Am I the only one that is bothered by what the Congress is doing lately? Specifically with Terri Schiavo (but that’s just one symptom among many).

Terri Shiavo is the Woman in Florida who has been in a vegitative state due to a massive stroke for 15 years. The Florida courts ruled that the Husband knows her better than her family, and the law sides with spouses, so he fought for her right to die (take her off life support).

In response; Congress has stuck their nose where it doesn’t belong and is trying to make laws to block what Florida state says is OK. The Congress really shouldn’t be making last minute laws to override state laws or state rulings; quite the opposite. We the people (and the states) have rights that the Congress shouldn’t just sign away.

Anyone remember the 10th amendment? It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If there was some reason this was federal, then the Supreme court might have legitimate reason to get involved; as this could be seen as a national human rights issue. (Does the rights of the Daughter-Wife/Husband override the rights of the Parents/Siblings). Or fundamentally, is a verbal contract good enough for living wills? These are fundamental issues of law that the Supremes have some jurisdiction over.

But Congress making a law to fix every state debate is just wrong. It is a complete violation of the spirit of the constitution. Whether you agree with this case or not, you should be against even more federalization of power, and a bunch of washington Bureaucrats ripping rights and sovereignty away from states and local communities, because they have visions of micromanaging the nation into utopia.

Terry Schiavo is a horribly complex case. Personally, I think spouses are closer to each other than their families are. (Depending). My wife and I have talked about living wills dozens of times; and while we haven’t gotten them drawn up, we know where each other stands far better than our parents do. So I personally, tend not to think Florida is wrong to side with the Husband. (He can be a self-serving dirt-bag, and be right). What it boils down to is free will. Do we have the rights to control our own destinies, or should that be given to the state (or Fed, in this case). What matters more, individual freedom, or societies powers to cram the group-morality down everyone else’s throats? I tend to be more an individualist, so whether I personally agree in right to die is irrelevant. (Though I do). What matters to me more is that I think each person should be free to decide that for them-self.

If you disagree with Congress ripping away state and individual rights, here’s a head-start in contacting your senator and congressmen.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

The Terri Shiavo story has been completely overplayed, and if you’re like me, you’re probably more than a little tired of it. The good news, if you can call it that, is that she died, and other than the autopsy and some post death politically jockeying the story has nearly run it’s course as well. But before the story dies completely, I want to discuss a few last things. No, not the politics, or the cliche overdone stuff, but the more personal side of the story, and some aspects that have all but been ignored.

Do you know why Terri went into a coma in the first place? It was because she had an eating disorder that dropped her potassium levels to dangerous levels, dangerous enough that her heart stopped, and that lack of blood to her brain killed major parts of it; like consciousness. The media had an excellent opportunity to discuss and educate the public on bulimia and anorexia; the root cause of this whole problem. But other than casual mention, they focused on the politics of the case, instead of what caused the whole case in the first place. Think about that. A major good that could have been done was to actually discuss how common eating disorders have become, and what their fight is really about. But instead they took the easy and sensational path, played politics and pitting those that wanted to keep Terri’s body alive against those that wanted to let her body go. They made the story about that contention, instead of what the case was really about; Terri, and her lost battle for herself.

Anorectics and Bulimics aren’t separate disorders; it is more a continuum; with many people starving themselves over issues about controlling their weight, and many others being willing to eat, but not keep the food down for fear of the calories. They are sort of food phobias. Remember, for most people a phobia is not a fear of the object of the phobia, it is often the secondary fear of the anxiety/panic attacks you get when you’re around that object. So agoraphobics aren’t afraid of heights or falling, they’re afraid of the real pain of an anxiety attack that they will have if they look down from a high place. Anorexics and bulimics are afraid of the anxiety that comes with either ingesting calories, or hanging on to them (not purging). They also get peace out of the behaviors; exercising, filling themselves with calorie-less foods (celery, diet soda, etc.), controlling their weight, or the pattern of bingeing and purging.

