another sign of the apocalypse

did you ever feel as though your soul had been taken from you? I did earlier today. While channel surfing this morning, seeing exactly what is served to the consuming public at nine o'clock on a Saturday morning, I ran across Roger Daltrey, with just enough hair left not to look, you know, old, selling Time Life produced DVD's featuring a bunch of TV performances of 60's bands, lip-synching popular songs.

I mean, damn!

Random thoughts, (the white noise in my head).

Ted Kennedy must be trying to be the Michael Moore of the Senate. I do not like the man, his character seems a bit shallow and tepid, however, that does not mean that he is wrong. He appeared on TV this weekend, using the "v" word as an analogy to the war in Iraq. He is not the first to have that thought, (and I tend to agree with this line of reasoning), but coming from him, the notion is counter-productive. Ted needs to do some of the solid behind-the-scenes work that he can do and shut the f__k up. Every time he opens his mouth, right or wrong, the court of public opinion distances itself from him a little bit more. Score another point for the administration.

There is a serious war scare in the making today. A noted columnist has reported that the US has troops on the ground in Iran and other potentially hostile places scouting targets in the event relations with these powers deteriorate. The administration denies it, in a non-categorical way. Who'da thunk it?

A Regulated Monopoly

I saw a news blurb today that reports that the large telephone companies in the US have already requested a speedy appeal to new FCC rules that haven't been issued yet. These guys are on the ball! Perhaps if service outages were reported directly to a regulatory agency, they would be a bit more on top of things.

The gist of the rules is that the bells are still required to sub-let
their networks to "competitors". On that issue, I have to admit that forcing a company to sell its product at an artificially low price to another company who will turn around and undercut the incumbent is a bit crazy. This is the path that the health care system embarked on and look where it is today.

It is time to reconcile the rules and the realities that the consumers, producers and resellers all deal with.

Separate access from content. That is it, in a nutshell. The
incumbent telephone and cable companies all have a significant
investment and ongoing cost in their distribution systems. They
should not be required to sell that at a discount to an agency who will only add a markup and then offer it to the consumer as a "choice". (Face it, in those areas where service is bad, it will be bad no matter who sends out the bill). Those network companies ought to be able to separate the costs associated with building and maintaining a distribution system from other costs, (programming and internet access in the cable TV world, dial tone, call features or DSL in the telephone world, who knows what in the wireless world...) and sell the means of access to these fine products directly to the consumer, who in turn, would be free to select whatever provider that they choose to provide
content. This should apply equally to all such network providers, be they telephone, power, cable tv, wireless or satellite companies).

This would go a long ways towards simplifying the situation for
everyone, regulators, consumers and providers, and making the entire process transparent. The consumer could arrange for access to a supply chain through whatever means is available or most suits his or her needs. Purveyors of services could then deliver their wares over that connection. The network companies could maintain reasonable rates for access, regulated), content companies (in many cases the same companies that provide access), could charge what the market would allow
for whatever services thay can dream up.

It sure beats the artificial and opaque system that we have now. Look at the health care industry. I don't believe that there is one person in the world who really knows what a particular service is worth. A patient pays one thing is he is uninsured, another if he is a member of a network, and even another if he is a member of a protected class of citizenry. Is it any wonder that the system is on the verge of failing?

what's it gonna take, part 3

many things are happening on the national scene. too many for any individual to follow. and sources of news are too numerous to be beneficial, though it is hard to argue against the freedom of the press and availability of publishing opportunities, (yes, the internet). the ubiquitous of the whole thing renders it almost worthless. is that irony or what?

in politics, the party currently on the outs needs to build a little
credibility as a working entity. those members of that party who
manage to win and/or stay in office are usually held in some regard by their immediate constituents, (more than simply the lesser of two evils, the corner that the last national campaign painted itself into). the party needs to start standing for something and making some difficult choices. most people know that they are going to get shafted economically speaking over the rest of their lives, they want to see plans that will justify the sacrifices that are coming, (plan or no).

