Aloha From Kona

It is interesting what my line of work does to people.

I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .

I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.

(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)

Details Make a Big Difference, Reuters

The title of this post is linked to a Reuters news article posted online Sunday, December 4, 2005, at 3:41 AM EST titled "Iran says not interested in talks with US".

The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."

1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.

The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.

Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.

Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.

Warning: Highly Inappropriate and Offensive Language Follows

There is no good way to go about this, so I will just plunge in:

Merry Christmas!

Yes, that's right, I said Merry Christmas. Oops, I did it again!

The link above points to a November 25, 2005, Reuters story regarding the official renaming of the Boston, Massachusetts Christmas Tree to a "Holiday Tree". 'Tis the season for political correctness to run amok. Citing a clause that does not exist in the Constitution, liberals and misguided troublemakers take to the courts this time of year to inflict there ignorance and bigotry upon the rest of us.

The "separation of church and state" does not exist, per se, within the Constitution. What does exist is the requirement that "Congress shall pass no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not a terribly complicated sentence, or murky in its meaning. No government sponsored and enforced religion will exist in this country, period. This is a clear and direct reference to the Church of England, not to the erection of an internally lighted Frosty the Snowman in Central Park. Also, Congress refers to - - - Congress! It is not a Founding Father euphemism for "Every federal government entity, derivative or subordinate governmental unit, agency, or any individual or entity funded or even involved either directly or indirectly with some element of the federal government".

Far more troubling than the prodigious efforts to remove Christmas from the national lexicon, except of course when used in reference to revenue generating Christmas Sales, is the refusal to object to the public presentation of non-Christian religions and holidays and indeed the demand in many instances that our children be compelled to study other religions within a classroom setting in order to foster greater understanding of those cultures. Islam is taught in California classrooms, including the reading and memorization of verses from the Koran and recitation of Islamic prayers. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled this was just fine, since it was "taught" in a history and geography class and was merely enabling students to learn about Islam. What is the likelihood that a seventh grade class about Christianity, including Christian prayers and readings from the Bible, would last beyond the first day? Not every student in a public school is Christian. Shouldn't those who are not have the opportunity to learn about Christianity in a controlled, scholarly environment instead of having to rely on flawed information derived from their friends or contacts on the street?

Mangers in the public square threaten the fabric of our society. A fat (or should that be Atkins Deprived?) old man in a red suit is a clearly religious symbol that must be eradicated at every turn. Songs referencing Christmas, Santa, Reindeer, or even hint that they might support notions of a peculiarly Christian Winter Festival must be censored in the interests of preserving weak minds unable to defend themselves from an evil universe and unfortunate enough to lack parents with the concept of personal responsibility for themselves or their offspring.

Yet, when is that last time a big stink was made over a publicly displayed menorah? Whose son or daughter hasn't come home endlessly singing "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel" until you wanted to either throttle them or at least convince them to start a rousing chorus of "999,999,999 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"?

So until all you self serving publicity hounds with far more time on your hands than true conviction develop enough intellectual honesty to fight any expression of religion in any guise, including those that do not fall beneath the umbrella of Christianity, I will continue to reject your childishness.

I will sing Christmas carols. Not only do I enjoy them, they have the added benefit of annoying you.

I will put up a Christmas tree. And decorate it. And stand it in my front window to inflict upon any who may happen to drive by my home.

And I will not succumb to the pressure to use phrases such as "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays". I am not ashamed of the fact that I was raised in a Christian denominated household, nor that I retain at least a few of the values of my upbringing.

The taboo phrase of December is offered as a pleasantry, in a spirit of fellowship and good cheer. It is not an epithet hurled against another. Any offense is drummed up by the recipient rather than offered by the giver.

So, and please accept this in the spirit it is delivered, Merry Christmas to all.

And to all, a good night.

America - Look Abroad for commute Cures

Any citizen who lives within or drives near a municipality of any size is well aware that compared to the daily commute root canal is a pleasant diversion. In a culture that prizes the freedom of the personal automobile over nearly all else, it is somewhat mystifying that almost universally the needed infrastructure to handle those millions of vehicles has not been anticipated and the existing capacity not sufficiently maintained.

Enter Kuwait, with all the solution that could possibly be needed.

A recently passed measure limits drivers licenses for foreigners to those who are university graduates and draw a monthly salary of not less than $1,370. Let's take that criteria and apply it to US highways and byways. Rather than make it applicable solely to foreigners though, lets make that the gold standard for anyone to drive. Heck, I'm even willing to grant illegals with a university degree drawing the minimal salary to drive. At least until the deportation hearing is complete and they have been properly expelled from the country - but that is another rant.

The roads would be ours again! No longer would a forty-five minute drive require two hours or more to complete. Millions of gallons of gasoline would not be burnt each year by idling vehicles mired in stop and stop longer traffic. Potholes could be repaired and highway budgets dramatically slashed.

Sure it's a fantasy - but nothing worthwhile ever got started without an unrealistic dream.

Trying Out a New Toy

Trying Out a New Toy

My resident editor forwarded the following link for a Blogger/Word tool that might be useful for those who sometimes find themselves to be spelling challenged.

http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html

If this first post works satisfactorily and I don’t seem to have any problems with it I will continue to use the product.  If there is no retraction following this entry, then this can be considered an endorsement of Blogger for Word.

H Res 571 - November 18, 2005

House Resolution 571, to no one's surprise, went down to resounding defeat last night. The resolution was titled and pretty much read word for word "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately"

The surprise is not that it was defeated. The surprise is that three Representatives actually recorded their support.

Cynthia McKinney - Georgia.
Jose Serrano - New York.
Robert Wexler - Florida.

You guys do realize that there is an election that will be held for your seat less than a year from now?

Murtha's War

Representative John Murtha believes that now is the time to turn tail and run. Of all the possible lessons a Viet Nam veteran could have learned, why is it that this least satisfying lesson is the one that sticks with him?

Murtha called for a withdrawal because "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."

In this speech, and in subsequent comments on the matter, Representative Murtha went on to express concerns that our troops are ill equipped and underfunded. In this assessment he is correct. His error is in concluding that the solution is leave the theater and retrench and rebuild here at home where it is "safe".

The proper conclusion is for congress to discover the will to inform the American people that we are at war. War imposes costs upon the participants. Those costs are not only financial, but also come in the form of self sacrifice to achieve the collective objective. No American not wearing a uniform or related to a soldier has been asked to sacrifice anything since this war began.

The debate at this time cannot be about whether we should or should not have entered into this war, or even if we were misled to get us there. The only debate is how we are going to win it now that we find ourselves engaged.

The mistake in this war, much as was the case in Viet Nam to vastly oversimplify matters, has been a failure to commit the necessary resources to achieve the only legitimate objective in a war: victory. War should in all cases be the last possible avenue taken, but once undertaken the effort should never have less than the full support and commitment of every person in this country. Whatever resources are deemed necessary, they should be doubled. At least. If our troops are sent into battle they need to be sent not only with the resources to win, but with the permission to do so. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity are tools for the diplomats and politicians. If we are at war then those tools have already been proven insufficient. Once the enemy has been compelled to lay down his arms, then the time returns for the implementation of the tools of peace and amity.

The surest way to keep our troops from needing to face the dangers of the battlefield is to make it absolutely clear to all potential foes that if they take it to that extreme there will be no quarter given and we will not falter until the mission has been accomplished. Once an enemy knows that as a fact encountered in the field rather than political and patriotic posturing then we will be safer.

We've cut back on oil consumption some, but not as a result of the war effort. That sacrifice has been due to rising prices brought on by expanded global demand especially by such explosive economies as China and India, as well as disruptions in refining and delivery of final product caused by natural disasters. Many of us eat less beef now, again due primarily to increased costs since the war began. Those costs went up not because cattle products were diverted to the support of our troops ; they rose primarily through the twin goads of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution and fears generated by mad cow disease. Once again no war sacrifice there.