There are many things that contribute to these disorders. Some you expect; unhealthy obsession with food or body image. Often slightly overweight girls (or boys), are tired of being picked on or made fun of, and need to control their body to become something better than they think are; more attractive, more desired, or less different. Being told, “You’re fat”, or “You look good” only when they lose some weight, sticks in their mind; and their little voice breaks, or their little mental voice keeps replaying the same bad recording. Even when they’re underweight, they hear and see themselves as “too fat”, or believe they’ll look better if they just lose a little more weight. It makes no sense, and makes perfect sense; the 10,000 attacks they’ve heard their whole life, is now the weapon they use to bludgeon themselves with, and they don’t know how to stop.

The interesting thing is that there are many contributing factors that you might not expect. Most Anorexics and Bulimics had a controlling parent or two, and were people pleasers that don’t do well with conflict. They are so busy trying to make other people happy, that they lose themselves. The one thing left in their life that they have complete control of, is their food intake and/or output. They fixate on that, usually in negative ways. But their behaviors are peaceful to them; they’re control in an world that lacks control. They need that outlet or control so much, that they will often kill themselves, or put themselves in comas, or take other risks, all seeking peace in negative ways. Not much different than other compulsions like drinking, drugs, gambling, sex, exercise, computer games or anything that can make us focus on one thing deep enough that we forget about everything else, including the cold realities of life.

Now look at the case as Terri would. Can you see the bitter irony of it all?

Imagine you are Terri and you’ve had a battle with your weight and an eating disorder your entire life; trying to control the maelstrom that is life. The one thing in life that truly gave you peace from others trying to control you, was your pattern of purging (or not eating). Your worst fear was not being able to make others happy all the time, or disappointing them, or not living up to their expectations, or having to deal with their conflict. Your biggest torture would be others forcing you to eat. And in the end, she had to sit through a battle where her controlling Husband and controlling(?) Mother/Father went to war over force-feeding her to keep her alive. Ripping the control over her food and very life away from her, and sustaining her against her will. Putting her in the center of constant conflict, which she never had the tools to cope with in the first place. In all honesty, death was probably a peace she would have welcomed, if the real Terri was still alive enough to remember who and what she was.

Some people think Michael Shiavo had her killed because he’d moved on with his life. He had a malpractice reward that he could keep the remainder of, if Terri just died. Michael was living with someone else, had kids by her, and a new family, and so he was taking the easy path of starving Terri for convenience and greed. He could have let the family keep her going, but he didn’t because of the inconvenience of knowing that she was still alive, or the threat against the monetary reward he had. If that is true, then he was definitely a self-centered control-freak, and an asshole.

But what if he wasn’t? What if the reason he wouldn’t let the family keep his wife alive against her wished was because he truly understood her? What if he realized that she didn’t want to be kept alive as a vegetable. That to a person who has tried their whole life to be a people pleaser, one of the worst things you could do is make them a burden and source of conflict to everyone else. People with eating disorders live parts of their lives in secret behaviors, and dragging that into the light, and forcing them into facing their own shame; and being publicly known that they put themselves into a vegetative state because they didn’t think they could measure up to others, would be a horrible cross to bear. Compound that with their worst nightmare of force feeding them, and making them gain weight. Maybe Michael really knew Terri’s heart, and really did fight for her, because she would not want to live like that.

I don’t know which Michael was the real Michael. He could be the asshole or the saint — probably somewhere in between. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I only know what I would do; that if my wife told me that she would not want to live like that, then I would have a cause much bigger than my own desires or needs. I wouldn’t let her family bully me into keep her alive against her wishes; I would have to do everything in my power to make sure her wishes were met. Not because I’d want to lose my wife, or the convenience of closure (though there would be a peace in that). But I would fight because that’s the last homage I could do for her; trying to advocate for her what she would advocate for herself.

