Con Jobs

Well, it's now been almost 60 days since Steve Jobs shed his earthly shackles.  The fawning obituaries have thinned, but holiday shoppers still clog the retail shrines he left behind.  It remains impossible to speak his name without cueing a choir of earthbound apostles, all chanting the obligatory 'genius!'.  And thanks largely to the work of biographer Walter Isaacson, we have a better understanding of how best that description should be applied.  And now, I would like to add my tribute.

But first, a little stage setting.

For those not fully aware of the man behind the curtain, it must be stated for the record that Steve Jobs did not invent the computer.  Or the laptop.  Or the MP3 music player.  Or the mobile phone.  Or the tablet.  He didn't write the software that makes all the Apple miracles blink to life. When he was fired from his own company, he ran the animation studio Pixar, but never penned a movie script.  Or as far as we know, any song or novel or sitcom available on his App Store. The man's genius was not making things...but making people want things.  And then, wanting that same thing...over and over again.

We are now four years into the era of the iPhone.  And already, we're on the fifth iteration of that product line.  Increasingly, differences from the preceding model are approaching imperceptibility.  Each of the millions ever sold is an implied ticket into the not-so-exclusive world of techno chic.  And each is not so good at actually making phone calls.
The mysterious iPad is setting an even faster pace, with the first model surpassed by a successor less than a year out of the box, and a third version already rumored.  Apple has perfected the devil's brew of consumer amnesia.  One day, you are convinced they have created the single best thing that ever was; and the next, you are certain it must be replaced.  In the pantheon of planned obsolescence, Jobs is a demanding deity.

We also know that he was capable of being a downright nasty human being.  He would belittle and fire employees for fun.  But because he was adopted, and hardly the first megalomaniac of technology, some find those sins easy to forgive.  Maybe harder to accept was his fierce denial of paternity for his eldest daughter.  He went to court and swore under oath he could not have sired her, because he was infertile.  He scoffed at the idea that there was a connection between her name and that of his first line of consumer computers, both called 'Lisa'.  Three more children and many years later he had admitted it was a lie, but by then, 'genius' had conquered all.

So yes, he was not a man without faults, but one gift remains unquestioned--his singular, relentless, crazed pursuit of perfection.  It is not the marketing or the industrial design or the cool cachet that consumers crave.  It is the realization that every aspect of everything bearing the Apple name not only works better than any competitor's...but exists, in effect, on a higher plane of consciousness.  They are simply better--and they are better because of Steve Jobs.

Which brings me to the power cord for the MacBook Pro.

It is so hip it almost makes one weep.  The power unit itself has those iconic prongs that pivot in or out of the body depending on need.  On the other side, there are those adorable little ears that also appear when the cord itself needs to be carried.  And on the other end of the cord, there's a little tube that doesn't actually plug into the computer so much as magnetically merge with it.  Thus, before the power switch is even  activated, several sensory thrills have already occurred.  It is the magic of Apple...applied to the same electricity that powers everything else.

But other than that...this cable is a piece of crap.

And you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to the Apple website and read the consumer reviews for yourself.  At this writing, 707 people (not including me--yet) have combined to give this little power cord a whopping 1.5 stars out of a possible 5.  And really, five is really just a given, isn't it? After all, this is Apple we're talking about.  But people hate it for all the right reasons. Because it fails without reason or warning.  Because, when you drop it, it displays all the tensile strength of Humpty Dumpty.  In fact, its design ranks right up there with the Xbox 360 as among the least reliable consumer products ever sold.  But at least no one refers to Steve Ballmer as a 'genius'.  It is simply wretched.  And when it inevitably and prematurely dies, you can redeploy your laptop as a fashionable paperweight.  Or you can buy a replacement for the low, low price of $80, plus tax.

So we are left to ponder one of two unthinkables.  Either Jobs was not the perfectionist he was said to be.  Or he personally authorized the manufacture of a criminally sub-standard power cord--one any graduate EE student could better in a day--simply to further reward all the happy Apple shareholders.

I don't have definitive proof either way.  But I'm pretty sure when Jobs made his lateral move over to the Pearly Gates, someone was there to ask him, 'how in hell did you get off charging $80 for this?!'

Farce and Free Speech

Today the scales of justice tipped.



In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church and founder Fred Phelps would not be held liable for inflicting emotional distress on the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006.  Church members had attended Snyder's funeral, carrying signs that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", and "God Hates Fags".  Earlier they had done the same thing at the Idaho funeral of 19-year-old Army spc. Carrie French, also killed in Iraq.  As mourners turned into the French ceremony, members of the Phelps congregation yelled, 'Carrie is in hell!", and, 'Watch out for IEDs!".  If anyone yelled back, the Phelps clan just laughed.