Ask any American what specific meaningful step they've taken to support this war effort, and unless they wear a uniform or have someone in their family who does, the only response you are likely to get is a blank stare. The yellow or American flag ribbon on the back of the SUV doesn't count.

For all practical intents and purposes, Americans have not been at war. Until we collectively realize that, agree with the motivations or not, once at war we are all at war and every effort possible must be expended to quickly and completely achieve military victory then we are going to continue the losing tradition started in Viet Nam and will continue to lose respect and credibility around the world.

John Murtha made that sacrifice personally. He more than most should know that victory and retreat are not synonyms.

Umm . . . Babs? Your Reality Check Has Bounced

Barbara Boxer, not one to often be confused with the intellectual equal of a turnip, continues to step in it with total abandon.

At approximately 11:00 AM (EDT) she was being interviewed on the Fox News Channel concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito to the position of Associate Justice. Her objection to the nominee on general principles is understandable. After all, he was nominated by the Anti-, I mean, Bush. Fair enough, Democrats have the right to object. However, Senator Boxer attempted to ennoble her objection and raise it above mere politics to the status of Constitutional Philosophy. All she succeeded in accomplishing was to call into question her qualifications to evaluate and vote on any nominee to that position.

In response to the anchor's question, Boxer explained, "What you must understand is that this is the Sandra Day O'Connor seat. It is not just the Rehnquist seat or the Scalia seat it is the O'Connor seat." And she went on.

Senator Boxer, perhaps it is you who is in need of a bit of understanding. There is no O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court. There is no Rehnquist seat. There is no Scalia, Marshall, Ginsberg or Thomas seat. The constitution does not apportion seats on the court by party affiliation or ideology. The power to nominate is accorded to the Executive branch, and the power to confirm to the Legislative branch. (That is the branch you serve in, just in case your constitutional comprehension is cloudy in other areas as well.) Voters know when they enter the booth that those people they place in the White House and the Capitol to represent and enact their interests will quite possibly be called upon to determine future members of the Court. It could be readily argued that those who lack this fundamental understanding of the ramifications of their ballot should not be casting one in the first place. Any reasonable person would conclude that placing a person into office because that candidate shares their views and goals will result in the appointment of individuals who share those same general views. Those who voted for President Bush did not do so because the felt Senator Kerry more accurately reflected their ambitions and would carry them out. Since the Democratic party seems incapable of grasping the meaning of losing an election though, beating that dead Donkey further would just be an exercise in futility.

In an ideal world, political considerations and personal world view would have no bearing upon who sits on the Supreme Court. Or any lower court for that matter. Jurists would render decisions based on the Constitution as it exists and on the laws as they are written, not as a few vocal individuals with a platform to speak from would have them be.

There is a mechanism already in place for making the Constitution conform to how we think it and the world at large should be. That is called amendment. Women couldn't vote, because the Constitution specifically accorded that privilege to men. It wasn't up to a judge to find that the Constitution should allow women to vote so they can anyway. Instead, it was up to legislators and the nation at large to determine that the Constitution as it existed was not sufficient to the world we as a nation now wanted it to be. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution than it is to get the agreement of a handful of judges. That's the way it should be. No legal system can endure if its foundation is little more than the political fad of the moment. If a change is truly warranted, there are enough reasonable citizens in this country to recognize that need and enact that change. It has happened before, and when the need truly arises in the future will happen again.

And when it does, it will not be because one party or another is ascendant at the moment. It will be because an idea that transcends party has been recognized and preserved for the benefit of all.

"Katrina aid too risky for some illegals"

http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9403169&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

The link above used to point to an article I encountered online Wednesday, September 21. Unfortunately, between Wednesday and this morning that link has gone dead.

The article began:
"Much has been said about the suffering of the poor in New Orleans, but Latino civil rights advocates and relief workers say those troubled Americans are better off than immigrants who live in Gulf states illegally, working in restaurants, casinos, farms and construction."

The upshot of the article was that for those poor unfortunates harmed by Katrina who were in this country illegally life was even more miserable than for those who are citizens. Why there were rumors that the mean old government might actually deport them to their country of origin and LEGAL residence if they were detected through the aid application process. So, these poor souls with nothing at all are foregoing requests for aid rather than apply and risk a free flight home to a country not devastated by hurricane Katrina and not spending billions of their legal citizens tax dollars on the relief effort.

At the risk of having Jesse Jackson label me a racist yet again: So what?

Don't misunderstand me. I could care less if half the population of Mexico moves to US. India, South America, Asia - welcome home.

When they do come though, they need to use the front door. Procedures exist for entering this country legally and becoming a fully contributing member of society. President Fox certainly would not welcome me with open arms if I chose to enter his country without benefit of a proper port of entry. I would not be labeled an "Undocumented Entrant" or given food, housing, and medical care. I would be tossed in a nasty little box when picked up - when, not if, since my inability to conduct more than the most basic of communications in the native language would brand me as a foreigner in need of closer scrutiny - and if I was very fortunate eventually sent back to the United States.

I suspect that very few if any of the Liberal Do-Good Crusaders would feel better upon returning home to find their home emptied of its valuables if the perpetrator were identified not as a criminal but as an economically disadvantaged wealth reallocation specialist. They would no doubt want the law breaking thief caught and punished.

Laws exist to provide an orderly framework within which societies can exist and function. Some laws are good, some are even better, and some should have never been enacted at all. Neither individuals or social movements have the right to ignore those laws they disagree with or find distasteful, disagreeable, or inconvenient on the campaign trail. The legislative process exists to change the current reality to one that is more comfortable. The current reality must be honored though until it is changed. Selectively ignoring even a single law invalidates the basis for every other law. Such points seem trivial to most people, and the exceptions made to existing laws obvious and non-controversial. Until a law is overlooked and there is a personally felt negative impact. Then starts the outrage!

So where is the outrage against those who violate the laws of this country and enter illegally? Why are the champions of the (voting) illegal population permitted to portray themselves as compassionate humanitarians - while reaching deep within you pocket to impoverish your present and mortgage your children's' future?

For Paulette and Natalie:

Happy August 10th!

Jihad Politically Incorrect? Then Count me In!!

JIHAD . . . JIHAD . . . JIHAD . . . and for good measure, JIHAD THIS!

Okay, it's a bit late, but the internet has been mostly inaccessible to me these past two weeks. Following last week's big blow-up over the concern that a bunch of good ole white boys using words like "Jihad" is disrespectful of Islam and might hurt the feelings of some fervent followers who think the highest means of praising an almighty is to strap on an explosive vest and wander into a group of strangers, I cannot help but look for opportunities to throw the word into conversations. Admittedly a major challenge, especially in a Christian dominated culture.

It is now inappropriate to call a spade a spade, even when the spade is wearing a name tag proudly proclaiming "Hello! I'm a Spade!"

Political Correctness is nothing more than a movement of acculturated appeasement. Appeasement has never been successful or positive, except for those being appeased. It is a movement capable of producing nothing better than that which is normally deposited within the porcelain collection bowl.

So, al Qaedans of the world and like minded sympathizers: a happy Jihad back at you. Preferably where the sun don't shine.

On Waiting

Nothing earth shattering, just an observation.

Why do people who keep you waiting feel justified to complain that you are not prepared to drop everything and focus exclusively on them when they finally deign to offer their time?

My job requires me to juggle the needs of multiple locations, and often multiple contacts and efforts within a given location, on a daily basis. Too often, contacts are not prepared at pre-scheduled times and do not have ready materials that were requested in advance to help ensure a smooth and productive work effort. Regularly I am confronted by multiple clients at 5:00, or 6:00, or later in the evening, who range in response from disappointment to true outrage that I am not immediately available to help them with their problem scheduled for hours or even days previously.