But the media didn’t go into any of that. It is easier to make Michael the villain. To pit one segment of society against the other, and play politics; without educating either. To avoid the complexities that are this case, and simplify it into polar extremes — instead of the grays and conflicts that led to this case in the first place. Terri was taken off the feeding tube on my Wife’s birthday (March 18th), and she died on my birthday (March 31st). Maybe that’s what made this case personal to me. Or maybe it just the empathy I have for Terri’s plight, or what I imagine Michael’s is; rather than the politics. Maybe it is the fear of this happening to me, or my wife. But either way, I feel like a huge opportunity for people to grow, discuss, think and learn, has been lost. People saw the superficial, and missed the important depths. I only hope that this one little article can spark something deeper than what the media has subjected us to these last few week. That we can think about the people involved as individuals, and not as political positions. That we can remember what they were going through and what their wishes were, instead of our own desires to cram our views and politics down other people’s throats, in a desperate attempt to gain control of something we can never have true control of; other people, life, and death.

Jane Fonda is once again on the media stump, promoting her own agenda, and her own book. In one way, you’d think she learned something. The Press reports that she’d apologized for Vietnam. However, if you listen, she apologizes very specifically for getting in the enemies anti-aircraft gun, and getting used by them in a media campaign, and that it offended some Americans. On a few different talk shows/interviews, she defends everything else she did, and says the U.S. government lied about what was going on, and the same old misinformed (exaggerated) rhetoric. She even said getting in the anti-aircraft gun (thus supporting the enemy) wasn’t wrong, just allowing the negative PR it lead to was what was bad. This to me means that she didn’t really learn or grow, like I’d originally hoped/thought, and is the same stupid, deluded and immature person she was 30 years ago.

In case anyone forgets. Jane Fonda went to North Vietnamese camps for American prisoners, and they trotted out the best cared for ones. Jane used them as an example as how humane the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) was, and as proof that there was no abuse going on. Only the U.S. lies in her deluded world views, not the enemies of America/Freedom. The problem was that she only saw the ones who’d signed confessions and were beaten into submission; after that, they’d been treated better. Still, the POW’s slipped her notes saying, “we’re being Tortured, please tell the world”; and she turned those notes over to the North Vietnamese, which lead to more torture/beatings. She supported a lie to the world in the name of her agenda and to help the enemies of freedom, while hypocritically accusing the U.S. of doing the same. You are left with a choice; believe Jane Fonda’s view of the way prisoners were treated, or the John McCain’s and all the others who told of horrible tortures under the North Vietnamese. Jane never apologized for any of that.

On the same trip, Jane Fonda sang war songs with the enemies, and broadcast appeals on the radio to the American Soldiers to desert their posts and their duty (commit crimes against the United States). She supported the communist position in the world (for multiple years), saying how good they were, and how evil and wrong we were. By definition she “gave aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war”, which according to our Constitution is the definition of treason. She told our people they were wrong and demotivated them by telling them they were losing, and bolstered the enemies by telling them they were right and winning. Of course she never apologized for high crimes against our nation, in fact, she defended it, and said she was not wrong for her trip, or what she said on Radio Hanoi (or after).

Jane and friends were saying how the poor communists were just trying to help the people, and there would be no mass murder or war when we pulled out; that was all an evil lie propagated by the evil CIA. We were in the wrong for trying to stop the communists from enslaving the whole region. When we pulled out, over 4 million people were slaughtered by the side she supported, millions more were made refugees and driven from their homes. She blames that on the U.S. for provoking the conflict; ignoring that it was her friends that were doing the slaughter, and there was absolutely no reason for the purges and wars.

That issue frustrates me the most. Some well meaning by myopic people claim there is no bias in the media or in Hollywood. Well we’ve seen dozens of movies promoting the liberal anti-war view. How the Americans cut off ears, or went mad over there, and so on. The most extreme examples turned into the norm, ignoring what the war was really like to most that were there. Just to name a few: Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July, A Bright Shining Lie, The Deer Hunter, Good Morning, Vietnam, Heaven and Earth, Some Kind of Hero. All of them choose to tell the same side of the story. Name one, just one, that showed how the well meaning peace-movement in the U.S. were sponsored by the Chinese/Russian communists, and how their actions undermined the moral and objectives in the U.S., and lead directly to the killing fields. Or how about one that shows the view of how deluded teenagers (of many ages), fought against the U.S. interests, and built this whole myth of the crazed and evil american soldier, and how that lead to returning soldiers being spit on or called baby-killer. Did Jane and clan apologize for any of their action in supporting that?