It's important to point out that neither of the deceased was a homosexual.  But in Phelpsland, that wasn't the point.  American soldiers were being killed by a vengeful god, reportedly conducting a jihad against a sinful nation for not being more diligent in riding itself of actual homosexuals.  

Showing the good grace of the family, daughter Margie Phelps said after today's ruling, "When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God."  She graciously added, "I very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter."

Snyder

Is this odious?  You be the judge.  But speaking of the protesters, Chief Justice John Roberts defended his authorship of the majority opinion by declaring, "the issues they highlight--the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens--are matters of public import."

Well, you know, in a funny kind of way, doesn't that make you just a tiny bit proud?  Yes, it's sickening, but isn't that what America is all about?  No one being deprived of their right to peaceful protest?

Except, except...how does this square with how the courts have ruled in 'matters of public import' concerning protests over the way George W. Bush conducted the war in which Snyder and French were killed?

In case you forgot, Bush sent the U.S. military into a conflict to find and destroy mythological weapons of mass destruction.  His mistake killed more than 4,000 American troops and at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians. In our bastion of free speech, you could expect a few citizens to be a little perturbed.  And to protest.  After all, free speech is what we're all about, right?

Well, yes--except when it came to George W. Bush.  At the instruction of the Secret Service, peaceful protesters in cities across America were dispatched to controlled 'free speech zones', located at least a third of a mile away from wherever Bush would track a bloody footprint.  There, they would remain out of sight, out of mind, and in many cases, legally off limits to any reporter who cared to interview them. 

And it must be noted that these restrictions were not applied equally.  Those banished were the ones who indicated they opposed the Iraqi War.  Those allowed to remain were those whose signs and shirts showed support for Bush.  One of the pretenses for the disequity was the purported fear of 'suicide bombers'.  Think about that for a minute.  The conviction that a terrorist would not figure out to wear a 'Bush is Great' button and a flag lapel pin on his mission erases any doubt as to how we could have allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Anyway, the tactic of 'controlled' free speech moved to another dimension when the Republicans held their 2004 National Convention in New York City.  An anti-war group received a permit from the city to march three miles to the site of the festivities, Madison Square Garden.  But they got only a block or so before police leaped from storefronts, apartment vestibules and alleys to circle them inside orange crime scene tape--this creating an instantly declared, instantly controlled 'free speech' zone. 

That same week, the father of one of the first servicemen killed in Iraq managed his way into the GOP convention, and silently held up a sign reading, "Bush Lied; My Son Died".

French



Unlike 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers', his sign was offensive.  He was summarily tossed out.



So here, once again, we see the travesty of the current court system unmasked.  The same radical jurists who disastrously inserted Bush into the Oval Office have expanded their variable rulebook.  No man shall be denied his right to freely speak on 'the political and moral conduct of the United States', even if that speech brings distress and dishonor to the families of our fallen troops.

Unless, of course, such speech should dare hurt the feelings of the man who sent them to their rest.

Indeed, the scales are askew.  Snyder and French are gone.

And today, America died a little.









There Is a Place...

...where stupidity and self-absorption meet at an apex of ecstasy.

It is the Mt. Olympus of narcissism.  Where only a definitive queen of preen...or king of bling...could survive.  We have always assumed it a mythical land, existing only in theory, never to be seen by the likes of us.

Well, all you disbelievers, repent.

Because there is a chance in this mortal world that we may be given the unthinkable opportunity to watch these giants of ego and megalomania come face-to-face, and decide finally who would rule their land of knaves.

That's right--should the stars align, and fate smile upon us--next year we will be able to witness both Sarah Palin and Donald Trump vie for the Republican nomination to become Lord of the Corporate Whores President!

Ah, America the beautiful...

Gay Marriage

I'm going to be honest; I've heard just about all I need about gay marriage, don't ask/don't tell, and the wackos who think this argument somehow constitutes the biggest issue facing America.

But...but...I just have to say that if you believe that the real problem allowing 'gay marriage'--a semantic distinction--is that it will mushroom the number of children raised by gay couples...and that these children will somehow be deprived, depraved or even victimized; well, then please listen to Zach Wahls testifying before the Iowa state legislature.

And then I ask: is he not worthy of immediate inclusion in the U.S. Senate?  Even if it means amending the Constitution to allow 101 members?

Maybe we're not doomed after all...

Why Green Bay?

The first reason you should be rooting for the Packers this Sunday is because I have loved them since I was 10.