Do such people truly believe that they are the only ones on the planet requiring goods or services? Do they feel I should consider myself honored that they are now willing to permit me to serve them? Do they honestly think I might regard their time as having greater worth than that of other customers or my own?

They may think these things - but I don't.

Acting responsibly and being considerate of others. I missed the law that forbids such a practice, so I suppose such actions must be okay.

7/7 - Kudos and Crapola

It would be nice if Americans would make an effort to emulate their cousins across the pond in the wake of the subway and bus bombings of July 7, 2005.

Nice, but I'm hardly holding my breath for a miracle of that magnitude to manifest.

My sympathy and grief go out to the people of London in particular and to all who lost family, loved ones, and friends in the terrorist attacks. Their loss may not be as spectacular in terms of numbers or compelling television as were the attacks of 9/11, but that loss is no less significant. It is not the nature or quantifiable cost in human lives of terrorism that is important, but rather the simple fact of terrorism at all that reduces us.

The British are to be commended as an example for all in the quiet, dignified, and businesslike manner in which they got over the immediate shock of the tragedy and moved forward with courage and expediency to aid their neighbors. London stood up and faced the situation as adults, grim and demoralized to me certain but intent on persevering and overcoming.

Would that such an attitude could take root in this country. Many Americans reacted similarly in the aftermath of 9/11, but too many more were more concerned with casting blame and demanding to know who was going to make their lives right again as if that were something for which they have no personal responsibility. Frequent were the cries of outrage that certain countries didn't same to care enough about our tragedy, or express the proper kind of sympathy. Some wondered where airlifts of supplies were, since we would have certainly sent entire squadrons filled with supplies and bank vaults full of cash to make ourselves feel better that we were helping if the tragedy had befallen someone else. Never mind that we possessed the resources to see to our own physical needs within our nation, and that it was truly only the sympathy and solidarity of an outraged world that we needed to make ourselves whole again.

Our media almost trivialize the events in London by running promotions for special programming that wonders "Is America vulnerable to such an attack on our public transportation system?" even before all the bodies have been recovered or the dust has had a chance to settle. Katie Couric asked the Secretary of Homeland Security this morning if President Bush's budget proposal for Homeland Security was "responsible" in light of the attacks in London - as if that budget had been assembled and submitted in the last 24 hours.

Were yesterday's bombings inevitable? Of course not. Were they predictable? Absolutely. There is no telling where, or when, or how, but it is reasonable for every freedom loving and peaceable person on the planet to assume that his town, her personal security, may be the target of a terrorist attack at any time. Governments are no more responsible for failing to prevent every one of these attempted attacks than they are for failing to prevent earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and tornados. The perpetrators of such acts are responsible. End of search for culpability.

Americans wail that we are spending our children's lives in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting an enemy that seeks to end our concept of civilization. Far too many seem to have forgotten that this is a real war we are fighting. We can't fight to a flag that must be captured, a capitol that must be controlled, a single leader who must be overcome and say "There! That is the thing we must accomplish and all will be well!" That is what makes this war so much more challenging than any other ever fought. A stateless enemy can go to ground anywhere, and resurface anywhere else without warning. Until we recognize this war, and live our daily lives as if it truly were a war with sacrifices on the homefront there is no chance to win it. Too many will continue to perceive it as a waste of our soldiers' lives, a drain on our resources, an inconvenience and distraction from day to day living. Until it hits home again for us like it did for London yesterday, for America on 9/11, too many will want to do nothing more.

And when it does finally hit home again they will demand to know why their government didn't do anything to prevent it. And they will all conveniently be unable to find a mirror.

A Sad Month For Old Friends

It has been a sad month for childhood friends. May 22, Tony the Tiger (aka Thurl Ravenscroft) died. June 24, Tigger (aka Paul Winchell) went on, followed a day later by Piglet (aka John Fiedler).

So long old friends. We'll catch up with you eventually. Until then, save us a spot in the Hundred Acre Woods.

I know it'll be "Grrrrrreat!"

An Open Response to Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority

The following is a very long post. The first part is an email from Dr. Jerry Falwell to the faithful. (Don't ask how I got on the mailing list, though I appreciate having ready access to Dr. Falwell's viewpoints every bit as much as I enjoy the foibles of the hit summer comedy series "Dr. Dean of the DNC" currently running on all media outlets nationwide). Following Dr. Falwell's email is my resulting message to Mr. Roger K. Deromedi, CEO, Kraft Foods.
___________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Dr. Jerry Falwell"
Subject: KRAFT'S GAY DAY PR DEBACLE
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:56:57 -0400
To: fc@list.falwell.com

Falwell Confidential

Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance

http://www.moralmajority.us


From: Jerry Falwell
Date: June 17, 2005

KRAFTÂ’S GAY DAY PR DEBACLE

Kraft Foods, the maker of “the world’s favorite foods,” has found itself in the middle of a public relations nightmare after its corporate leadership decided to sponsor the Gay Games VII, which will take place in Chicago in July. The Gay Games is an Olympic-style series of events where homosexuals from around the world compete.

But the Gay Games are not just about athletic competition. Today I visited the American Family AssociationÂ’s website that illustrates some of the after-hours activities that go on during the Gay Games. These photos can be seen at this AFA website: www.afa.net/activism/gaygamesproof.html

PLEASE BE WARNED — these photos contain partial nudity and lewd depictions. But I feel it is important that consumers who purchase Kraft products see what goes on at these Gay Games (billed as “athletic and cultural” events) in order to understand what types of activities Kraft Foods is actually sponsoring.

If one visits the Gay Games website, he will discover more than 70 sponsors of the event. These sponsors are almost exclusively homosexual companies, including PlanetOut.com, Q Television, Pink magazine, Girlfriends magazine, Boi magazine, ChicagoPride.com and a variety of others.

Kraft Foods, owners of Maxwell House coffee, Kool-Aid and Capri Sun drinks, Oscar Mayer meats, Jell-O snacks, Oreo cookies, Nabisco Foods, and many other well-known products, has placed its reputation on the line by choosing to sponsor the Gay Games.

In an interview with PlanetOut, Kevin G. Boyer, a spokesman for Gay Games VII, said that, despite the growing protest, Kraft is “behind us 100 percent.”

That might change if enough people voice their concern and opposition to KraftÂ’s decision to sponsor the Gay Games.

Join the Nationwide Protest

A nationwide protest is presently erupting with scores of Americans calling and e-mailing Kraft, urging the company to withdraw its sponsorship of the Gay Games. Many individuals on my staff have already joined in the protest by sending e-mails to Kraft. They are waiting to see if the company will reply.

Critics of this protest say that it is motivated by “hate,” but that’s far from true. That’s the typical whiny mantra of homosexual-rights activists when people raise objections to their activities.

“If you disagree with us, you are hate-mongers!” Give me a break.

The fact is that multiple millions of Americans who loyally purchase Kraft products have a right to express their opinion on the company’s decision to link itself with the Gay Games. These people have a right to say, “If Kraft insists on sponsoring the Gay Games, I will be compelled to seek alternative brands at the grocery store.”

I am urging all readers to take a moment right now to write to Kraft Foods CEO Roger K. Deromedi to express your disappointment with Kraft Foods. Contact information is below.

Please considerately express to him your desire that Kraft Foods withdraw its corporate sponsorship of Gay Games VII.

I donÂ’t think moral-minded Americans understand the potential power that we wield. I believe we can make a real impact on Kraft over the course of the next few days if everyone reading this column will take a couple of minutes to urge the company to cut off its support of Gay Games VII.