Look, I’m not arguing that the war wasn’t mismanaged. (Thanks to a couple Democratic Presidents and Democratically controlled Congress who micromanaged the war for at least some of that). For what it is worth, I completely respect what Muhammad Ali did. He stood up to the government, and owned up to the consequences. I don’t disagree with conscientious objectors, or people that protested but didn’t cross the lines into crimes. However, those that let themselves be blinded by their own one-sided delusions deserve to be held responsible for their actions as well.

The bigger point is that we got mired in a lose-lose situation. We had a choice; to try to save millions of people from totalitarians brutes, but we had to support corrupt brutes that were nearly as bad. Or to ignore the genocidal purges we knew were coming, like the Red purges in China under Mao and Russia under Lenin and Stalin. And indeed did come. I would never argue that the regimes in the South were great. But you’ve have to be completely biased and/or clueless to think the North was better. Jane did. Many claimed peace was better than war. War cost roughly 60,000 Americans over decades and a million Vietnamese that would have never been lost if the Chinese and North Vietnamese were willing to tolerate a corrupt democracy that they could have replaced without revolution and war, but chose not to. (Some responsibility of course would belong to Fonda’s allies, but not one in the media ever adds 1+1 in that case — they blame the U.S. for those deaths). Peace on the other hand cost another 4-5 million deaths over the next decade in the region. Was that really better? The clueless still don’t connect the dots, and get that the North Vietnamese and Communists that they’d supported were brutal, and far worse than the South. They blame us for our allies, while ignoring the actions of their own. What is the definition of hypocrisy again?

So finally, 30 some years later, Jane Fonda (the poster child of the peace movement) has apologized for letting the enemy take pictures of her manning the anti-aircraft battery, and makes excuses for everything else she did, or the consequences of the friends she chose, and the costs to America and our troops? In balance, that doesn’t seem like much of an apology or that she even begins to get the consequences of what she did. She said, “that two-minute lapse of sanity will haunt me for the rest of my life”. No Jane, that 30 year lapse in sanity is what should haunt you, not just for the rest of your life but be an asterisk next to your name for all future generations as well, just like Henry Ford and Charles Linberg deserve to carry their support of the National Socialists and anti-semitism next to theirs, just like Helen Keller should carry her fanatical support of socialism, and other people’s mistakes should stain them as much as their successes. We are the sum of our actions. If we learn from our mistakes and ask for forgiveness, we should be forgiven. If we refuse to, or make half-hearted excuses to dodge blame then we should be used as examples of the blind ignorance and hubris that represents. I have some hope for Jane, but then she opens her mouth and reminds us that some old dogs refuse to learn new tricks.

I despise hypocrisy and double-standards. The nature of Americans is to seek fairness and justice. Many other cultures are far more tolerant of injustice, and accept different classes/castes of people like royalty and commoners, so they don’t understand our pre-occupation with trying to change the nature of our world. That comes from a moral flaw to Americans, to accept that injustice is the norm. Americans are less realistic; justice and fairness is an ideal to strive for — in our own hypocritical ways. We are the dissatisfied people that came here from other places to make things better, not just to make excuses for the status quo or about how “that’s just the way things are”. So we will fight for justice, fairness, abstract concepts like freedom, in order to make the world a better place — and many “old world” cultures will see as immature, and somewhat fanatical.