But assuming that's not convincing enough, consider how the Packers are different from every other major professional sports franchise in America:

• The team is owned solely by the citizens of its home community.  Just think about that for a minute.
• To be more precise, there is no singular 'owner'.  There is a 45-person board of directors, of whom seven form the executive committee. Among these seven, only one is paid for his service.
• By charter, the team is non-profit.  Should it ever be sold for any reason, all profits would go to charity, not the shareholders.
• There are about 300,000 people in the Green Bay environs.  There are 112,000 shareholders.
• The Packers are the only franchise in U.S. professional sports to make its balance sheet public every year.
• The next smallest city with an NFL franchise is Buffalo--about four times Green Bay's size.
• The next smallest city with a major league baseball franchise, ironically enough, is Milwaukee--five times Green Bay's size.

To put it mildly, this seems implausible.  How in the world could a city so small support a franchise so important?  The answer, as provided by Bill Maher, is that the NFL is a socialist state.  I know that doesn't gibe with the likes of Jimmy Johnson, his football palace, or the enormous league TV rights.  But that last point--the TV rights--only begins to describe the collectivist nature of the NFL:

• Unlike baseball, there are no local TV rights--everything goes to the league.  And those funds are distributed equally among the league's 32 teams, no matter how big or important you think you are.  (This alone could explain the absence of Donald Trump). 
• By union contract, 60% of all revenues go to player compensation, again divided equally among the teams.  It's a lucrative salary cap from the standpoint of the players, but a cap nonetheless.  Roster sizes are also fixed; thus, there is no provision for overspending for players, or for that matter, even underspending your rivals.
• Consequently, 'profitability', for what that means in such circumstances, is largely fixed.
• Player development is free.  The colleges do the work; you just pay for the best of what they produce.  And what you have to pay is limited by that salary cap.
• The NFL is a monopoly; you can't just do a startup team in Fresno, no matter how much money you have.  Just ask Mark Cuban.

In keeping with all this, a community-owned, non-profit team, where local kids regularly loan their bicycles to players to ride at summer training camp seems a model not only for pro football, but for American sports.

But, not surprisingly, the NFL has enacted a statute that, while grandfathering in the Packers, prevents any other business model like it from ever endangering the American way of life again.  

Where the Tea Party is Right

Members of the Tea Party have always claimed their central rallying point is the federal budget--they will do whatever necessary to save their children and grandchildren from fiscal ruin. (Of course, this begs the question of where they were during the Bush years, when the financial infection became life-threatening. Or the Clinton years, when the only four budget surpluses of the last 40 years were crafted. Somehow their cheers for Bill weren't heard). But for the moment, let's take them at their word. They want fiscal responsibility.

Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. He answered, 'cause that's where the money is'. Using that same flawless logic, attacking the national debt should naturally start where the most money is spent. And everyone knows where that is--Social Security. In theory, there are pretty simple solutions: raise the retirement age; reduce benefits, particularly for the financially well off; or giving a nice portion of that huge fund to the same Wall Street wizards who passed you the bill once the housing bubble burst. Amazingly, not many Americans support any of this. In fact, even the Tea Party would rather not talk about it.

OK, next, Medicare and Medicaid together are in the same ballpark. But seeing as the battle over health insurance continues under its own power, there's no need to digress here. That sign held by an elderly Tea Partier at a political rally last year said it all: 'Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'

However, the knives are sharpened and clearly unsheathed, ready to eviscerate any number of 'wasteful' and 'worthless' federal agencies--health and human services, transportation, housing and urban development, energy, education, the EPA. You know the list. But here's the problem: put every one of these agencies together--combine every tax dollar they spend--and the total isn't even half of what we pay in another area--defense. So any Tea Partier worth his salt is going to turn his Sutton-like eyes on the defense mega-bank. Go where the money is.

But do they have the courage and common sense to do that?

Turns out, some do.

Max Pappas of Freedom Works says, "we have some who think you just can’t cut defense spending, it’s just not possible". (But) there’s waste there, there’s the wrong incentives, there’s room for them to cut.”

Chris Gibson, a retired U.S. Army colonel and freshly-minted Tea Party congressman adds, “this deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.”

And former congressional leader Dick Armey, no stranger to Republican politics, chimes in, “A lot of people say if you cut defense, you’re demonstrating less than a full commitment to our nation’s security--and that’s baloney".

In fact, no uncompromised person can argue with this. Defense spending takes up nearly 20% of the total federal budget...or over 40% of all discretionary spending. America represents 43% of the total world spending on defense. There is no force on earth--even every other force on earth combined--who can challenge us militarily. Pick a fight with us--you will perish.