I urge everyone to take a stand for decency by participating in this national effort to defend traditional family values. In addition, I am calling on pastors across the country to urge their congregations this Sunday to get involved in this action. We must let Kraft (and other big companies that are watching this situation) know that we are holding them accountable for their actions.

Contact Information:

Roger K. Deromedi, CEO
Kraft Foods
3 Lakes Dr.
Northfield, IL 60093
E-mail: rderomedi23@kraft.com

Primary Phone: 847-646-2000 (When calling, you will likely be transferred to a customer service representative who will record your personal information with the promise that your message will be passed on to Mr. Deromedi. Again, please be considerate when calling and simply express that you wish Kraft to withdraw support for the Gay Games.)

Fax: 847-646-6005

MY RESPONSE:

From: Jay Vreeland
To: rderomedi23@kraft.com
Cc: webmaster-reply@falwell.com
Date: Jun 18, 2005 7:59 AM
Subject: A Vote of Confidence - Fwd: KRAFT'S GAY DAY PR DEBACLE

Mr. Deromedi,

Though I have no doubt you've seen the document
more times than you care to so far, I decided to
forward Dr. Falwell's rant in its entirety, "just in
case".

Willing to accept the risk of offending the
sensibilities of Dr. Falwell, I applaud the decision
of Kraft Foods to provide corporate sponsorship for
Gay Games VII. It is my fervent hope that Kraft does
not feel obligated to succumb to the pressure of a
sincere but ill informed protest spearheaded by the
Moral Majority.

I have no interest in becoming a hairstylist,
interior decorator, or even a preacher. I do,
however, recognize the great importance of these
occupations and the tremendous contributions made to
society by practitioners both straight and gay. It is
not necessary to embrace a lifestyle in order to
respect its place in this world.

I do not feel that my heterosexuality or the well
being of my family are threatened by the existence of
homosexuality in this world. I can recognize
opposition to that way of life as a legitimate moral
stance that one might take, and gladly accept efforts
of moral suasion as a means of deterring others from
walking that path. What I cannot accept is Dr.
Falwell's practice here of taking three pictures, that
could easily be considered by many to be soft core
pornography, completely out of context and insinuating
those pictures are exclusively representative of the
Gay Games as a means of inciting his troops to action.
This type of mental gymnastic and misrepresentation
is beneath Dr. Falwell, as is economic warfare in an
effort to win a proclaimed moral victory.

Ultimately, any morality can only be taught and
persuaded. It cannot be legislated or imposed from
without. Respect earned through fear of potential
consequences rather than reasoned determination is no
respect at all, and lacks any real value.

Keep up the good fight, Mr. Deromedi. Kraft
Foods enjoys my support and patronage, and will
continue to do so even, or perhaps especially, if
sponsorship of Gay Games VII is continued.

Jacob D. Vreeland, Jr.
Bunker Hill, West Virginia

NOTE: A copy of Dr. Falwell's email and my resulting
communication with Kraft Foods is being posted to my
personal Blog, purely to forestall any charges that I
lack the courage to state my convictions publicly.

Perfect Phrases

Shamelessly lifted from the Jonathan Carroll website, http://www.jonathancarroll.com, June 11, 2005 Blog entry:

In a recent email, my friend Olga said,
"A man without a sense of humor is like a woman without breasts."

Hats off to Olga! Every so often you come across one of these perfect phrases that stand completely on their own, neither needing nor accepting further explanation. You either get it or you don't, immeditiately. And if you don't you never properly will, since any attempt at explanation can only make it more murky or meaninglessly trite.

Thank you, Olga.

When Common Sense Fails, There's Always the Judiciary

I first noticed reports of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling regarding the applicability of the ADA to foreign cruise ships operating in U.S. waters in an online version of a June 7 USA Today article, though I'm certain the case enjoyed much wider reporting than that.

A quote from the article, presumably the words of article author Joan Biskupic: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that foreign cruise ships sailing in U.S. waters can be sued under a landmark anti-bias law if they discriminate against disabled passengers.

Another quote from the article, attributed to Justice Anthony Kennedy: "To hold that there is no protection for disabled persons who seek to use the amenities of foreign cruise ships would be a harsh and unexpected interpretation of a statute designed to provide broad protection for the disabled,".

The first quote is annoying because it assumes a false premise. The second is an absurdly arrogant assumption that U.S. law blankets the world (while at the same time we feel free to pick and chose among those foreign statutes that are convenient to us.)

The false premise is that not outfitting a cruise ship to accommodate the needs of disabled passengers is discrimination. "Discrimination" is an active, not passive, event. By not doing something one has not discriminated. Not actively seeking out someone or something is completely different from striving to thwart the interests or desires of that thing.

Justice Kennedy's writing assumes that cruise lines who do not retrofit to suit the whims and dictates of ADA are making a considered business decision to alienate the hordes of cripples desperate to cruise but prevented from doing so by the evil and insensitive operators. Never mind that there are accessible cruise accommodations available for those passengers in need. And from where does the boundless arrogance spring that suggests we have the right to impose our laws and values on the world - and no doubt the universe once we get that warp drive perfected - when at the same time we get our collective national panties in a wad when any other country presumes to attempt to impose their laws upon us? Why not demand the locals build a handicap accessible transportation service to the summit of Mt. Everest so that all my share in the breathtaking glory of this natural planetary asset? That would certainly be more "fair" than limiting Everest to those with the physical and financial wherewithal to manage the ascent.

All men are created equal. All have the right to pursue happiness. However, after the point of creation circumstances change. Decisions are made and consequences realized. Not all outcomes are equal, nor is that eventuality anywhere hinted at as a reasonable or indeed even desirable expectation. The pursuit of happiness does not guarantee that all will succeed in that venture. This is life, defined by free will and unexpected results. If one wants predictable, defined outcomes then one should play a computer game. No surprises there.

And definitely no living going on.

Run, Jenny, Run!

Jennifer Wilbanks ran away from home. Now an outraged public wants to hang her for it.

There is no question that at the very least it would be considered common courtesy to share with any friends and family who might exist in one's life the fact that one is planning an impromptu wandertag. Especially when that incidence of wandering away coincides with an impending wedding. Fortunately for about 99.9% of this nation, a lack of common courtesy is not punishable by fine or imprisonment in this nation.

Jennifer Wilbanks is an adult. She is not legally accountable to anyone if she chooses to travel within the country. Within the country being key, because it is the business of government to track those who come and go across our borders. (No, we'll leave the Minuteman Project discussion for another time.) She has every right to take off any time she likes, to go anywhere she likes, and to take with her as many or as few of her possessions as she might choose.

In this case, she was fortunate enough to have friends and family who love her and care for her. They called the police and reported her missing. That's what loving families do when loved one's disappear without warning or reason. The police launched an investigation into this missing person. That is what police do. The community pulled together and poured its heart and soul into finding this missing young woman. That is what communities (are supposed to) do.

What has everyone's collective panties in a knot is that she "filed a false report". While that is technically a fact, that crime took place in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the authorities declined to press any charges. They recognized that a scared young woman pulled a stupid stunt, and tried to cover it with a stupider stunt. When confronted with skepticism over her story, she admitted she got cold feet and hopped a bus and that there was no abduction at all.

And the false report is not what has people all worked up. People are outraged that they "wasted" their time looking for a missing woman who wasn't, and that the police wasted money and manpower in a meaningless search. Most of all, people are embarrassed that they were sucked in by this case and they are covering their embarrassment with anger at the perceived cause of that uncomfortable feeling. After all, this is America. If anything transpires less than 100% perfectly it must be somebody's fault, and that somebody must be made to pay. And pay. And pay. And if it can be managed, pay some more.