We realize that you can’t have perfect justice or fairness; and that all Justice is subjective. Is it fair that kids don’t have the same freedom as their parents? Not to the kids it isn’t. Is it fair that Women can’t build muscle as quickly as men, or that Men can’t have babies? Not to mention all the birth defects, disease, physical limitations, and so on, that we are born with? Some are born rich, others are born with abusive parents, not-so-great looks, or in nasty parts of the world/nation. Life isn’t fair. That being said, most Americans still want more fairness out of our government and legal system. We may not be able to control nature, but we can at least control our laws, our legislature and the way we interact with the world.

Now both sides tend to see the injustice, hypocrisy or flaws of “the other side” and ignore it in their allies or those that think like them. But I can’t stand excuses, and nothing tees me off like group-thinking herd mentality or political correctness (and partisanism) on either side. I don’t care if it is popular; either right or left leaning, I care if it is common sense or fair. No excuses for why inequity is more fair than equity; the ends doesn’t justify the means. Which finally brings me to my point. Let’s look at the United Nations and American Business.

If there was a CEO in the nation (in a publicly traded company) where his son worked at the company, and the Son got rich siphoning off shareholder money, and many of the other top executives were caught in all sorts of scandals, what do you think would happen? The Democrats and left, would be calling for the CEO’s head on a platter, and using it as an excuse to malign the evils of corporate America and the rich, and so on. However, the Republicans and right would not defend the CEO, they would correctly be calling for the head as well. Both sides agree that you should not have corrupt businessmen running companies. Once exposed, we nail their heads to the wall, so corruption tends not to be around for long. That’s the biggest lesson of Enron, WorldCom, and FineLiving or Martha Stewart Inc., these problems were found relatively quickly and fixed with Donald Trump’s hyper-efficient magic words, “you’re fired!” And later with the Justice Systems equivelent, “You’re Guilty!” I can guarantee you that the CEO, the Son, and many executives would be replaced, in a heartbeat, and there would be few defending those actions.

Now let’s look at the U.N. and Kofi Annan and his son (Kojo), and his executives, where the exact same thing happened, only worse. Too many are making excuses for why the U.N. is a good place, why the evil right shouldn’t pick on poor Kofi and Kojo. Kofi Annan didn’t know what his son was doing. I heard things like, “A top U.N. executive can’t know what all the people beneath him are doing”. Selective compassion that you sure did hear for poor Kenneth Lay or Bernard Ebbers; when in truth both of them probably run larger organizations (with far more complex accounting rules).

I hear many saying “we shouldn’t eliminate such a useless, er, useful organization as the U.N. just because of one mistake”. I have a few responses to that:

1) They ignore this is not one mistake; this is 60 years of not living up to their charter (name a single war the U.N. ever stopped), this is dozens of mistakes lately, this is oil-for-food which put 21+ Billion dollars into Saddam’s pocket (with the help of Jack Chirac’s friends), this is sex-scandals where in African you could only get U.N. food/aid if you’d have sex with U.N. aid workers, this is putting Khadaffi and Castro on the committee for human rights, and so on, and so forth.

2) Those same people (usually left wing extremists) are saying the exact opposite about any American businesses for far less. What is the definition of hypocrisy?

3) Most are not calling for the elimination of the U.N., so that is a strawman attack, they are calling for the CEO of the U.N.’s head, and complete reform of the organization — like they would any American Business caught in this many scandals.

If you’re in American business and you break the law or even the ethos/rules of the company (which are usually far more stringent than the law), then the company will come in, turn off your computer, escort you out of the company (the same day), help the government make a case against you (if you broke the law), they will take away your pension, and suit you for damages to the company (and it’s shareholders) and it’s reputation. If you’re in the U.N. and you break the law or ehtos/rules of the company, they’ll treat you like the catholic church treats sex-offending Preists. They’ll cover it up, obfuscate, make excuses, move you to another parish (division), and after 3 hail Mary’s, you’ve got absolution and are free to conduct your same old business like nothing happened.

