternative to Bush’s policy,” Cirincione said.

Is this a major surprise? Not really, says Charlie at “The Other Shoe,” who suggests that “it is a capitalist myth that competition engenders variety. The contrary is true.”

Some of you won’t believe what I’m about to say. You will question my motives. You are convinced that I am going to vote for Bush no matter what anyone says. I can’t help what you choose to believe. I can only say that what I was hoping for was something new. I want to know that Kerry does offer a better alternative, not just an alternative.

Has Bush done everything the way I would like to have seen it done? No. Am I certain that Kerry will do everything better based on what I think I know about him? No.

It’s called being an informed voter. I have to believe that I’m not the only person who isn’t thrilled with either one. Maybe, after being an eligible voter for more than a decade and a half now, I’m just getting the point of the whole thing: that you’re never completely satisfied with anyone.


Jul 29 2004

The AOL Anniversary Address

Tag: AOL, BloggingPatrick @ 11:01 pm

This is a special entry which is part of AOL’s Journal Community First Anniversary Celebration.

When I was asked by Vivian to prepare one of the “keynote addresses” for the big party, I thought for a while about what I wanted to say to those of you who stopped by. I was flattered by her request, but at the same time, I felt the pressure to come up with some pearl of wisdom more than a little daunting.

I thought I would try to answer that basic question that many never ask…but secretly would like to: Why do we do it?

Writing a journal is much like building a house, furnishing it to your own taste down to the knickknacks on the shelves. Each day, as you bring another item up from the basement — the only room that is always locked — you place it, get it where you want it, then leave the house for a few hours.

There’s just one more thing: before you leave, you open every door to every room (except for that mysterious basement), including all of the closets with any skeletons you’ve put there, and then you leave the front door standing wide open and just walk away for a little while.

Those in the neighborhood who walk by, seeing that door, can step inside if they wish and have a look around.

Who wouldn’t? You’re in a nice neighborhood, you see an open door — almost an invitation in itself — you know no one is around and that no one is watching. You can step inside, have a look around and no one will ever be the wiser. Unlike real life, you can’t really take any furniture or belongings from the house…all you can do is look around. If you want to, you can leave a note or two to let someone know that you’ve been there, but you don’t even have to identify yourself when you do so. In the real world, I can’t imagine anyone resisting that temptation for very long.

It’s very intimidating, though, when you get back home and you realize that someone has been there. I mean, you left the door open, so you know that it was possible…but when you find proof, well, that’s different. When you see that “sticky-note” left on the refrigerator, surrounded by those magnets that have been rearranged into a smiley-face, or when you find that note card on the coffee table, you realize that someone else has browsed through your private little world.

It can be very pleasant when someone leaves a comment that says they like the way you’ve chosen to decorate your place. It can be unpleasant when someone calls you an idiot for placing the leopard-skin sofa on the green shag carpet, no matter how cool you think it looks.

Some recoil at the idea of having others leave comments, because it makes them realize that someone has looked around. It throws them into a panic! “Did I leave the place tidy?” “Had I made my bed?” “Did I flush the toilet before I left?” Some abruptly tear up the comments and throw them away, whether they were well-meaning or not. Some lock the door, making sure no one can ever leave a comment again. Others, so bothered by the notion that anyone might take advantage of the chance to see how they live inside their own home decide to take the extreme action of tearing down the house by deleting their journal altogether.

What they don’t realize is that it’s no less intimidating a year later. Sure, those of you with journals that have stood the test of time since the very beginning may be used to that intimidation. You may have come to terms with the pressure of having to keep things in order so that visitors won’t be offended. Or, you may have reached the conclusion that it’s your house, you can live how you want to live, and those who step inside will see what they see, period.

No matter how long that front door has been standing wide open, there are still those moments, as you bring up the latest item from the basement and decide where and how to place it, that you wonder, “Am I going to upset someone with this?” or “Am I going to run off one of my friends if they know I have one of these?”

Making other people happy isn’t really our motive, as much as we like to think it is. You can’t please everyone, no matter how hard you try. Sooner or later, you will offend someone. That doesn’t mean that you have to do it often, but it does mean that the odds aren’t necessarily on your side.

So why open that door at all? There are plenty of visitors who don’t. Why not just be like them?

The obvious answer is that if everyone just walked from house to house looking for one with the door open, they’d all be closed. Someone has to open the door.

I think I’ve figured out, finally, why those of us who do choose to open the front door and quietly invite the inspection, judgment or even scorn of others do so. I think we all have the same motive in mind…the same question we’d like to have answered.

No matter what gender, age, race, nationality, religion, political preference, sexual orientation or other quality that might make us unique, we all have one key thing in common: we have all reached a point in this crazy journey where we need that one answer to that one question.

We post things about our ourselves, our family, our loves, our hopes, our dreams, and even our fears. We talk about things we wish would happen to us, and things that already have. Some of them are profound, others are inane. We plead our cases, argue our beliefs, defend our causes. And while we may not always ask whether anyone agrees with us, understands our situation, can explain some incomprehensible behavior of another, or even thinks we’re overreacting, there is still that nagging question that is much simpler:

Is anyone out there?

It seems a little sad in a way, doesn’t it? That’s what we really want to know. Is anybody out there? Is this thing on? Is someone reading?

All of you in AOL Journal-land answer the question every day, just by being here. There are people out there. In fact, there are many, each of whom has a unique, special voice.

Isn’t it wonderful when that tapestry of diverse voices has the chance to have its say?

Happy anniversary to AOL’s Journal-land community. And thanks to everyone who keeps their porch light on for each other. It’s a nice neighborhood, indeed.