People, get a grip. Jennifer Wilbanks did something she no doubt wishes in retrospect she hadn't or at least had handled differently. The police, family, friends, and community took part in a search they didn't need to and wish they hadn't. That's all well and good. Now, get over it. Accept that something that shouldn't have happened, happened. Sometimes things do. Accept, and even applaud, that the system in place to care for the members of our communities worked the way it was supposed. Rejoice that a woman was returned home alive, instead of dead as is so much more often the case.

And move on to tomorrow. Please?

"Alex, I'd Like Double Standards For $2000, Please"

Quoting from an April 16, 2005, Reuters news article about government crisis in Ecuador:

" The United States and the United Nations both expressed concern about government interference with the courts . . .".

The specific intereference that concerned the U. S. was President Lucio Gutierrez dismissing the Ecuadoran Supreme Court. This follows a previous December dismissal of the Supreme Court by their Congress.

Apparently, it is only acceptable for the Executive and Legislative branches of the United States government to run roughshod and dictate terms of conduct to the Judicial branch. Similar actions in other nations constitute a breach of the democratic process.

Hmmm . . . what's good for the goose is once again none of the gander's damn business.

Fare Thee Well, Terri Schiavo

(Warning – Long Post)

It was with a sense of relief that I learned Terri Schiavo had finally succumbed to the absence of nourishment and hydration at 9:05 Am on March 31, 2005.

I was among that group of people unfairly painted as “eager to see her dead”. Unfair, because the charge presupposes the objective was the championing of murder over survival, the disposal of the week and unfit for the benefit of the firm. With all respect to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and an overwhelming portion of the Republican members of Congress, you don’t know me, you don’t speak for me, and while in most instances I am squarely in your corner in this case you were simply wrong.

For me, the Terri Schiavo matter had nothing to do with the right to die, a culture of death, or a preference for euthanasia whether elected or enforced. This case was a simple matter of the fair an impartial application of law.

Much has been made of the Article III constitutional authority invested in Congress to ordain and establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2 states:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a
State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different
States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Despite the fondest wishes of elected officials, Terri Schiavo is not any of the defined parties above, and in no case was the state of Florida or any other state a party in the suit being brought. Therefore, Congress had no authority to create “Exceptions” or define “Regulations” for conduct.

Indeed, in no case does Congress have the authority to tell a court how it must act or what conclusions must be reached. For that, any person compelled to engage the legal system as an interested participant has cause to be thankful.

There have been endless cries that Terri Schiavo was denied due process, that somehow nearly a decade of court actions appealed to Federal benches and upheld, appealed to the Supreme Court and rejected, were somehow the result of a vast judicial conspiracy to aid and abet Michael Schiavo in the murder of his wife. The simple truth is that the system was employed in the manner of its design and the finding was that the case of Michael Schiavo prevailed over the case of the Schindlers. That finding does not determine which side was morally or emotionally superior or correct. The court decisions merely apply the law as it exists and as the judges judge it applies to this particular set of circumstances and findings of fact.

If the only criteria for determining whether a ruling is “just” or “fair” was the emotional reaction and deep seated desires of the participants and observers, then their have been no fair, just, or proper rulings in the history of this or any other judicial system, or certainly very few. How many convicted of criminal activities wanted that outcome? By the standard that Terri Schiavo’s supporters want applied to her case, all convictions are wrong and a violation of the convict’s due process, with the only proper redress being endless retrials until the convicted one is found not guilty. But what, then, of the hopes, beliefs and desires of the prosecution in such cases? Fortunately, not liking a result does not define that result as being wrong.

In a final analysis, because there are many unrelated avenues to be explored as the result of the life and ultimate death of Terri Schiavo, perhaps the most positive result of this situation will be the repair of bad law and the creation of good law where none exists. The desire of Congress to preserve a human life was not wrong. What was wrong was attempting to use the full power of the United States government to bear on behalf of a single individual. That government is, or at least in theory should be, of the people, by the people, and for the people is accepted by most. “The People”, though, is not a specific individual but is rather comprised of individuals. Good law is law that preserves the interests of the body politic by ensuring the interests of each member of that body without unduly compromising the rights of other individuals.

The weak, the helpless, those who cannot speak for themselves, need to have a powerful voice working on their behalf to preserve their interests. A body of law, probably at the state rather than federal level but unified in intent if not in detail should probably evolve as a result of this case. It is not possible to know the mind of an individual who is incapable of communication. It is appropriate for such members of society to be protected by society, by “the government”. To err, if you will, on the side of life since erring on the side of death is always irrevocable. Perhaps Terri Schiavo will become the driving force to create laws that state the preservation of life is a sacred duty of one human being for all others, that except in cases where explicit instructions to the contrary have been left in advance by the individual, caregivers will be charged with the presumption that all patients want all available measures expended to hold the onset of death at bay for as long as possible. Then, the courts will not be compelled to rule in favor of death as the existing body of law required in this case.

Good bye, Terri Schiavo, and God bless. I truly am sorry your final road was such a challenging one and am relieved that for you at least the journey is over. May you have finally found the peace you so sorely deserve. May the burdens you have borne also prove to be the catalyst that lightens those same burdens for others.

Then both extremes, and more importantly you, Terri, will have “won” what small victory is possible to be taken away from this debacle.

Red Lake High School vs. Terri Schiavo

Timing is everything, and the teen who shot up Red Lake High School in Redby, Minnesota, has lousy timing.

On almost any other day, a kid who left ten dead and fourteen wounded would have been the story. FOX and CNN would be offering wall-to-wall coverage. The C-SPAN helicopter would be flying over the reservation. Columbine students from yesteryear would be on every network in the role of expert advisors, letting us know what the students of Red Lake and the citizens of Redby are experiencing.

Instead, he picked a day to lose it when Terri Watch was the only show anyone cared about. Yeah, he got the lead a few times on the newscasts, but it was Terri Schiavo the networks wanted to rush back to. After all, ten dead people is kind of tragic but one not-dead woman is heart wrenching.

Word of advice to North Korea: hold off a while if you have any plans to toss around one of your nukes in the near future. It'll be another one to three weeks before the United States can be bothered to attend to such frippery.

Attention All Geeks: Ignore This One

It no doubt is a small thing to all you teens out there who wasted countless date-free nights in the basement teaching yourself HTML and how to code viruses while looking like you're coming from Romania, but through brute force and too much trial and error I finally managed to get the postings for this blog to start at the of the page rather than after the end of the sidebar.

Considering I was born before 1982 that's not all that bad. I grew up when really technologically advanced people could get their VCR (remember those?) to do something other than play movies and blink midnight. I've always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with computers in general and software in particular. I love the opportunity to hate when systems refuse to behave themselves. That affords the chance to apply logic, skill, patience, and whenever called for brute force until the program submits and chooses to see the world my way.

It always gives in. Eventually. And best of all, no system or piece of software has ever run to human resources whining about what an unreasonable ogre I am.

One can only hope that AI, bound to be developed within my lifetime, isn't granted full civil rights. What would the children do if their PS7 demanded weekends and holidays off?

More Constitutional Questions From the Schiavo Case

The deeper we wade into this matter, the messier it gets.

The language of "Terri's Bill" orders that a Federal judge must review the Terri Schiavo case from the ground up. Must? When exactly did the separation of powers come to mean that the legislative branch of government could order the judicial branch to undertake any specific action or do so in a specific manner?

At the very least, congress, this is constitutional strike two.

Then we have the matter of allegations raised that Michael Schiavo might have abused his wife and that this is the reason he wants to kill her and clean up the evidence. Accept purely for the sake of argument that this allegation is fact. If Terri's Bill prevails, and if as a result her life is preserved/cessation of non-death functions is prevented, and if as a then further result evidence is obtained that is used to convict Michael Schiavo of abuse or any other criminal act, does he get a free pass because the evidence against him was obtained through a premeditated series of unconstitutional actions?