So I don’t want to eliminate the U.N. over this. The U.N. does some good; they fed 25 million people, and they got involved in 16 conflicts last year. But Companies with corrupt leaders employ thousands of people and often do good as well. Heck, John Gotti and Al Capone gave freely to charity, but that doesn’t change that we took them out. So we need to force the U.N. behave by some standards, or stop paying 25% of their entire budget (not counting all the off balance sheet items we do, like sending our troops or using our equipment to fund their wars, our private organizations that do their jobs for them, and so on). So while I don’t want to eliminate the U.N., I would advocate that if they can’t reform themselves and won’t play by the same rules as American Business.

No more double standards; the U.N. either cleans up its act, or we seriously should look at eliminating it like we did the League of Nations, and hope that what replaces it is more effective. And we need to stop making excuses for the U.N. and call out the double-talking, double-standard spewing hypocrites for what they are. If you bash corruption in American business, you should be just as enthusiastic about far more rampant corruption and greed going on in the U.N. (Not making excuses because they mean well). I realize the rest of the world will see that as mean, trying to make people conform to standards and ethics. Or that we’re trying to impose our views on them, again. Or those silly Americans, trying to make the world “fair”. Tough. You want our money, then you deal with the terms that come with it. Justice is supposed to be blind; not stupid.

I just got back from a small European trip, and decided to pen a sort of diary of observations. A blathering, off topic, series of observations that a few may enjoy.

My wife (Melissa) and I did London and Paris, and my wife decided to bring a friend. Her friend (Jen) was on a tighter budget than us, so by room sharing it made the trip more affordable for her (we’d saved, so it was no hardship on us). I didn’t think a tag-along friend would effect much; in psychological terms this is known as denial.

I also forgot to factor in that to many people (women included), status is important — and that their men should not publicly be slovenly, farting, grotesque wisecracking brutes that we are, which somehow raises our property value, thus the status for our trainers. So instead of being on my normal “at home” behavior, I was expected to raise levels to “in public” mode. The under the breath little warnings, and occasional looks were the give away. So much for guy reasoning that a tag-along would adapt to my level of civility, instead of the other way around.

They say men speak an average of 12,000 words per day, while women speak an average of 25,000 (at twice the rate of men), so I had figured that the estrogen crowd could entertain each other after I’d used all my words or listening prowess up, and that they could entertain each other shopping, frolicking and doing what women do. I’m not completely sure it worked out that elegantly. It felt more like I had 50,000 words per day against my 12,000, at four times the rate, and I did more shopping for things that had little interest to me, as they were having more fun doing it. I need a vacation to recover from my vacation.

England

We got to London, and had to figure out the tubes (subway), which was not very hard, despite the difficulties of a sort of “in-common” language. I was amused that toilet is more descriptive than bathroom, lift and elevator were synonymous enough, “way out” for exit seems very 70’s — but I’m not “taking the piss” out of anyone, even with a Foley Catheter. And someone needs to explain that “to let” signs may mean “to rent”, but it looks like an “i” fell off the “toilet” sign. Still we managed to translate without a dictionary and too many misunderstandings.

The good news is we arrived to our destination almost directly. The bad news is that we ended their a little lighter; to the tune of one digital camera that we’d bought for the trip. It seems that pilfering (pickpockets) are rampant in London, and the backpack my wife carries around instead of a purse was a ripe target; we were just lucky they didn’t get more. The OK news is that we’d bought the camera on a Platinum card which carried a bit of insurance, so may eventually get the camera replaced; after a few bureaucratic gymnastics. We use Jen’s camera a lot, so the trip wasn’t devoid of photographic memories.

Crime it seems is rampant in the UK. We were later cased by a few guys that were just too suspicious looking at a bus-stop. Maybe it was just paranoia, but there were three of them, and I wouldn’t let any of them get behind me, despite their casual banter, and they decided to go somewhere else. After talking to my UK relatives, they explained that they felt much safer walking the streets of NYC than the streets of London. Home invasion robberies, rapes, assaults, and other types of violent crimes are often far higher than in American cities. Sad commentary as it is, it seems an armed society is a polite society.