Jul 29 2004

"Calcutta, We Have Another Problem!"

Tag: AOL, Customer Service, Pet PeevesPatrick @ 10:58 pm

In an earlier entry, “Calcutta, We Have a Problem,” I wrote about a published report on the outsourcing of American jobs overseas. The piece has been featured this week on AOL’s Personal Finance main page.

In that essay, I expressed little to no sympathy about American companies who are having trouble keeping reliable workers in India, because the job market there is so hot, no one wants to stay in the same job for more than about six months. “You get what you pay for,” was my reply to the whining businesses.

As of this writing, 68% of those responding to a poll say that American companies who cut American jobs in favor of cheaper overseas labor should be penalized for doing so.

In addition to the problems of finding workers who are willing to stay put, American companies are also logging complaints from frustrated customers who claim that the cheaper workers are not sufficiently trained in English or customer service, that they cannot be understood, and that they are slow to solve problems.

These complaints prompted one major airline to survey its frequent fliers about the value of speaking to American operators. According to an article published in the St. Petersburg Times, Delta Airlines recently asked its customers in an online survey whether they would be willing to pay an additional fee to speak with an American operator located within this country instead of a lower-paid, less-experienced Indian worker stationed in India.

It is important to note that at this point, the airline is not seriously considering implementation of the policy. According to their spokesperson, they haven’t even tabulated the results, yet.

It is quite interesting, however, that anyone would even consider asking the question to begin with.

In the old days — which weren’t that long ago — quality customer service was free. It wasn’t unusual, it was the norm. It wasn’t asked for, it was expected. It wasn’t optional, it was required.

Now, it seems, those days are long gone.

Would I pay money to speak to an American operator? No. In fact, any business that required me to pay more money to speak to someone who was capable of actually answering a question, solving a problem, or processing an order would likely lose my business completely.

Should I have to expect to pay more money for the level of customer service company executives would expect to receive themselves? Certainly not. I should be treated as well as the president of the company. As one of his customers, I’m helping keep him in his corner office.

Should I feel sorry for a business that is forced to consider such a possibility? In Delta’s case, the article indicates that they are saving somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million per year — that’s $25,000,000 — by outsourcing the calls to about 1,000 Indian workers. It’s quite likely that I’ll never earn $25 million in my life time, much less in a single year. As I said in the earlier essay, “cry me a river.”

On Wednesday, Delta announced that it was “shuttering” one of its three call centers in India. Officials refused to discuss whether the move was related in any way to the results of the survey.

Delta still maintains that the idea was simply their way of exploring possibilities, and that there is no plan in place to implement such a change. They’re my preferred airline in the very rare instances I fly anywhere, so I hope it stays that way.

How about you? Would you pay more money to be able to reach an American operator? Would you do business with a company that required such a fee?


Jul 29 2004

Politically Correct Punch?

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 9:10 am

I wonder if anyone else has noted the subtle edit made recently in a Kool-Aid commercial.

The spot in question, which debuted over the past few months, depicts the start of a neighborhood lemonade war. The first line in the commercial is delivered by a young girl who sees that a young boy has set up a lemonade stand across the street from her own. It’s worth noting that most of the actors in the spot are black. The girl looks at the competition and says, “Oh, no he didn’t!”

The original version of the commercial had her uttering the word didn’t in some kind of stereotypical “ghetto” pronunciation: “Oh, no he dihh-ehh.”

Within the past few weeks, a new version of the commercial has appeared, and the revision is identical with the exception of one minor change: the word didn’t is now being pronounced correctly.

The logical assumption is that the makers of Kool-Aid ordered the line re-cut because of complaints. I will take a great leap of faith and assume that the complaints did not come from grammar enthusiasts like me who cringed every time we heard the offending word because it represents another example of lazy english. I will assume, instead, that members of the black community were offended by what may have been perceived as being a portrayal of a young black youth as uneducated.

I’ve heard several people pronounce didn’t as dihh-ehh; a co-worker infuriates me by pronouncing written as wrihh-ehh. The co-worker is white, by the way; no race is incapable of improper English.

What I can’t figure out is why anyone would want to intentionally mispronounce words in a manner that requires more work than pronouncing the same word correctly would.

I’m just glad that someone had enough common sense to fix it. Frankly, I don’t need any more reasons to grab the remote control when a commercial break begins.


Jul 29 2004

Dissenting Discourse

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 9:06 am

John Scalzi of “By The Way,” in a post about archived DNC speeches online adds an aside as a slam to the broadcast networks which have decided not to air wall-to-wall coverage of this year’s Democratic and Republican Conventions:

“…way to show your committment to the public discourse, guys…”

In the old days, when a political convention actually selected which of several candidates most represented the goals of the constituents, such an event was full of discourse by different candidates who had different ideas within their own party. Back then, political conventions were dramatic because not everyone knew for certain who was going to be that party’s nominee. There was at least a chance for surprises.

These days, a political convention is nothing more than a propaganda machine, conducted by flashy producers who are far more concerned with appearances than content. They know going in who their man will be. Rather than identifying the biggest goals of the various members of the party and prioritizing them, today’s conventions are merely a pep rally for the man who is already selected, whether the delegates like it or not. At best, they hope everyone will “get on board” with the already-announced nominee. At best, everyone who is there and most of those who are watching already have.

The broadcast networks have chosen to bank on the notion that most people would rather not sit through wall-to-wall coverage, since it is being offered online and on cable during those times when the networks themselves aren’t carrying it.