Regardless of what the presumed good intentions are, one, or many, must always beware the law of unintended consequences.

The Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

The Senate of the United States, and tomorrow the House of Representatives, are rushing headlong to pass a bill of attainder in the Terri Schiavo case.

Make no mistake. Just because the purpose of the bill is not overtly punitive, by the public statements of Senators involved this bill is being passed exclusively for Terri Schiavo and pertains to no other human being on the planet. It is, de facto, a bill of attainder.

What is Congress' game here? Do they hope to pass an unconstitutional piece of legislation, buy the time to get the feel-good result on Terri's behalf and then when it is later struck down under judicial review say "Aw, shucks. We didn't realize that."? Oh, and since the legislation was invalid to begin with they aren't saddled with any of those pesky precedents that would require endless weekend sessions passing bills on behalf of every little constituent in similar straits.

That's a little disingenuous even for political pros playing at the level these guys are.

I want Terri to die, and to do so with all possible haste and comfort. Not that either of those are likely in the immediate future for her. Please don't misunderstand. I wish her no personal ill will. Until this matter is resolved by her death, Terri Schiavo will continue to be nothing more than a human yo-yo trapped in an emotionally charged struggle. Perhaps when she is gone, more reasoned debate can craft a policy that reflects our collective desires and accounts for the rights of the minority to be preserved as well. Which is the purpose of constitutional governance in the first place.

A cynic might also pause for a moment to wonder how much of Congress' concern is based on outrage that a redneck judge in Jerkwater, Florida, told them where to get off with their subpoena ploy and then had the Supreme Court tell them to take a hike when they complained their feelings had been hurt.

News flash to Congress, and many others in this case: You don't always get the answer you want in life. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong, and certainly doesn't justify changing the rules in hopes of getting what you want.

The Best of Times, and the Worst of Times

Terri Schiavo is the focus of a debate that is leaving not only this nation but even individuals torn between themselves. My wife, and no doubt many others, have expressed vehement outrage and indignation at what the "other side" has been saying. The problem is, she has felt just as strongly supportive and dismissive of both other sides in this matter.

Therein lies the struggle that most of us are ultimately dealing with on the deepest levels.

Almost every one of us quake in horror at the thought of being kept alive with no brighter future than the prospect of being prevented from dying.

Unless she really isn't a rutabaga.

Or unless aggressive treatment would truly offer some realistic hope of a meaningful recovery.

How can you possibly countenance starving and dehydrating a thinking, feeling human being to death?

Unless she really is a rutabaga.

Unless she really is little more than warmer than room temperature flesh too stupid to die.

The biggest problem here is that both sides of the debate are highly impassioned in their positions. Facts are copious, but offered by the presenter with such passion and slant that the average political campaign seems clear cut and uncontested by comparison. Information is available to all of us, but truth is only known to those intimately involved. And even for them, it is easy to believe that mutually exclusive truths exist.

Terri Schiavo is a witless pawn in a debate with ramifications for all of us that dwarf her puny individual life and death drama. Puny at least in the grand scheme of six billion other humans sharing her planet. Puny in the absence of 24x7 wall to wall media coverage and pontification.

Whether she is aware now, will soon be in a place where she can be aware, or if as some assert awareness after death is a bunch of pull the covers over your head feel good mumbo jumbo, perhaps she and we can all take some comfort that Terri's life, and more importantly the nature of her death, will have contributed to a better understanding for each of us what quality of life and the options and means of leaving life or clinging to it signify.

Perhaps too, it will encourage more of us to have the compassion for our loved ones to write a living will. To make our wishes clearly known in advance so that family, friends, and strangers with divergent agendas and world views needn't fight over our not quite lifeless bodies.

Anyone who doesn't care enough to take an explicit hand in charting the course of their own future lacks any legitimate standing to take part in determining how the existence of another adult human being should be continued or curtailed.

For a substantial portion of the population these truly are the best of times. And the worst of times. And perhaps that is the sort of contradiction that establishes the most productive of times for all of us.

Harry Reid - and Most Democrats - A Risky Legislator Scheme?

Limiting myself to Capitol Hill for the time being, I will grant that most if not all Democrats in Congress are sincere individuals who believe theirs is the better vision for America's future. I reserve the right to dispute their misguided notions, just as I dispute the notions held by the current majority that I find to be out of step with reality or common sense.

I would like to suggest however that employing the tactical equivalent of shouting across the playground "Yur stoopid!" is not the most mature or effective way of presenting your argument in a positive manner. The way to win the hearts and minds - and votes - of the electorate is to present ideas, not brickbats, and back them up with cogent arguments supporting the cause.

In 1994, a group of radical idealists came up with a strange notion: set forth a platform to run on, spell out exactly what actions would be taken within the guidelines of that platform, and then sign that agenda as a means of demanding accountability for actions in office. The result was the Contract With America. The Contract With America was not a laundry list of all the ills and evils perpetrated by the opposition, instead it was a list of all the proprieties they sought to implement. What was novel was that it was a document of ideas and not just attack.

While implementation of the ideals expressed in that document was less than might have been hoped for, many of the goals set forth were achieved. And, much to their chagrin in some cases, several elected representatives found themselves out of a job several years later as a direct result of the Contract With America.

Almost before the ink was dry on the Contract, Democrats were ridiculing this as the Contract On America, since it threatened to destroy the power base they had enjoyed for decades.

"Yur stoopid!"

As Democratic control of Congress and governmental institutions has waned, a new battle cry has emerged: "It's nothing but a risky (fill-in-the-blank) scheme!" Don't bother to argue facts or dispute details, offering reasoned counter proposals. Just hope the electorate notices the volume and hype and overlooks the lack of substance.

"Yur stoopid!"

I happen to support the values of the conservative agenda far more than those of the liberal. There is the risk however of moving too far to the right, and the Republican party is showing signs of catering too closely to it's own equivalent of MoveOn.org. The Democrats have seemed bent on destroying themselves as a viable political entity over the past decade, if not longer. For the good of the Republican Party a vibrant loyal opposition is necessary. That opposition must express itself through ideas, visions, and reasoned supporting arguments.

"Yur stoopid!" is just the frustrated cry of embittered children with nothing to offer.

Umm -- What About "We're Sorry"?

Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago lost her husband and her mother in a brutal murder last week. Instantly, white supremacist Matt Hale was indicted by the press as the master mind behind the act. Despite the fact everyone agreed it was impossible for him to have communicated with agents outside the prison, the consensus in the news stories was that he was personally guilty and if only enough effort were put into the investigation it would be discovered how he managed the feat.

To suggest that I feel the views of Mr. Hale and and his followers are somewhat extreme is a bit of an understatement. However, disliking or disagreeing with someone does not automatically make them guilty even if their history makes them very viable suspects. Guilty until proven guiltier is not how the game is played.

As unpalatable as it may be, Matt Hale is owed an apology for the way he was treated in this instance. Why do I doubt that any of the major media outlets who were so quick to judge will let so much as an "Oops, we goofed!" slip out?

Dear Wal-Mart

Following is an email exchange between Wal-Mart Customer Service and me. While I hardly think it's time to liquidate your equity position in Wal-mart and snatch up all available shares of "Robert's Retail-O-Rama", the company's brightest days, if not their greatest profits, may well be behind it.

Wal-Mart began life as a good neighbor and champion of the little guy. They were proud of their "Made In America" philosophy, stocking their shelves with goods made here at home whenever possible and only looking to offshore suppliers when absolutely necessary. Today it is a challenge to find a "Made In The USA" label on their shelves, and their only concern for the little guy is eliminating him as efficiently and ruthlessly as possible.

Forgetting one's roots is one of the first faltering steps in this country for a public entity to be taught lessons in humility.