And beyond the pure funding of the military industrial complex is the question of how the money is spent. Which I would like to spell out for you now. But I can't, because no one really knows. The Government Accounting Office in 2009 was asked to come up with an answer. In the end, they just threw up their hands: "...serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense made its financial statements unauditable." 'Serious problems'? 'Unauditable'?

Well, damn, them's fightin' words! Positively socialistic! Certainly the head of the Defense Department will have a thing or two to say about that, right? Well, look at how Secretary Robert Gates responded: "This department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and lax attitude towards costs are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today."

Yeah! See that, you Tea Party pussies! 'Lax attitude towards costs!' Ha!

No, wait...

So, if both sides are really fighting for the same thing here (and I'm just taking a leap of faith and assuming most Democrats are on board with saving the early childhood nutrition program rather than killing a few more innocent Afghans), what could possibly be the problem?

We can encapsulate that answer in a single human life form: Congressman Howard 'Buck' McKeon. And what a man he is.

Buck spent two of his formative years on an LDS mission...then returned to graduate from Brigham Young University with a degree in animal husbandry. (I know, I know, it's too easy--insert your own joke). Additional credentials qualifying him for his current job as head of the House Armed Services Committee include running a Western wear store; being available to become the first mayor of Santa Clarita, Ca. when it was incorporated; being available to represent California's 25th district after it magically sprung to life by reapportionment; and then shifting over one seat to slide into the armed services chairmanship after the gavel was left sitting on the table when the Democrats lost the House. So Howard has hit the good fortune trifecta, never having to face an incumbent in a meaningful election. But from this, you should never judge him worthless. In fact, to some, he is money in the bank.

First, we must understand that Howard is a fierce defender of America. All you have to do is ask him (comments mine):

“A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline.” (Anything less than the current three-quarters of a trillion, and we all go the way of ancient Rome. And for the record, no one except Barney Frank has actually suggested cutting the budget, only reducing its rate of growth.)

"Let me put this in the simplest terms possible: Cutting defense spending amidst two wars is a red line for me and should be a red line for all Americans.” (Translation: you disagree with me? You're a terrorist.)

"I will not support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less able to fight." (How do you know they would be less capable...when no one knows how the money's being spent in the first place?)

"I cannot say it strongly enough. I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform" (Yeah, I think we got that the first time.)

"The concern I have is that defense spending is being based on budget rather than defense needs." (Yeah, you see Buck, that's the whole point. We need to start basing things on how much money we've got, not how much you wish we had.)

“I will also oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security.”

Aha! Now, here's where it starts to get interesting. Note that we've moved from our 'forces' to our 'national security'. And that subtle little gap in semantics is where Buck earns his pay.

California's fighting 25th is home to the following: Fort Irwin, Edwards Air Force Base, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, and the Marine Mountain Warfare Training Center. It's also home to development and manufacturing of some of the most ambitious weapons programs in U.S history...paid for by U.S. taxpayers...funneled through middlemen including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. In fact, by the most unpredictable of coincidences, these were the three largest contributors to Buck's most recent election campaign.

But one has to wonder if those donors believe they'll get their money's worth, even with Buck in the big chair. After all, during Buck's time in Congress, they've suffered some severe setbacks:

• The order for Northrop's B2 bomber was cut from 130 planes to 21
• At one time, the Pentagon ordered 450 of Lockheed's F22 fighters; now that's been reduced to 188
• GE and Rolls Royce are in partnership to build a backup engine for Lockheed's jinxed F35, a project so horrible that funding was cut not only by the traitorous Obama, but also that celebrated fighter pilot, George W. Bush.

So Buck sort of found himself in a corner. It's time to pay back his political debts, but even with the Democrats cowering, those pesky Tea Partiers are now getting in the way. Egads--what to do?! Fortunately, the crafty Buck has a plan of attack:

“While China today may not intend to attack our carriers, neutralize our bases in Japan and Guam, or push back our naval presence out of the South China Sea, they are without question making the investments and developing capabilities to do just that."

See that? The snap of a finger, and a new threat is born. We are effectively doomed if we cut a dollar. Our children could all wind up speaking Mandarin.

But wait...could there be a way to defeat that threat? Well, yes, with the Aegis anti-missle shield, of course! Silly! You thought Buck wouldn't have come up with something?

And who are the prime contractors for such a program? Well, ironically, Lockeed and Northrop. And in a development too strange to imagine, just this week the Navy announced the first successful test of the Aegis system. Shazam!

And we can attribute much of this to our boy Buck. He will never rest easy. If you're a tireless defender of our troops, you always have the courage to speak the truth. For example, what would happen, Buck, if we cut a dollar?: "my concern is we end up back with a ‘bow and arrow’ -- I’m hoping not.”