The exchange rate stank for us; roughly $2 for each £1, and most of the prices ran the same. A McDonnalds hamburger (one of our metrics for universal costs) would run about £5.49, which would translate to be about $11.00 in U.S., or in other words, many things cost about half as much for us, twice as much for them. We tried that on many things, and it often worked out the same. Then throw on 17% vat tax, or factor in that their salaries are lower and taxes much higher, and it would be tough to be a Brit. Their cars were tiny and their gas was exhorbinant (£.90/litre or about $6.80/gallon). The price of the cars themselves weren’t too much worse on the low end, there were glaring exceptions — like a new Mustang GT which costs about $25,000 in the U.S. was about $75,000 over there; as if any of them could afford 15 mpg and $500/month in gas alone. The news talked that over 25% of the average persons wages went into maintaining/operating their cars and had surpassed food prices.

We toured London proper, did the touristy stuff; we love the bus tours where you can get off and see the sites. We’ve done those in many U.S. cities, as well as abroad, and they’re a lot of fun. Then we went and stayed with relatives in the country. The rooms are small, both in Hotels and in their houses. It is amazing how they have a ton of farm land, but cram everyone into these small little villages, with small little houses. If their houses have a stand up shower, you need to learn to bend at the knee’s to pickup things you dropped, or your bum will hit the back wall, while your head raps the glass. It felt more like a vertical glass coffin with water.

We came during their elections, so it was a lot of fun to a political watcher. My Aunt and Uncle-in-law are both involved in local politics, so it was fun to hear about how they view things different. Their system isn’t all that different than ours. They have more parties, but mostly, it is just our parties factions broken apart; I recognized most of the same groups under different names. They’ve been controlled by the Liberals/Labour for a decade, but the Conservatives/Torries won a lot of ground back and halved the lead. They had England being split about 50/50, but Wales, Ireland and Scotland being the equivalent of our Red-States and skewing things way left. But we had many a good conversations about similarities and differences; as bad as our system sometimes is, I far prefer it to what I understand their system is like.

Paris

We took a quick flight over to Paris, and got to see another city. Paris’s subway was as much a step above London’s, as London’s is above New York’s; at least in number of stations, places you can go, how often the trains run, and so on. In smells, it is a step down by an equal amount. My wife is a hyper smeller, and she looked a few times like a fish on land, gasping for oxygen. Me, I just become a mouth breather, and ignore the melange of sewage vents, B.O. and the occasional smell of improvised urinal.

Many people say the Parisians are rude, or not to judge France by Paris, and so on. Well, I heard the same about New Yorkers and the U.S. The truth is people in big cities are often in big hurries, and deal with crowds so often, that they sort of push, shove, and don’t have much time to slow down and enjoy life or chit-chat with annoying foreigners — they’re rats in their race, and if you stay out of their way, or can merge with the flow, things will be fine. It isn’t rude per say, but you just have to speed up and adapt. It wasn’t like the people in London or New York are any more or less friendly either; you just pick who you ask questions of, you don’t stand in high traffic areas, and you adapt to where you are. I do that well, my wife less well. She dislikes all those cities; she gets all agog with the flow of humanity and looking around, or gets “polite” and lets people go before her on the train, then has the doors close on her, because she was too slow, and so on. I keep trying to keep her from becoming grist for the mill.

We weren’t the ugly Americans that expected the French to adapt to us; we were in their country and tried to adapt to them. If you try to speak French or pantomime things, most of the Parisians I ran into quickly talked to me in English so I’d stop butchering their language. I was making an effort, and not expecting them to adapt to me — and that mattered a lot. However, if the first thing you say is “Polly-voo Anglee”, some people will mess with you in ways that only urban sadists can appreciate.

Paris was probably more expensive than England, even with the better exchange rate. My relatives had warned me “dirty town”, but I didn’t think it was much worse. At least in Paris they had trash-bins available on corners, not that they used them, but in the London, you couldn’t find one to save your life, yet they managed to keep the streets cleaner (go figure). Graffiti was rampant in both cities, and all over Europe (I understand). My wife thinks it is “nasty”. Americans paint over it and try to clean it up, fighting a losing battle but trying, while Europeans just tolerate it. There’s also some difference in what is tagged. Mainly, I think it is just about density of people, and as it increases, you must learn to tolerate the byproducts.