Is that a fair notion? Let’s take a look at what the numbers indicate:

A paltry 14.1 million homes, according to Nielsen Media Research, were tuned in to Bill Clinton’s speech during opening night ceremonies of this year’s convention. That’s down from 15.38 million in 2000.

The article points out CBS as an example of the viewing habits that evening: 11.8 million viewers tuned in at 9pm to see a rerun of “CSI: Miami.” At 10pm, when the Network’s coverage of the convention began, CBS’s viewership dropped from 11.8 million down to 4.55 million! I’m no great mathematician, but if my quick division is correct, that looks to be a drop of about 60% of the audience.

What’s worse, when you combine the total number of viewers who were watching the convention on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, (and one might assume that those who are diehard political fans were tuned to one of those sources), the sum is almost equal to the number watching CBS’s convention coverage alone.

So what does this mean? Perhaps a combination of things:

Maybe it’s that the public isn’t interested in “public discourse” when it comes in the form of a propaganda event, like today’s political conventions have become.

It could be that most of the people who were watching that night have already made up their mind. If Bush is their man, they may not want to hear what those “crazy liberals” want to say. If Kerry already has their vote, they may feel that the convention is a waste of their time…they already know in their minds who the right choice happens to be.

It could be that the masses of undecided voters don’t feel that a political convention is a place to get anything other than a single side of the story which is carefully crafted to look like the only reasonable path to choose.

Or, it could be that both parties, which have sought to divide the masses so bitterly against each other, have disgusted so many viewers that they have reached a point where they’d rather watch grass grow before tuning in to hear more rhetoric from either side.

I could be wrong, but the fact that viewership dropped so dramatically on the broadcast networks when coverage did begin, and the fact that the numbers on cable didn’t jump to make up for the difference, suggests to me that many people just don’t want that kind of public discourse these days.

I suspect that the numbers tonight, when John Kerry himself will speak, should be higher.

I hope, in the spirit of public discourse, that Kerry is able to make a good showing, so that he can define who he is and what he wants well enough that those who are voting “against Bush” have a reasonable justification to vote for him! (A write-in vote for MickeyMouse, after all, is a vote for someone who “isn’t Bush.”) Whether the undecided voters take the valid alternatives Kerry the candidate presents to them or not, they should have a clear understanding of what those alternatives are when they step into the voting booth.

I must confess that I’m quite curious about whether the spirit of public discourse (not to mention fairness) will inspire those who complain about the reduction of broadcast network coverage of the Democratic National Convention to repeat their argument with the same determination, in late August, when the GOP convenes for its convention.

I know that John will present a similar archive of information from the Republican convention; he has already said so in the post. John and I share the view that voters should be informed before they head to the polls.

But as for most of the others, I’m not holding my breath: I haven’t stumbled upon great throngs of Bush supporters who are complaining that the Democratic convention isn’t getting as much prime time coverage as it used to.


Jul 27 2004

Quite A Relationship

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 5:59 pm

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Here’s an interesting story for animal lovers. NBC News reported recently on new research into how petting a dog can improve your mood.

“We have known for some time that people enjoy interacting with dogs, that they feel happy when they interact with dogs, but we have never known the mechanism by which this occurs,” said Rebecca Johnson, a gerontologist with the University of Missouri-Columbia.

That’s now changing. Blood samples drawn from people before and after they interact with a live and a robotic dog. Serotonin, the hormone that controls and suppresses depression in people has been shown to increase when people pet their own dogs. Unfamiliar dogs show no change in serotonin. Johnson says she was surprised that serotonin levels actually dropped when subjects played with a robot dog.

Sandra Barker, director of the Center for Human-Animal interaction at Virginia Commonwealth University, said you can’t replace the warmth of a furry friend. She hopes research like Johnson’s will promote animal therapy in hospitals and nursing homes. Barker said, “You see people smiling when a dog enters the rooms, and if we know the mechanisms, we can come up with alternative treatment recommendations. So if you are feeling down, chances are Fido can pick you up.”

Another interesting not about the research findings: Johnson said the dogs in her study also had rises in serotonin, suggesting petting benefits the animals as well as the humans.


Jul 24 2004

Saturday Six - Episode 15

Tag: Saturday SixPatrick @ 6:32 pm

Time now for the weekly sensation: the Saturday Six!

Playing is easy…you have two choices. You can either answer the questions in a comment here, or you can answer the questions as an entry in your own journal. Either way, be sure to leave a comment here with a link to your journal…that way everyone who plays gets the chance to see your blog. Enjoy!

1. If you had to live without one of your five senses, which one would you most be willing to live without?

2. You see a fly, a spider, a roach and a moth flying, scurrying or skulking around at once in your living room. Which one do you go after first?

3. How many pets have you had so far during your lifetime?

4. I recently watched a cult favorite movie, “The Breakfast Club,” and it prompted this question: Which of the five character types do you personally most identify with: the princess (or prince), the jock, the nerd, the criminal or the basket case?

5. Would you like to have more siblings, less siblings, or would you not change how many you have?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #13 from BarbaraMck: If you could choose any vehicle (road warrior) as your sole source of transportation, what would it be? (Year, Make, Why)?

Have a question you’d like to see asked on an upcoming edition of the “Saturday Six?” Just click that white envelope icon in my “About Me” panel and E-mail it to me.

MY ANSWERS:
1. If I had to lose one of them, I think I’d pick hearing.

2. I’m no authority, but I believe roaches multiply the fastest. They’re certainly the most disgusting, as far as I’m concerned…so Mr. Roach would have to check out first.

