T-M-I from T-I-M

US backed into a corner

It occurs to me that as we are getting deeper and deeper into the militaristic quicksand that is Iraq that the enemy that we are battling (which of course isn't Iraq) is sitting back and thinking that this all going according to plan.  As things get worse between Israel and Lebannon we are one of the few standing behind Israel.

It seems like the plan of the vague but adept enemy of ours is to let us spend enormous amounts of energy, money and lives in Iraq.  We almost can't turn back and with a relatively small opposing force, we seem to keep having to add more resources to get back to where we were a few months ago with much less.

In the meantime, our enemy's allies are free to engage in conflicts as they see fit and let them grow ever more perilously.  Regardless of who or how the Lebannon/Israel conflice started, it did.  And now we have a few choices:

1. Continue to address Iraq and lend a hand to Israel and weaken ourselves overall
2. Continue to address Iraq and back out of the Israel/Lebannon conflict and weaken ourselves politically in many ways
3. Back out of Iraq and weaken ourselves

It seems that now is the time, if ever, for supporters of the people we vaguely refer to as our enemies to hurt us most.  We are certainly acting as if we have virtually no choice in Iraq but to stay until hundreds of billions more are spent and we still don't have a clear ending.

A while back I posted on the comparison to Vietnam in that Iraq is a tiger and America is an elephant.  In order to succeed, the tiger must tirelessly attack the elephant or be impaled.  I stand by this comparison, but I guess I would change the tiger from Iraq to whatever our country has decided this vague but frightfully effective enemy is.

My bottom line.  I support our troops and respect those who are giving their lives, bodies, minds and souls over there.  I don't however, support our plan or whatever it's called these days.

I am fully present that we are in part fighting against an ideal that if it were prevalent here, some governmental leader would read this, find my address and dig a ditch for my body.  I guess I'm just hoping that at some point we realize that for every ditch we dig in vengeance, we better dig two, because we're next.

Nuclear help for India but not Pakistan?

I don't profess to have a deep knowledge in politics, but I was listening to an interview with Michael Hubris last night and he made an interesting point.  The US House of Rep's is debating a landmark nuclear deal for India.  In it we would share civilian nuclear technology with India.

We are not, however, considering the same deal with Pakistan (who has asked for it).  This, despite the fact that Pakistan has been an active partner in helping, in some cases, to fight al Qaeda.

India and Pakistan are in a dispute (have they ever NOT been in a dispute?).  So, why help India and NOT help Pakistan, who is helping us?  A little confusing.

Another very interesting thing Mr. Hubris shared related to the current administration.  He said that a number of the key personnel "earned their stripes" during the cold war era.  During that time, if the US was in a dispute it was with a country (Russia, North Korea, etc.).  The opposition had, what he called, a "return address".

al qaeda has no return address.  They are almost shadows (very violent ones, but shadows nonetheless.....).  Yet, we continue to approach the situation as if they are a country, like the cold war.

If nothing else, both of the points were worthy of contemplation and dialogue instead of accepted, valid assumptions.

Starbuck-ian discombobulation

Yesterday afternoon I was waiting in front of a Starbuck's in SF for a business meeting.  Said Starbuck's had brown paper up in the windows announcing it was closed for the time being.

I must admit that the looks on people's faces when they came up to the Starbuck's and discovered it was closed.  There were individuals, couples, families, friends of friends, etc. etc. who showed up and when they read the notice, literally looked lost.

It got me thinking, I wonder what would happen if, for one day, every Starbuck's in the world closed, unexpectedly.  What might things look like?

1. Millions of us would be noticeably less amped.  Starbuck's, I think, has become nicotine for the politically correct.  (Although I suppose some people suck back the grande/venti green and white between honks from their cancer sticks....)
2. Millions of us would have more cash in our pocket.  Even if we went to buy coffee elsewhere we might realize that there is no need for it to be so expensive.  It's like somehow this chain has figured out a way to make the airport restaurant pricing model work in the non-airport world. 
3. Cell phone bills would skyrocket.  Think of the number of people that would buzz through their minutes talking to people who are  few blocks away, on their way to meet them.  Once they touched base, of course, they would lament the closing and then spend 30 or 40 minutes trying to think of somewhere else to go.  Upon hanging up (when they finally are face to face) and meeting, they would walk down the street and call everyone they know to talk about it, of course as they are still walking side by side, both talking on cell phones now.
4. Productivity would skyrocket.  Instead of millions of us going to Starbuck's to "work" or "study" we would work or study. 
5. Streets would be packed with women looking to be looked at and men looking to look at women but neither would happen because we'd all be in such a haze that we would forget that we can notice each other outside of Starbuck's.