Since the reply came to me, I feel comfortable disregarding the dire warnings of confidentiality at the bottom of the Wal-Mart email. And it is also amusing that despite the fact I took them up on their offer to correspond further regarding this matter, they have allowed nearly 72 hours to elapse without feeling a need to respond.

----Your [My] Original Comments Were----

I am greatly disappointed to discover that unlike most brick and mortar competitors, Wal-Mart does not offer the option to pick up merchandise ordered on line at a local retail location.

I find this to be particularly frustrating at the moment since I want to purchase a computer from you. On line, with shipping, the total comes to approximately $333, while in the store it can be had for $349. Waiting two weeks to save $16.00 on a product I want and am willing to pay for now does not seem terribly advantageous to me.

I am not sure what my final decision regarding this purchase is going to be. However, the impression I got from the customer service rep I spoke with on the phone was, "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not". That impression of your corporate concern for having me as a customer causes me to consider taking my business elsewhere on general principle, even if that costs me a few dollars.

Once upon a time, General Motors was also an unstoppable behemoth. They also believed they did not need to be responsive to the interests of their customers.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:18:14 -0600,
CUSTOMER REPLIES: WM Stores & Sam'sClubs <cstreply@wal-mart.com> wrote:
Thank you for your message. The merchandise and prices available on our web site do not reflect the merchandise and prices available in our stores. Our stores will not match prices with our online store (or other online stores) because we do not consider them to be in competition with our retail stores. Currently, we do not have access to store inventory lists or price lists at this web site. Please contact your local Wal-Mart store manager for more information and availability.

Thanks,
Customer Relations

For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **********************************************************************
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Confidential **********************************************************************

Jay Vreeland to CUSTOMER,

You're welcome for my message.

Clearly you managed to provide a canned response, unfiltered by anything so mundane as rational thought. I, and the overwhelming majority of retailers who utilize the internet to offer their goods to the public, consider their e-tailing efforts to be an adjunct to their brick and mortar operations and not some strange form of auto-cannibalistic "competition". At least you can claim consistency. The attitude that "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not" suggested by your phone rep now appears not have been merely a personal opinion or poorly phrased rendering of corporate philosophy. She managed to nail your view of the sheep filling your cash registers rather accurately.

I can only express relief for "Mr. Sam" that he didn't have to live long enough to see the monstrosity his vision has become.

Jay Vreeland
Bunker Hill, West Virginia

Advice to the Airlines - Worth Every Penny They Pay For It

United, this is directed at you specifically but the rest of you out there should take note as well.

Friday evening I was flying home from Norfolk, Virginia, to Dulles, Virginia. After deplaning the five stand-bys who had improperly been permitted to board and then seating the justifiably unhappy family of six, the flight attendant got on the PA system to begin her how to buckle your seat belt, press the call button, and save your own neck before worrying about whether the child next to you might also enjoy the flow of oxygen spiel.

As a matter of courtesy I usually pay at least partial attention and try to establish eye contact at least once, even though as a frequent flyer I can almost give the presentation myself at this point. Not paying full attention to either her or the book in my lap, my wandering thoughts were suddenly drawn in by the attendant's reference to our flight crew as being "Captain Don" and "First Officer Trevor". The sensation was so Romper Room-esque that I was almost surprised when she didn't identify herself as "Miss Sidney" or offer me milk and cookies before my nap.

The major airlines are in a world of hurt these days. None of them manage to clean the tray tables to a degree that would satisfy even the less than fastidious Oscar Madison, US Airways can't even manage to provide ticket jackets at a growing number of their check-in counters, and yet they all wish us to believe that they are competent to properly maintain and operate an aircraft. Talking to their passengers as though we are little better than a bunch of three-year-olds is not a great way to boosting confidence levels that for many are teetering on the knife edge towards doubting these guys really know - or care - about the business they are running.

SO: Act like adults. Treat your passengers like adults. Maintain the cosmetic appearance of your fleets in such a manner that my mind is not encouraged to wander into wondering if the mechanical aspects or your aircraft are equally ill cared for.

Martha, Martha, Martha

When did we forsake greatness and instead embrace shallowness and self indulgence as a national ideal?

I cannot help but notice that yesterday, when Steve Fossett became the first human to fly the globe on a single tank of gas, the headline services had his feat ranked fourth or fifth. Events in Iraq and other more serious - or politically inflammatory? - news were given top billing. We should all feel a bit of national pride that it was an American who pulled off this feat, but the story was reported with a healthy perspective on its general relevance to the grand scheme of things.

So why is that this morning a fat (she did lose twenty pounds!), old(er), near-billionaire cow getting out of prison and heading home for five more months of palatial estate arrest leads every broadcast news show and tops such stories in the print media as the possibility of Syria pulling out of Lebanon, al Qaeda threats, and better than expected job growth?

Somehow, the standard press response that they report the news that is most important to the herd they serve, and only present it in the order of greatest relevance to the general consumer's daily life comes off sounding just a trifle lame.

At least, that is one author's rarely humble opinion.

Personal Responsibility: Anti-American?

Kim Komando is running a poll this week concerning pending California legislation that would make the sale of adult video games to minors illegal. The poll asks if we need a law or if the industry should regulate itself, much as the movie industry does.

As of 2:22 PM Sunday afternoon, 67% believe a law is in order, 30% think the industry should be able to handle this on their own, and 3% lack the mental capacity to form an opinion. I suspect this is the same 3% who would be uncertain whether or not it might be a good idea to evacuate a burning building, but are sure that their Democratic fathers in Washington will guide them on the path to salvation.

To the 67% I ask, "What is your problem?"

If one who is presumably a functional adult lacks the capacity to decide whether a good or service is right or desirable for them, perhaps they should not be permitted to roam loose in our society. If they are unable to make that decision for their minor children, or enforce that decision within their own households, perhaps they should not be parents.

It is not the government's responsibility to wipe the butt, zip the fly, and relieve every US citizen of the burden of evaluating options and implementing choices in the living of their lives. People who advocate more laws for everything from abortion to the control of Zithromax simply want to abdicate responsibility for their own lives. That is not the mentality that built a continent spanning nation in well under two hundred years

Wake up! Seize control of your own life. Sit down with your families and make your own decisions, based on your own values, goals and ideals. It is not a crime to want something you don't have. It is not a moral injustice to seek to better the existence of you and those around you. It is not fundamentally unfair that some are not as equally successful in their strivings as others. You have a God given right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. YOUR right, not your government's right.

Yeah, I just wrote "God". You have a problem with that? Well, too bad. I refuse to be Politically Correct enough to even contemplate giving a damn.

If we don't collectively wake up as a people and reclaim our birthright, every snide comment ever uttered by an American against the despised French will apply to us more completely and accurately than those comments have ever applied to France.

One can only hope it is not to late for us. Our history since leaving Saigon with our tail between our legs begins to suggest that we are little more as a nation than a petulant, overpowerful bully. The moral vision and spirit of adventure and advance seems to have slipped through our fingers after reaching its apex at the conclusion of World War II. Those ideals and those achievements are still available.

Is our grasp up to the task?

Kill All the Lawyers? How About Taking a Look at the Press?

By Dafna Linzer - washingtonpost.com - Updated: 11:47 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2005
The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort.

Since the U.S. officials are never identified, one can only assume they spoke on condition of anonymity. Isn't that a convenient way to get your story before the masses without having to provide objective proof of the story's veracity? Purely a personal opinion here, but individuals such as the three above really deserve to be shot, on condition of anonymity of course, for their wanton disregard and outright undermining of the national security interests of the country that is paying them.