3. Let’s see…10 dogs, 3 cats…a total of 13. There will be many more to come.

4. Nerddome is off the scale with me.

5. When I was young, I liked being an only child. Now, I wish I had a few siblings.

6. I’m a big fan of the PT Cruisers (though I don’t like the wood-paneled look or the convertible models). I like the fact that they resurrect the old 1930’s look, and I think the dogs would like the extra legroom in the back!


Jul 24 2004

After September 11th

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 6:04 pm

Well, there has certainly been a great deal of reaction to my earlier essay on the families of 9/11 victims and the continual search for blame. Whether you agreed or disagreed with my original idea, the responses were lucid and respectful, and that is always appreciated.

I wanted to follow up that original piece with a few more thoughts and some responses to the comments made. If I don’t refer to your comments specifically, it doesn’t mean I didn’t appreciate each one. I’m more trying to respond to the opinions expressed.

First, in case I didn’t make it clear before, believe me when I say that my heart goes out to those families.

For more than two weeks after 9/11 happened, I was stuck in an edit bay at the television station, editing that horrific footage that came in from satellite feed after satellite feed…from people jumping out of windows of a burning skyscraper to bloodied men and women being pulled from the wreckage of what had once been their workplace. I was being bombarded with images of victims whose whereabouts were still unknown at the time…and I was sorting through soundbite after soundbite of family members wanting to know “why.” I have no doubt that if I had spent time with any of these people, my sympathies might be more tolerant, as Carly suggested. I do share their sadness about what happened.

In fact, being in that small room, staring at those big monitors day after day was like attending thousands of wakes at the same time. It was emotionally exhausting. I have never heard Ray Charles’ rendition of “America” the same way again after putting to that music pictures of volunteers helping in the search for survivors and complete strangers of different beliefs, races, and backgrounds coming together as one in the spirit of the country we all love.

Donah42 was quick to suggest that most of the victims aren’t out for political gain…that they are expressing their genuine feelings. I’m sure she’s right.

A few of the family members have had good things to say about the report. Julius Gaifman, who lost his son in the attack, said “We think the commission did a good job of getting into what the problem was without blaming anyone.” Nik Dedvukaj, who lost a brother in the attack, added, “It was just something we never imagined, so no one was prepared. It wasn’t the fault of one administration.”

These two sentiments alone do support the view that the families are looking for answers rather than scapegoats. But what of the following quotes…how do they sound?

David Potori, who lost his brother in the attack, and who is a spokesman of September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, complains, “Everyone said, ‘This is not about blame.’ It was so odd that no one is being blamed. How can 3000 people die and it’s nobody’s fault?”

Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband in the attacks, did not attend the hearing. She says not enough was being done to point fingers at specific individuals. “There are people who need to be blamed,” she said. “There are people that overlooked and failed our loved ones.”

Frank Tatum, who lost his mother in the attacks, revealed the “conspiracy-thinking” mentality: “More than half (of the families)…probably feel we haven’t been told the truth completely.”

The majority of them are just expressing their frustrations as they still struggle to make sense of what happened. But the ones with frustrations strong enough to require one single person to blame or a complete distrust in the system are the ones with whom I have the biggest problem.

They seem to either want someone to ruin in hopes that their target would feel as bad as they feel, or they are already convinced that there is no point in even trying to get at the truth because we’ll never know it, anyway. The latter paves the way for an illogical position: they want action, but no matter what action is taken, they won’t trust it. So why bother? The former is probably a quite natural reaction in the grieving process. But the grieving process must move past this cold-blooded pursuit sooner or later if the families themselves hope to have any sense of closure ever. At the end of the day, no matter who is to blame and who can be trusted, they have still suffered a loss none of us can easily imagine.

What happened doesn’t make sense.
It never will, because most of us aren’t willing to commit suicide the way the hijackers did just to make a point. We all wonder how any of us could be targets of it…yet whether we want to admit it or not, we all are targets. If anything is certain, it’s that those of us who are still alive and able to read these words happened to have been in the right place at the right time because we dodged those planes.

All of us — at least those who have never enlisted — live with the same lack of guarantees. Any of us could be killed by a drunk driver today. Any of us could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and become just another statistic. Any of us could slip away in our sleep. There is no making sense of some things, no matter how hard we try.

I can’t help but wonder whether there are some of the people who fit under the umbrella title of “9/11 Victims’ Families” who resent the fact that we are alive while their loved ones aren’t. That is another natural part of the grieving process. But does it make anyone feel better to know that their life might be traded for someone else’s if a victim’s family member had the chance to do so? How do you deal with people who have that much anger? As Jay said in his comment, “this isn’t about sympathizing with the families, anymore…this is about the proper way to deal with it.”

Each of the more vocal of family members are basically relatives of murder victims. It just so happens that this was a case of mass murder in the extreme. Put yourself in their relatives’ place: if these victims’ family members were members of your own family, after this length of time, would you not be concerned if they still showed such an obsession with finding someone to blame? Would you not advise some kind of grief counselling? Would you not hope they’d move past that day? Mumsy calls it a case of the families taking their cues from Bush…that his rhetoric about vengence has fueled the fire. That’s quite possible. But at what point do we say, “Enough of this rage!” At what point is it allowable to question what purpose it really serves?

Putting a price on the loss.
Consider family members of other victims of violent death for a moment. Why is the loss of 9/11 family members, for example, any greater than that of the family whose loved one finds himself staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and who, despite obeying the robber’s every demand, still ends up shot to death? Why should the 9/11 family members receive millions of dollars from the government because it failed to protect their loved ones, when the family of the robbery victim doesn’t automatically have the same chance to collect such a sum against law enforcement that failed to check the background of the robber who ended up with a gun and failed to monitor that person’s whereabouts at any given moment?