I'm sure the implications would be even more devastating, immediate and widespread.  But if it just so happens you are at or near Union and Laguna in SF, do yourself a favor and spend a few minutes watching how people react to Starbuck's closing. 

dorkbot rocks!

Last night I attended my first dorkbot-sf event.  dorkbot is an organization that seems to gather eclectic individuals (loosely associated in some way with technology, sometimes they are hardcore technology folks) that get together to talk about various issues from a variety of perspectives.

I first discovered the group (serendipitously) after listening to an NPR interview with some folks talking about "molecular gastronomy".  Basically, it's an approach to cooking that matches food based on their scientific molecular make-up, way cool.

Last night's presentation and discussion loosely focused on people doing strange things with electricity or technology.  The first presenter, for me, gives a great feel for what the group is about.  He had done research around people's behavior in cities around trash cans.  He tracked people's activities and habits and, of course, graphed them and tried to draw conclusions.

Fascinatingly, they also did an experiment where they left 30 or 40 post cards in very obviously places with stamps on them and notes to see what people would do.  They were looking into the inexplicable urge for us to get into slices of each other's lives (without the person knowing that we've done so).  He presented the results which included some people sending the postcards back with notes on them.

Also, he did an exercise with cell phones that included him putting up a # for us all to call in.  You could just feel the energy in the room shift.  And before it overtook us he pleaded with us to wait to call the # until he said so because he knew "that we all wanted to figure it out".  This was before ANY of us knew what we were doing or even trying to accomplish, but he knew us, because we probably would have done just that.

It was ironic that the event was at the Bar of Contemporary Art (BOCA) in SF.  Ironic because I think software engineers are VERY similar to artists, they have chosen a different palette.  Both groups are eclectic and, I think, way misunderstood.  Artists, however, often are arrogant when misunderstood.  Engineers are usually humble to the point of almost being scared.  (Interestingly, if you meet a very boastful and arrogant engineer, you can almost be guaranteed that they, at an absolute, minimum are not what they say they are and usually they are downright incompetent comparatively).

I look forward to checking out more events and would strongly encourage anyone (of any background) to check it out.  They may discuss technology but they welcome everyone, that's why they're so cool.  (google dorkbot and sign up for the mailing list)

Kazaa goes legit & becomes irrelevant

I read today that Kazaa has become a provider of legal music download service.  A rep of the music industry said:

"We have won another battle in an ongoing war," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI). "We move forward with a spring in our step."

Mr. Kennedy is myopic.  They are briskly marching towards a future of BILLIONS more spent on lawsuits against what I believe will be an increasingly difficult to find "enemy". 

To me, all legal file sharing is taping on steroids.  Growing up I had numerous friends tape music they had purchased (or gotten from someone else on tape) and give it to me for free (except the cost of the tape).  It was a GREAT way to introduce me to music that the record companies hadn't (successfully that is).

The volume of the ta-p3's if you will (mp3's that now are like tapes) shared now is indeed staggering.  I do it all the time. 

The thing is no matter how many kazaa's they stop, there's always someone else behind them.  And, in fact, they are usually slicker and faster.  I remember perusing various bittorrent sites once and I saw a message on a board of a particularly awesome one:  "Remember, rule number one about b-t is you NEVER TALK ABOUT b-t."

Artists have benefited TREMENDOUSLY from file sharing (small and big...although comparatively the smaller ones have benefited more in my mind).  Wireless carriers have generated TREMENDOUSLY from derivations of artist's work with ring tones.

Record companies, however, are getting slaughtered.  Primarily because they are getting exposed for what they really are.  Bags of money that stuff sometimes average music down our throats so obsessively that eventually we become lobotomized drones debating whether n-sync is better than the Backstreet Boys (I always ran with the BB crew by the way) while sticking it to artists who unless they go multi-platinum, multi-times, end up on some 10th rate reality show (which is saying something because any reality show, by definition is at least 3rd rate) when they aren't touring the county fair circuit alongside Eddie Money hoping that they will make a comeback.