social security is a big issue. the party in opposition needs a
viable plan to stabilize the system, and it also needs to define its
vision for the future of the program, rather than hobbling it with so
much baggage that it will simply wither and die. one potential solution to a large part of the Social Security crisis actually combines the attractive elements of both competing plans.
rather than private savings accounts, why not commit the federal
government to setting the money aside in protected accounts, rather than frittering it away as has been the case for lo these many years.

the option has the solid logic of private accounts, (the money is
actually there, invested in something) as well as the benefit of the
"pay as you go" philosophy. the large pool of money, entrusted to an agency devoted to the well being of its constituents, has a great deal of market pull in terms of securing favorable returns and security for the investors.

something needs to be done. the lame plan put forth by the party in opposition buys us only a real nice shovel with which we will bury our heads in the sand. the plan espoused by the party in power is nothing more than a plan to eventually make the pesky system go away, while preserving a modicum of "not my fault" for those who are the advocates of the dismantling.

energy is another major issue. tough choices need to be made. the cost of remaining hooked to the 21st century version of the French Connection (petroleum) is seen daily in our newspapers and on our TV sets. American lives are being lost because of the significance of that commodity to our economy.

what would the mideast political landscape look like in 5 years if we did not need them or their mineral resources? more to the point, who would care?

the time for change is upon us, and there are no good choices. there are technologies to develop, but they will not be ready in time. there are no bright sunshiney options, but there is a choice. nuclear power. the dangers and drawbacks are well documented, but that is as much a strength as a weakness.

the situation we are in today seems to be slipping by the hour.
first, let's take care of the loose ends that we have. a national
policy on the storage of nuclear waste, and more importantly, let's
implement the plan that we have. remove the waste that lies almost unprotected around the country and transport it to the Nevada desert for disposition. yes, that is a hazardous proposition, but much less so than doing nothing, (which is simply a strategy to impede the growth of this particular industry...). like I said, tough choices.

second, let's start to ween our economy away from petroleum as a source of electricity and locomotion. we need to replace oil fired power plants with nuclear plants, (no, not coal, that comes with a set of problems all its own). tax gasoline a bit heavier to encourage conservation and the development of alternate transit systems. tax gas powered automobiles to encourage the development of alternative means of powering them.

expensive? hell yes. it is the cost of freedom, and particularly, the cost of rendering certain realities irrelevant.

Beware of Mr Softy

I see Microsoft is getting into the "free" spyware and virus protection
business. Cool. They build a flawed product, and charge more for maintenance. On the issue of spyware, I am more concerned about Microsoft harvesting data from my PC than I am about those babes in the Ukraine or wherever.

beware. be afraid. be very afraid.

What kinda crap is this?

Oliver Stone & Michael Moore need to start a club, (or perhaps a 12 step program for film directors who are way too absorbed in their own personal legend). Mr Stone blames American critics and the movie going public for the lackluster success of his epic, "Alexander". That is difficult to reject on one level, the critics
panned the movie and the public did not spend a lot of time or money on the film.

So what? Can you say "Ishtar"?.

I haven't seen the movie, and do not consider myself to be one of the movie-going public, (I just kind of drifted away from the mainstream fare that is offered these days----just a matter of personal taste), so I don't know how valid my opinion will be here, but hey, this is the internet and validity doesn't seem to stop anybody else. The movie was a bomb for lots of reasons. By some accounts, it was too long, by others it was overreaching, too much epic scale and not enough substance of the characters. Mr. Stone has offered the proposition that the film was not well
received because of its allusions to Alexander's sexuality, and the fact that it reminds people of the war in Iraq.

Come on now.

Maybe if he had not worked so hard to insert the main characters sexuality into the film, it might not have been as overreaching as some say it is, and the epic qualities might have come through a bit better, (or not--maybe the movie just stunk).

But to compare Alexander to GW Bush? Really, is that a bit juvenile or is it just me? Alexander was a man who was able to see a grander scheme than most men, and able to seize on those circumstances that allowed him to exploit that scheme for his own vision. And comparing him to a clown like Bush? That is a reach.

I compare Oliver Stone to George W Bush.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.