One difference, of course, is that the robber can be singled out as the sole guilty party. He is the one who pulled the trigger. He can be caught. He can be punished.

On September 11th, the “robbers” who directly stole those many lives from us died with their victims. It is ironic that we must depend on a higher authority for making sure that those murder received “eternal justice” since they are no longer available to us to inflict our own version of justice on: we don’t have the benefit of their presence to parade before news cameras and to send to jail or the electric chair, so for some reason we are searching for someone else to punish. As Barbaramck said in her comment, even Bush’s head on a platter will do nothing to bring those victims back to life. And I add this: considering the myriad failures that occurred in our intelligence agencies, does anyone honestly believe that any one man can be fully responsible for all of it?

But this keeps coming back to the same question: why is the loss experienced by those families potentially worse than any loss any of the rest of us might have already experienced in our own way, or may experience anytime we lose a loved one to some kind of violent death, terrorism or not?

Monica asks whether I would want to find out who is to blame if I lost a loved one the way they did? Surely. After almost three years, would I still be engaging in the single-minded pursuit of one sole individual on whose shoulders all of my anger and blame could be placed? I’d like to hope not. Would I welcome friends pulling me aside and pointing out how such behavior isn’t necessarily healthy? Absolutely.

Readmereadyou and Redheka indicated that they were happy that the families were exercising Freedom of Speech. I do not suggest that they shouldn’t. I’m not sure, however, that I clearly understand what it is that they’re trying to tell me…or what it is that they really are looking for.

Another way to look at it.
Let’s all recall that Rhode Island nightclub fire, in which the Great White’s pyrotechnic display sparked a blaze that killed 80 people.

Who is to blame for this?

The band, who may or may not have cleared the pyrotechnics with the owners of the club? The owners themselves, who allowed pyrotechnics to be used in their club, knowingly or not? The fire marshall, who didn’t check that club on that specific night before that fateful concert?

How about the company that manufactured the foam that caught fire?

How about the club’s insurance company?

How about the band’s manager?

How about former employees of the club who were working that night?

How about the WPRI-TV videographer who some accused of impeding concert-goers from leaving the club while he was shooting footage?

How about CBS, the network itself, because WPRI-TV is a CBS affiliate, and that station hired the photographer accused of impeding the concert-goers’ escape?

How about Anheuser-Busch, who some say contributed to overcrowding of the club because its beer was sold there?

How about Clear Channel Broadcasting, because it promoted the concert on its radio station, WHJY?

Is this list beginning to sound outlandish? Guess what! All of those I’ve just listed have been named in lawsuits for damages. At what point does the blame end in our society? If we’re searching for it this dilligently, will we ever be satisfied?

The 9/11 victims’ families have, as KathleenGGoode has stated, been well-compensated for their losses monetarily. How many of the victims would have made one million dollars in their lifetime? Okay, that’s not a fair question: you can’t put a price tag on a human life. But it certainly seems that some believe certain lives are being viewed as having been more valuable than others. Is that justice? If money can’t buy happiness, what can such settlements be expected to purchase?

CnABarry04, herself a former military member reminds us that firefighters, police, EMS and military personnel die daily. The difference here, she so rightly suggests, is that aside from the fact that there were civilians who died, it was the sheer number that extended beyond “acceptable” losses — that’s what got our attention this time.

“It couldn’t happen here.”
That was the way many of us — most, in fact — were operating on September 10, 2001. Remember the next morning? Do you recall what went through your minds when you saw the image of the World Trade Center tower on fire? What did you think when you heard the first report that a single plane had crashed into the building? Most people didn’t immediately assume terrorism. Many assumed it was some strange accident. The history buffs among us were reminded of that foggy morning of July 28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.

When the second crash occurred, things were different. Almost everyone, whether they actually saw that second airliner smash into the building or not, knew. It wasn’t an accident anymore. It was a terrorist strike. How did we come to that conclusion so easily? Because that thought had always been in the back of our minds…we just chose to ignore it. “It couldn’t happen here.”

How many times had we seen reports of car bombs in the middle east and thought about how lucky we were to live in a country where it could never happen? Carly says the powers that be aren’t completely at fault, but that they also aren’t without responsibility. To the extent that the powers that be are representatives of the public, we all bear that responsibility. We all ignored the warning signs that were clearly present. We hadn’t been living under rocks when the Oklahoma City Bombing happened. We knew the Cole had been targeted. We even recalled that a dastardly plot had attempted to destroy the World Trade Centers ten years earlier. Was it selective amnesia as we went on about our lives, assuming that the government — which most people don’t seem to trust as far as they could throw it — was doing everything it could to protect us?

Did we put pressure on our leaders to track down these people responsible for terrorizing the nation? Did we demand that Clinton retaliate against Osama when the Cole bombing happened? Did we demand that airlines increase security measures, and thereby, our wait time in line, to make sure that airliners were safe from hijacking? Did we demand that skyscrapers and office buildings have added security that would delay our arrival in our office so everyone could pass through magnetometers? What message did we send to our leaders before 9/11? What burden do we share in not having demanded that more be done before an attack happened here?

Yes, Chris…there is no way to prevent death. No matter what happens, we all will die. The best we can hope for is that nothing speeds that process along. Assigning blame is easy; accepting responsibility is the difficult part. Yet we seem to want to blame everyone else. As Elizabeth said so well: “Everybody’s gotta row the boat in order to have smooth sailing.”