Seriously, though, it's clear that the library of music is the thing that keeps these companies in business.  Which of course is a clear indication that they couldn't care less about the artist, PARTICULARLY after they aren't good any longer.  (In fact, it's great when they get to that point because they don't need to waste any more marketing money on them.)

I think as people learn that an internet is nothing more than a mechanism to connect computers, that file sharing will become way more prevalent and way more difficult to track and stop.  Companies like grouper, in its original form anyway, (which allow you to set up private networks to share files amongst friends) are ahead of their time.

When the greater public starts to realize this AND understand how to harness it, I bet HUGE communities of personal internets will start to crop up and utilize all of the commodity technology available to share files amongst each other privately, surfacing like those moles in the whack a mole game once in a while to bring new files into their community.

That's the point at which I believe the music industry will either undergo or be in the middle of a Darwinian shift.  It will shift to a model where companies teach artists how to build their brand and set it up such that they all collectively benefit from it (IODA is sort of like that right now).  And, while that's happening, some bobble headed leader of a long since useless industry organization will be having some type of celebration to announce the 100th lawsuit won against file sharing on some cruise ship with a bunch of coked-up music industry knuckleheads in front of a sign saying:  "Mission Accomplished".

As for Kazaa, they played their part.  They were handed the baton from Napster (remember them...ever use them?).  The baton that when taken ensures that about 3 weeks from now, more people will think it refers to the Shaquille O'Neal movie (Kazaam) instead of a file sharing service.

Charles Barkley for governor

I read today that Charles Barkley is seriously considering running for governor of the state of Alabama in 2010.  Mr. Barkley was an NBA uber-star for many years.  When he played, he was comparatively short for his position but was a ferocious competitor who was extraordinarily talented.

That's not what qualifies him to be a governor (at least not completey, it certainly helps).

One of the interesting things that qualifies him to be a politician is that he's loaded.  I mean REALLY loaded.  However, unlike every other politician (yes, EVERY other one it seems) he isn't interested in doing this to add to his fortune.  It may even take some money away from his fortune but he's got so much that it wouldn't really impact his financial well-being. 

He's also qualified to be a politician because he's...well...a loud-mouth.  I don't mean that judgementally.  He just speaks out alot and loudly.  However, unlike every other politician (yes, EVERY other one it seems) he doesn't much care what I or anyone else thinks about what he says, he just calls it as he sees it. 

In the article, he's quoted as saying:

"There are too many black kids and their parents who do not value a good education," he said. "There are places where a black kid who is a good student and tries to speak correctly, you hear stuff like, 'He's trying to be white.' Well, I say, if that's true, we need more kids trying to be white."

That is classic Charles Barkley telling it like it is.  And I am supportive of that.

He doesn't have the legal or political background so many of the "great" politicians have.  That's fine by me, let's face it, it's those "great" politicians that have me living in a racist society at war with another country for oil, talking about banning gay marriage on a national level (even though it had NO chance of surviving), banning gay marriage on a state level among many other things.

It's many of those politicians who are likely freaking out right now.  Mr. Barkley will figure out REALLY quickly how simple politics could be, how dirty it is and who is to blame.  And you can take this to the bank, he'll tell us about it.  So, pay close attention, because there will be a point when politicians will realize he's really going to do it.

And, if it's politically "correct" they'll back him.  All they'll have to do is find one of the many fake faces they have in their briefcases filled with money from people like Jack Abramoff.

The only thing that I'm bummed about with regards to Charles Barkley running for governor is that he's doing it in Alabama instead of California. 

In fact, if by some freak of nature Charles Barkley ever reads this, I would even be willing to help you in Alabama even though I live in California.

SF Public Library online ROCKS!!!

I think one of the most underutilized resources that our government offers are public libraries.  Granted, I only discovered their power because the library is right across the street from where I live. 

However, in the past few months I have started to discover how the website can make life awesome.  For example, I often go to metacritic to get ideas on movies that I would like to see.

They have a great resource where they show, by year, the critics top 10 list.  In addition, towards the bottom, there is a super visual that directs me to find the movies I'd like to watch.

It was there that I found The Squid and The Whale and Maria Full of Grace which were both TERRIFIC movies.  So, I go to this site and toggle to the public library's site, request it to be delivered to my local branch and within a week or so, it's there.

And it costs nothing!

I've gotten dozens of the books I've read over the past few months there as well.  Yes, amazon makes it really easy to deal with.  And, if i do that, I get to keep the book forever.  (or maybe until I get so sick of it taking up room that I put it out on the curb....)