Beyond them though, what of The Press? Why do they earn a free pass for using unnamed sources to rabble rouse, directly endanger the troops in harms way they purport to support and love wholeheartedly, and denounce before the planet the fact that Americans, in time of war, are shedding other people's blood? To read the newspaper or watch the televised newscasts, one would readily draw the conclusion that U.S. troops are doing nothing but picking off unarmed civilian women and children while facing no threat of harm whatsoever themselves. Until, of course, The Press chooses to point out how many brave and blameless U.S. men and women, children really, have sacrificed their lives needlessly in the name of the cause of the megalomaniacal madman occupying the White House.

Oops. Mustn't let factual contradictions ruin a good story. Besides, the herd of sheep known as the American public will never notice anything out of the ordinary or think anything other than what they are instructed to think.

Freedom of speech and the obligation of a free press to maintain an informed public are vital to the long term success of a free society. Reporting on some of the more grievous abuses of power committed by this and other administrations, and this staunch supporter of the current administration will be among the first to admit that such abuses exist, is a legitimate function of that free press. However, for too many in The Press, it seems the "duty" to serve the public's "right to know" has come to include disseminating information that not only do the majority of us not have a need to know but that are in fact detrimental to the wellbeing and perhaps even lives of this country's citizens when generally broadcast. Yes, as citizens we all have rights. Equally important are the responsibilities each of us bear as citizens, and those responsibilities cannot be ignored when they become inconvenient to the furthering of a particular political agenda.

Why is it though that if you use a printing press and sell to the public your demands that key government officials resign, administrations be turned out of office, and outright falsify facts to further a political objective (apologizing on page Z44 in the event you get caught) is deemed constitutionally protected freedom of the press, while if a dozen guys are found to be promulgating the same nonsense in a windowless basement they are considered guilty of treason and illegally plotting to overthrow the government?

Seems to me The Press just doesn't like the idea of regular citizen peasantry poaching the deer on their royal preserve.

My Boss In My Private Life? Not Necessarily a Bad Deal

Weyco, Inc., in Michigan wants to be in their employee's lives on a 24x7x365 basis. Their strict no smoking policy extends to what is supposedly the employee's "personal time". If my employer is dictating what legal activities I may or may not engage in on my own time, then it is no longer my time.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this though. The minimum wage is $5.15. That's $41.20 for an eight hour day. At time and a half, the remaining sixteen hours of the day are worth another $123.60. That's a total for the day of $164.80.

No, we're not ready to buy the vacation home on that amount just yet. However, since there is no personal time, that pay is earned all seven days of the week. $1153.60. Getting better.

At $59,987.20 per year, minimum wage becomes very livable indeed.

Now, I do believe that Weyco has the right to impose their no smoking policy as a condition of employment for any employee hired after that policy is announced. It is inherently unacceptable to unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game. For those already employed, the policy should have either been waived or an obscene severance package paid to those who were fired.

In lieu of a satisfactory severance package, Weyco should be sued out of existence by the fired employees. And the plaintiffs should prevail.

If this is permitted to proceed unchallenged, what else will my employer have the "right" to control in my private life? Diet? Sexual practices? Marital partner?

No thanks.

Get A Freakin' Grip People!!!

What more can possibly be said than that?

The following story was posted on Friday, February 4:
______________________________________

DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.

The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.
Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitte, 18, paid the judgment on Thursday after a small claims court ruling by La Plata County Court Judge Doug Walker, a court clerk said on Friday.
The girls baked cookies as a surprise for several of their rural Colorado neighbors on July 31 and dropped off small batches on their porches, accompanied by red or pink paper hearts and the message: "Have a great night."
The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.
It reported that six neighbors wrote letters entered as evidence in the case thanking the girls for the cookies.
But Young said she was frightened because the two had knocked on her door at about 10:30 p.m. and run off after leaving the cookies.
She went to a hospital emergency room the next day, fearing that she had suffered a heart attack, court records said.
The judge awarded Young her medical costs, but did not award punitive damages. He said he did not think the girls had acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.

Wow!

The best frat house party ever imagined.

The most incredible adolescent wet dream unfettered by real life experience.

Bourbon Street.

Wow!

This place is many things. What it is not is a safe place for addictive personalities. It is far too easy to lose oneself down there, and never wish to come up for air. And this wasn't even Mardi Gras.

Go.

Whatever the excuse, whenever the opportunity, go. The adventure will not be regretted.

From Here to There and Back Again (With Apologies to J. R. R. Tolkien)

First, let me recommend not breaking your tailbone.

Second, let me further recommend you not have a job requiring extensive air travel if you are unfortunate enough to have disregarded the previous recommendation.

Third, permit me to finally recommend that if you choose to ignore one and two above, don't offer to drive a rental moving truck across the country. Even if it is on behalf of you child.

Or, if you are as thoroughly masochistic as I appear to be, go ahead and do all the above and simply make the best of things.

Following the day-after-Christmas breaking of my tailbone, I flew to Maine. The next day I flew home. The day after that it was off to Worcester, Massachusetts (add to that trip the bonus experience of a van trip in a poorly suspensioned vehicle). Then on January 4th and 5th, it was a flight back to Washington, D.C., then on to San Diego via Baltimore and Denver. It was almost a relief to hit the truck after that!

The trip home was every bit as long as the drive out with my son's truck was this past summer. We didn't get away until nearly 9:00 at night, so the sightseeing I had hoped for wasn't to be. Worse than that though, at the rest area just before El Centro, California, heading East on I-8 (still "the 8" I suppose since it is in California, but I'm an easterner!) we discovered that the two left rear tires had chosen to no longer retain air. Not what one wants to discover near midnight in the middle of nowhere! The rental company quickly found someone to get out there though, and in little more than an hour we were back on the road again. Three or four slashes in the tires were never explained, but at least the adventure wasn't ended almost before it began.

The late departure and flat tires totally destroyed our planned schedule. After a few failed efforts and a final detour looking for lodging brought us out on I-10 35 miles west of Phoenix instead of east, the relatively early stop we had planned instead wound up happening at 9:30 AM rather than six hours earlier. Things gradually improved, and by Friday we saw most of the daylight available and not too much more of the night than we wanted to. Note to anyone crossing Texas though: El Paso to Texarkana is NOT the way to go. That route is longer than long, and the only bright spot to that segment of the trip was a falling star seen between Ft. Worth and Dallas. We deserved some free fireworks by that point!

We finally reached Quantico late Sunday night. It was with slight amusement that I wound up leading the kids to places on the Marine base, even though it is almost twenty years since I was last there. 2:30 AM Monday morning they finally got me back home. After too brief a nap in my own bed for the first time in too many nights, I enjoyed an uneventful day off and then took to the road again. How relaxing to be back at work once more!

Now if only the whole tailbone thing would clear up enough to let me look forward to flying again.

Happy New Year

It is amazing how quickly time can slip away when one is busy traveling. Since the last time I took the time to comment here, I've been stranded in Hawaii for a week (I know - I didn't get any sympathy about that on the home front either), visited California, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Virginia, squeezed in a Christmas and the celebration of another trip around the sun.

On the subject of Christmas - I hope you had a Merry Christmas. Should you choose not to celebrate that holiday, that's fine. Please simply accept the sentiment in the spirit it was intended. In turn, I promise not to take offense if you wish (or wished) me a Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza, Yule, offer me the finger or choose to say nothing at all. All I ask is that you commit yourself in this new year to joining those who refuse to go out of their way to find any possible excuse for offense in any situation. There are plenty of legitimate issues to get upset about on a daily basis. Be satisfied with those problems, until they are all resolved.

While it is my intent to resume regular postings, the travel schedule interferes more than I originally expected. Just after getting back in the saddle tonight, I find myself flying to California starting tomorrow for a cross country drive that will occupy the rest of my week. This is the reverse of a trip I made in July, and with luck I'll get to document at least a few of my thoughts and observations along the way.

Be well.