While the rest of us didn’t lose a loved one, per se, we all suffered the same loss of security…the same realization that it can happen here…and the burden of responsibility that comes with knowing that we are not safe. It is an unequal loss, to be sure. But we all lost. “Everyone can be the enemy, and you’re never really safe,” CnABarry04 says. It’s a sobering fact, but it is the truth.

I am reminded of a line from a wonderful movie, “Fail-Safe.” If you’ve never seen it, I highly recommend a trip to the video store. In it, a mechanical failure sends an American fighter squadron into Russia with the intent of dropping nuclear bombs on Moscow. The President of the United States, after making a shocking decision to prevent World War III, asks the Soviet Chairman the all-important question:

“Today we had a taste of the future. Do we learn from it or do we go on the way we have? What do we do, Mr. Chairman? What do we say to the dead?”

It seems to me that we have two options:

The first option is to focus all of our attention on chasing down all leads to figure out what single individual failed — assuming, of course that we are somehow able to conveniently forget that there were many people and systems that failed. Then we must decide what punishment we can possibly inflict on a single individual that comes close to the massive loss of life our nation experienced. It seems to me that both the determination of any single person who was totally responsible for every systematic failure and the race to agree on a punishment thatfits the crime are futile efforts.

That leaves us with our second option: we can focus all of our attention on making sure the same failures do not occur again. We cannot do both.

Tara believes that the latter is what the victims’ families are really after. I hope she is correct. I cannot honestly say that I sense that some of them aren’t out for blood. Maybe they are completely entitled to feel that way, even after this much time…I’m not sure. Those who are, as I’ve already said, can’t be focusing all of their attention on preventing the next attack.

Call me a cynic, but I can’t see their disappointment that the nonpartisan committee’s failure to condemn either side as being proof that they’re only out to protect future victims.

I hope I’m wrong.


Jul 23 2004

Is it Time to Move On?

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 6:01 pm

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

This is going to come off sounding incredibly crass and uncaring, and I apologize in advance. I am trying to put myself in their place, as I have for the past two-and-three-quarter years, so I am trying my best to maintain sympathy. It’s just getting harder and harder to do.

I’m talking about the 9/11 Victims’ Families. They’re so revered that we even capitalize mentions of them. It seems we hold them in higher regard than those who have lost loved ones in war. Sometimes, I think we hold them in higher regard even than our veterans who have actually been in war.

It’s now getting ridiculous.

Now that the 9/11 Commission has released its official report, the family victims are furious and are speaking their minds…again.

They’re furious because they want someone to blame. One of them actually said that. They feel that the report gives them no one to blame. Blame al-Qaida! It seems to me that they are the ones who plotted the events that lead to those thousands of deaths, all in the name of their own religious views.

They feel that there is no one ruined politically by this, and apparently, that’s what they were hoping for. That makes it so easy for me to lose any compassion for them.

They’re speaking out because they demand to know why so much time was wasted looking backward at what went wrong when they think enough hasn’t been done to prevent the next attack. They stop short of adding that if more had been done to prevent future attacks at the expense of producing a report they expected to skewer one single source of blame, this would not have been acceptable, either.

They are practically out for blood, and have been since day one, because the country didn’t take the threat of terror seriously. Here’s a news flash: they are part of that country…it wasn’t the lawmakers that didn’t take it seriously, it was the fact that nearly none of the citizens took it seriously.

Last year, I read of a school board’s public referendum that failed to implement the installation of metal detectors in local schools because parents didn’t want to see their taxes go up to pay for them. As a people, we have a short tolerance for the same old story…we don’t want to hear about the “threat” of anything…we want someone else to worry about that. When the threat turns into reality, we take some kind of perverted pleasure in running around in a panic, wondering what we’re supposed to do next. But eventually, even the thrill of chaos wears off.

Don’t believe me? Pay close attention to the demeanor of those around you the next time the government raises the terror alert. Does anyone run to the store to buy bottled water and other supplies to stock up their basements in case of some local attack, or do they go on as if nothing happened, rolling their eyes at the mere mention of terrorists trying something again?

The families are somehow surprised that a bipartisan commission that is making suggestions for improvement in homeland security is trying to remain as impartial as possible to encourage the very spirit of cooperation required to make the needed changes happen. That makes me wonder if they have ever heard of politics before…such things happened long before that terrible September morning.

Forgive me for being too harsh if I suggest that it’s time for them to stop invoking the memory of their loved ones for the purpose of political gain. We all lost something on September 11, 2001, whether we had a relative at one of the “ground zeroes” or not. The world didn’t change for just them…it’s a different world we all live in now. You can be sure that any terrorists plotting the next attack aren’t making any efforts at all to track down only those who are related to prior victims to further terrorize those families: we are all in the same boat.


Jul 20 2004

Another Round…

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 11:35 pm

Here’s another interesting political development in the Post 9/11 Finger-Pointing Frenzy: Sandy Berger, a former national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 Commission.

What’s even more interesting than this development is the way that some bloggers are handling the matter. A few of those bloggers with the sharpest political axes to grind with regard to the current administration have done one of two things: they’ve either chosen to ignore the story completely, or they’ve chosen only to question the timing of the leak of this investigation, claiming it must be a plot to draw attention away from the 9/11 Commission’s report, which they, naturally, are hoping will slam the Bush Administration and further their own cause.

(It is also drawing attention from Linda Rondstadt’s concert that ended with her expulsion from a Vegas hotel after she attempted to pay tribute to Michael Moore. She exercised her freedom of speech. Some people didn’t like what she had to say, and unfortunately, one of them was the guy who owned the hotel. Maybe Ms. Rondstadt could have discussed her plans with him in advance to avoid this mess? For all of the enraged fans who threw drinks, ripped up posters and generally acted like drunken college students, she could have no doubt filled the seats with a different crowd if she had advertised her plans of a “special tribute” to Moore…if she’d wanted to. In any case, I hardly think this will end her career.)