There are a few books that are so meaningful to me that I reference them later, which I would ultimately buy.  Of course if I need it for something specific, I could always go online and have it in days.  In the words of Stuart Scott (who I'm sure ripped it off from someone else) and many characters on Arrested Development....BOO-YAH!!!

Movie Review: Bottle Rocket (was I asleep in 1996??)

Last week I watched Bottle Rocket for the first time.  The movie is about a group of friends, family and acquaintances who go on a few adventures of petty crime, executed incompetently.  The movie is nothing short of hilarious.  I put it up with Caddyshack, Animal House, Young Frankenstein and the like in terms of its humor.

It features a number of the Wilson crew (guys who were in Wedding Crashers, Meet the Parents, etc.) and was written by Owen Wilson.  The first few thoughts that came to my mind:

• Seriously, was I sleeping in 1996?  How could I possibly have missed it? 
• Owen Wilson is a magnificent writer.  I see that he has an upcoming project to be released that he's working on with Harold Ramis.  Mr. Ramis wrote or co-wrote such gems as Stripes, Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day and others.
• James Caan plays a great bit part where he brings a bit of Sonny to life here and there.
• While the style of comedy in this film is similar to Wedding Crashers, it still works.

It's a zippy movie that never really lags.  Two home run humor parts: 

1. Anthony (who recently was released from a mental hospital) visits his younger sister Grace (maybe 13 years old) at her school and she worries about what's going to happen to him.  When Anthony tells Digman (Owen Wilson) about it, Digman wonders aloud "What has she ever accomplished in her life?" 
2. The scene when Anthony and Digman rob a bookstore.  It is side splitting humor.

If you were like me and you snoozed through '96, do yourself a favor and check this movie out.

10 Questions: The "R" Word

I felt the urge this morning to go with the 10 question format looking into one of the most confusingly venomous affinity groups in the world, religion.  I presume that most religions are based on love (in the members frame of reference) not hate (directed at non-members and their heathen frames of reference).  I also presume that most religions have some level of service to fellow human beings as part of the gig.

Well, I just don't quit get how religions make sense.  As such, I have 10 questions I would like to submit (any and all reps of any types of groups may respond):

1. What difference is at the core of the Middle East conflict?
2. What difference is at the core of the conflict in Northern Ireland?
3. What difference is at the core of our war with Iraq?  (Ok except for the oil reserves)
4. What difference was at the core of the India-Pakistan Kashmir conflict?
5. Other than politics, what is the other topic that people recommend you don't speak about in social groups?
6. What one thing do you know about Scientology?  (perhaps a certain star actor???)
7. Does love include fear?
8. Does love include guilt?
9. Does love include shame?
10. If religion = fear, guilt and shame (not to mention a couple dozen wars...but hey, who's counting?), then how can religion = love?

I wonder how things would look if religion disappeared.  I think it would look like....heaven.

Sin's always in the past right?

I was wondering this morning about sin, not because I had committed one (although I'm sure I had in some way, shape or form) more because I've been thinking about the past.  What is the past?

• Something I can't do anything about
• Something I can never entirely accurately explain
• Something I can never re-create
• Something I can never re-live

I looked up the origin of the word sin.  There's not a universally agreed upon origin.  It appears that it relates to "being" or "it is true", eventually "the charge has been proven".

What can I really say is true?  No matter how much I try I can't get the entire truth about thoughts, words or actions in the past, because that's where it exists.  But sin, by definition is in the past.  You can't sin if you haven't thought, spoken or done it yet. 

(Although, I guess in some way original sin does fit that mold, which is absurd.  First of all, consider the fact that this comes from a DUDE making a mistake (thank you Adam).  Secondly, consider that a brand new born infant, who literally emits pure love, is in ANY WAY sinful.)

Now, my choice used to be, pennance and get forgiveness here.  Or die and deal with purgatory and/or hell.  I suppose that's a great motivator to get my butt in church....and, of course, give up some of the "In God We Trust" greenbacks to help out.

If I do pennance, it's all good in God's eyes.  Of course I never actually spoke to God, just to some dude (yes, I was catholic) behind a screen like some type of deepthroat.

This is all that I'm suggesting, sin, fundamentally only exists in the past.  I can never really describe what it was because its in the past.

If that's so, how can sin exist?