So, Tea Partiers, there you have it. There's your opposition. A guy with expertise in both Western wear and animal husbandry...a guy with the full support of the military contractors...a red-blooded American who fears we'll have to try to shoot deadly Chinese missiles out of the sky with bows and arrows.

You keep asking for your stupid cuts...and this is the America you'll be responsible for.

Tucson, Jefferson and God

One week ago today, gunfire erupted in a Tucson shopping center, killing six people, including a little girl who went there to learn more about American politics. What lesson did she take to her grave?

Contrary to early suspicions, there is no evidence that the gunman was motivated by any political dogma, from any point on the spectrum. Thus, President Obama and most of his critics on the right have agreed to drop pursuit of such claims. And consequently, arguments for the moment have shifted to gun control, or more accurately, to gun safety considerations.

The arguments have quickly devolved to the extremes: 'bans' on one hand, 'second amendment rights' on the other. It's as if there is no middle ground worth considering. I would ask this: how would Americans respond to the following question: "would you be willing to at least discuss ways to minimize the chances of U.S. Representatives, federal judges and nine-year-old girls from being shot?" I'm guessing there would be a clear majority in favor.

And the extreme second amendment advocates realize this, as well. This is a conversation they don't want to have.

Which leads us to the following quote to the New York Times from Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America:

Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves? These politicians need to remember that these rights aren't given to us by them. They come from God. They are god-given rights. They can't be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do--limit it to two or three rounds? Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially when the police are not around and you have to defend yourself against mobs."

Let's quickly deconstruct that.

• First of all, there is no evidence that God wrote the Bill of Rights, nor is there any mention (to my knowledge) of Glocks or extended clips in the Bible;
• Who are the mobs coming to take Mr. Pratt's guns away? Highly unlikely they will be the non-gun owners, since by definition they would be at a severe disadvantage;
• Actually, a limit to two or three rounds could be very helpful--particularly when someone decides to kill as many people as possible in a Tucson shopping center.

But what's most evident here is the immediate resurrection of God into any argument concerning guns, no matter how clumsy the implementation. God is the ultimate bullet-proof shield against logic. It's apparent that God is an invincible repellent to common sense reasoning; never mind the revered founding fathers, who actually did create the right to bear arms.

Surveys have shown that conservatives are 50% more likely to own guns than liberals. And conservatives are certainly far more likely to be members of the Republican party. So why would conservatives bother enlisting the defense of an other-worldly God rather than the former real world colonists who actually drafted the second amendment?

The answer, I believe, is the confounding legacy that is Thomas Jefferson.

In many ways, Jefferson is the patron saint of modern conservatism. He was a champion of the rural farmer, distrustful of cities. He was an expansionist, negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and sending Lewis and Clark on their way. He consistently opposed a strong federal government, preferring ultimate power to reside with the states. He wrote vociferously against British taxation, and as Governor of Virginia, twice saw the British invade his state. He was unflinching in his belief in freedom, liberty and individual rights--after all, the guy wrote the Declaration of Independence! By many, he is considered 'the first Republican'.

With such credentials...it would seem logical for current conservatives to consider him not just a founding father, but in fact the Godfather of their movement.

And yet, they seldom mention him.

The sticking point, of course, comes from his views on religion. Yes, he is well known for his "wall of separation between Church and State". But his words and actions are far more definitive than that:

• As governor, he disestablished Anglicanism as the official state church, and abolished 'religious tests' for citizens;
• He wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection..."
• He wrote, "The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity throughout the United States; and as every sect believed its own form to be the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own. (But) the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly..."
• He wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

These are hardly words a modern conservative can abide by. The feelings of this perhaps most prominent founding father are clear: liberty, freedom and religion do not live in the same neighborhood much less room together. It is no wonder that people like Erich Pratt bypass the founding fathers altogether in defense of their fetishes and phobias. To him, the god of his own invention provides the only 'true' answer.

The New York Times should be quoting Jefferson instead of Pratt.

And the fact that automatic weapons are not a god-given right is the lesson that nine-year-old Christina Green might have lived to learn.

2011: The Year Ahead

Three things you can take to the bank in 2011:

In Politics: it will be conclusively proven that Democrats have brains but no balls; and Republicans have balls but no brains.

In Business: The U.S. economy shed 40,000 manufacturing plants (not jobs, plants) during the Bush regime...and saw the share of all U.S. corporate profits earned by Sleaze Street grow from 18% to 33%. Thus, we will conclusively demonstrate that the U.S. economy has moved irrevocably from making shit...to making shit up.

Where Politics and Business intersect: the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not propose a thing--not one...single...thing--that would not shovel more money to their corporate masters.

That is all.