Since the removal of documents pertains to the report itself, I don’t think the “timing” argument is any less of a smokescreen than the one it accuses the leak of being.

So far, one thing we do know about the report, according to insiders, is that both the Bush and Clinton Administrations are cited for failing to deal with the threat Osama bin Laden represented after his attack on the U.S.S. Cole, back in October, 2000. Both of them! Curses! How disappointing for diehards on either side of the political spectrum.

The Associated Press reports that some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing.

Here’s another interesting fact from that article: Berger, who served as national security advisor during all of Clinton’s second term has recently been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry…the same John Kerry who told Larry King on July 8th that he hadn’t had time to review the latest terror threat information has also been getting national security advice from someone apparently under criminal investigation for removing classified information.

Kerry supporters claim that Kerry himself shouldn’t be expected to review such materials — that the Bush Administration should be the ones on top of it. They forget the fact that Kerry is a current Senator who should be fighting to know everything about terror threats that could even remotely affect his constituents. Wouldn’t you want your local and state leaders to know what terror threats might be reported? Kerry’s critics suggest that it is poor form that someone who is so critical of the current administration’s handling of the security threats wouldn’t make sure he was well-briefed at all times so he could go into office with a firm plan in place.

Berger calls his own actions “sloppiness.” Those who know him swear that he would never do anything to threaten national security. But if it was only a matter of simple oversight, why is anything still missing months after the investigation began?

More importantly, at the end of the day, where does all of this put us? In the same steaming political heap we were in to start with!

We have the Clinton Administration, which the 9/11 Commission reportedly accuses of failing to deal with bin Laden despite evidence that he was directly involved in the Cole bombing. We have the Bush Administration, which the commission will reportedly accuse of failing to do what Clinton should have done, as well as failing to solidify the bureaucracy to deal with further threats. We have accusations that Republicans, with their homeland security ideas, are only interested in snooping around the lives of true blue Americans. We have accusations that Democrats helped design the “roadblocks” that helped prevent our various intelligence agencies from sharing critical information that might have prevented 9/11. We have Richard Clarke, who advised both Clinton and Bush and who is lauded as a hero only on those parts of his story that Michael Moore thinks makes Bush look bad. We have Bush, who is accused of going after the wrong target in his War on Terrorism so that America could steal oil, despite the fact that our gas prices are once again on the rise. We have Kerry, allegedly having a national security consultant who is accused of hiding some of the facts about national security from the Commission investigating 9/11. We have the 9/11 Families who have been offended by both Bush and Kerry and can’t even manage to agree on an appropriate way to remember their loved ones.

I think that if someone could come up with a viable way to overlook the fact that Richard Nixon died in 1994 so that they could pin any of this on him, we’d have all of the bases covered.

No one will say whether 9/11 could have been prevented, because there’s no way anyone can reasonably answer that question: since the only guaranteed way to avoid terrorist activity is to have no terrorists in the world, getting everyone involved in terms of watching for potential plots was the only thing we could hope for, anyway. And until a major terrorist plot occurred on our own soil by those from a foreign land, there was virtually no way to make anyone here at home accept the vulnerability of our security systems to begin with: you don’t have to look any further than the most recent announcement of terror threats at the major political conventions that had average citizens rolling their eyes as if to say, “here we go again” to see how unconcerned many have already become.

While all of this fighting is happening, we’re once again being pulled away from what’s really important: what’s being planned for the next four years…or even the next four months…to deal with the threat of terror. I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that Osama’s boys have stopped planning any terrorist activities until they find out who they should thank first for allowing the series of failures that let them pull off their plot on that September morning.

How safe do you feel?


Jul 18 2004

Does TV Make Kids Fat?

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 10:48 pm

Here’s a study the world was waiting for: Does watching television lead to obesity in children?

As part of the mankind’s stubborn desire to find someone or something else to blame for their own expanding waistlines, a study in London finds that children who watch more than two hours of television per night are at higher risk of becoming smokers or being fat, out of shape or having high cholesterol as adults.

Or does it?

The study followed young people at regular intervals until the age of 26. They found that among the 26 year olds, 17% of overweight, 15% of raised cholesterol, 17% of smoking and 15% of poor fitness could be attributed to watching television for more than two hours a day.

None of these percentages are particularly impressive. If any were in the 70-80% range, that might be considered compelling. But not one of them even hits the one-fifth mark.

Unfortunately, stabbing itself in the foot, the study then adds that “as in any observational study, they couldn’t prove TV watching caused health problems.”

Even more brilliant was this “finding:”

“Television viewing might be a marker for some unidentified determinant of adult health, and individuals who have a natural tendency to obesity and poor physical fitness might prefer to watch television than do other activities.”

So people who would rather watch “American Idol” might not be as fit as someone who might go play sports or exercise? Who would have thought…?

The report suggests that cigarette smoking might be picked up from television watching as well, since cigarette smoking is often depicted in television shows. Cigarette smoking is seen daily in real life as well, but that must not have occurred to anyone involved in this study.

One more problem with the report: it could not define a safe level of TV viewing because it couldn’t find enough people who watched no television to serve as a control group. While the report is quick to point out that those who watched an hour or less a day were the healthiest in the study, the evidence that two hours of television viewing is the sole contributor to obesity isn’t there.

I hope no one paid a lot of money for this study. I don’t know about anyone else, but I didn’t need a study to tell me that sitting on the couch watching television is less healthy than exercise. I can’t imagine that’s a surprise to anyone else, either.

Does anyone really need to blame the television for making them fat? I’ve yet to see a television that came equipped with a gun that holds viewers in front of the screen against their will when they’d rather be out training for a marathon, ordering them instead to sit glassy-eyed as they stare at the screen while eating bon-bons. If such a television exists, I must have missed it the last time I was in Best Buy.

If you’re unhappy with your size, turn the television off and try the treadmill. It may not be as entertaining, but the end result is often much better.


Jul 17 2004

The "Accused" Goes On Display

Tag: UncategorizedPatrick @ 10:56 pm

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

That infamous voting machine that made the “hanging chad” a part of our language and inspired calls for “simpler” ways to vote is getting its time in the spotlight by being featured in a museum.

The Associated Press reports that the Votomatic is part of an exhibit on voting that opened Friday at the National Museum of American History.

One of the visitors who walked by the “evil” machine took exception to a sign posted on it: “Legal time for voting booth is five minutes.” He was skeptical, saying he wasn’t sure he could “master” the Votomatic in the alloted time.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

You know, prior to moving to Virginia, all I ever voted on was a “Votomatic.” The first time I used one, at age 18, I wasn’t intimidated by the machine…only by the responsibility.

As for “mastering” the Votomatic, here’s what you do: You take one of those infamous little punchcards, and slip it into a slot, labeled “INSERT CARD HERE,” (with an arrow!) face up. There’s only one slot, so it can’t go into the wrong place. You push it all the way in, and two bright red pegs line up inside two large slots in the card when it’s properly in place. You can’t not know when you have it positioned correctly.

To vote, you turn the pages of the ballot, which are bound like a notebook. Each person or item you vote for has an arrow next to each option that points to a hole. You pick up the stylus, (you see it pictured at the end of the chain) a blunt needle about an inch long connected to a short handle, and you punch it into the hole that corresponds with the option you’re choosing. You punch it through all the way down.

Does that sound like brain surgery to anyone?

If you punch it all the way in, you can’t possibly have a “dimpled” chad or a “pregnant” one. Even paper must follow the rules of physics: it can’t stretch that far when it’s already perforated. If your little chad is “dimpled” or “pregnant,” you didn’t push the stylus all the way down, period. If you can’t follow that simple a direction, should you be voting for our leaders to start with?

If you’re not sure what to do, they have volunteers who walk around to answer questions. You ask.

When you’re through voting, you pull the card out yourself. You can see any “hanging chads” before you walk over where the ballot box is. You can either pull them off of the card yourself, or ask the guy at the ballot box if it’s a problem.

Everyone who is making such a big deal about how unreliable these machines are has likely never used one. It’s one of the most simple ways to vote that exists, other than counting beans.

If you want to blame the machine that counts the votes for being inaccurate, more power to you. (But you’d never really know about how your vote was counted no matter what method you used, would you?)

If you’re looking to blame the Votomatic itself for being too complicated, I have to wonder what your pick for easiest method would be.


Jul 17 2004

Saturday Six - Episode 14

Tag: Saturday SixPatrick @ 6:33 pm

The weeks just fly by any more. It seems like just yesterday I was putting together last week’s edition, and here we are ready for another set of six.

Answer the questions here or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but the link you leave here gives everyone who plays a chance to visit your journal! Enjoy!

1. Open local telephone directory and turn to the “X” listings in the residential section: give the first surname and the last surname that appears in the “X” listings. (In other words, what last name beginning with X is the first listing in the “X” section, and which last name beginning with X is the final one before the “Y” listings begin?)

2. Of the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, gluttony, anger, greed, sloth, and lust, which are you most recently guilty of? (Details aren’t necessary…unless you wanna…)

3. What is the last dish you cooked completely from scratch? (”Hamburger Helper” doesn’t count!)

4. List the states in which you’ve actually set foot. (If you drove through a state but never got out of the car, don’t count it. If you’ve flown over a state without landing in it, don’t count it.)

5. You must give up TWO of the following “modern” conveniences. Which two would you most be likely to toss out for good?
A) Dishwasher
B) Remote Control (for all devices)
C) Compact Disc Player
D) DVD Player
E) Internet
F) Washer/Dryer
G) Microwave
H) Cellular Telephone
I) Your Online Journal

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #12 from Emeraldcalf: What is your biggest pet peeve when it comes to your significant other?

How would you like to have a chance to ask a question? It’s easy!

Just send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to…
Tickets
“The Price is Right”
CBS Television City
7800 Bev — er — oops…wrong show…

…what I meant to say was to click that white envelope box in the “About Me” section and E-mail me a question you’d like to see asked.

MY ANSWERS:
1. The first “X” name in my directory is Xavier. The last “X” name is Xymchan.

2. Gluttony. Damned diet.

3. A chicken and rice dish I “invented” on my own. I grill two boneless chicken breasts on the grill and cut them up into pieces. Then I pour a can of Cream of Chicken and Mushroom soup (Campbell’s of course) into a saucepan, add a can and a half of water, and a cup and a half of instant brown rice. When it begins boiling, I add in the chicken pieces and salt. In 10 minutes, it’s ready to go. If I’m really feeling industrious, I will sprinkle in chicken seasoning and mushrooms when it begins to boil.

4. I count 12: SC, NC, VA, GA, FL, MD, NY, PA, IL, OH, WI and CA. Also DC, but it’s not a state.

5. The CD player and the Cellular Phone.

6. I have no significant other, so I can sit back and enjoy the fun on this one!


Next Page »