Paris is the land of good food and lousy service. Europe in general doesn’t believe in tips for food service (it is factored in), so you shouldn’t be an ignorant American and throw the tips around — it isn’t like they are in any hurry anyways. We couldn’t get out of a restaurant in an hour if we tried; so you just need to slow down, and expect that they’ll get to you when they feel like it. Fighting it, just annoys them. But I loved having little shops where you could go by and grab pre-made sandwiches or hot-dogs that were on great bread, made with good cheese or other products and tasted great. We did eat in Planet Hollywood because Jen had a hankering for a Burger — $60+ for 3 burgers and fries was a little steep, but I guess Jen felt like someone on Survivor.

Traffic was bad in London; it reminded us why we moved out of Southern California. I’ve driven in the UK before, and other than taking an occasional left turn too wide, I adapt pretty quickly. Roundabouts don’t bug me, but the multi-lane ones can throw me a little; making a left across 3 or 4 lanes of traffic seems somehow wrong to me — but whatever. I learned to drive in downtown L.A., so I understand a little cursing, swerving/jockeying, and communications through use of the horn — though not my normal pattern any more. London wasn’t all that different. Paris on the other hand, freaked my wife out completely. We didn’t drive there, but we watched it from the relative safety of a double decker bus, with my wife saying, “Oh my God, what are they doing” quite often. She’s never dealt with places where people would enter an intersection on a red-light, or where busses cut off 4 lanes of traffic because they can. I tried to explain to her that the Parisians were like subdued octogenarian retirees compared to the Italians, and that to them lane-lines, red-lights and sidewalks are just suggestions — but she doesn’t believe anywhere could be worse than Paris driving. Heck, I’ve driven in Boston, I know better.

One observation I noted was that I’ve been to three of the five cities vying for the 2012 Olympics recently; Paris, London, New York. New York has a better exchange rate and is the cheapest (whether that holds in 6 years is open for debate), Paris probably has the most facilities, and London seems to have little to offer other than being somewhere where it hasn’t been held the longest. I don’t know enough about Moscow or Madrid to comment. I just kept contrasting the cities while there.

Conclusion

In the end, I had a little personality conflict with our tag-along traveler. I think after 10 days, she was pushing buttons and playing drama-queen just to see what would happen. In the end, there was a minor argument, blown out of proportion, that resulted in returning a day earlier than intended. But we were tired, and it was time to come home anyways. So, we saw a lot, had a lot of fun, and came back more tired than when we left, and now we have a much deeper appreciations for what we have in America, as well as just being home. We enjoyed seeing sights, and seeing more what it would be like to live abroad, and talking to the people, and so on. But while I could adapt to their lifestyle if I had to, I know I’m much happier with the one we have here — and the same for my wife. Nothing beats coming home after travel, and taking a long shower in your own shower, eating your own food, and sleeping in your own bed, and being a homebody again, until the trials and tribulations of the last trip have become distant memories, and you repeat the process all over again.

To understand world politics and the U.S, we must first understand what makes our political systems different. They are pretty basic and fundamental; that is the concept of individualism, the tyranny of the majority, and the purpose of Government itself.

The U.S. was founded on a couple of concepts, primarily that the individuals rights were sacrosanct and the very purpose of government was to protect the individual. Thus when the government is failing to protect those rights, we have a right/responsibility to overthrow that corrupt empire. Thus “the government that governs least, governs best”. Most of our systems were setup to balance power, and the purpose of all the branches of American government were to “balance” (see obstruct) the will of the other branches in everything except protecting the rights of individuals. We understood that Democracy is bad; it is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on who’s for dinner — so we made a constitution that protects individuals first in order to take mutton off the menu, then we set up all our systems to waste their time/energy/power fighting each other, so they wouldn’t be able to expend it against the people. If you doubt me, read the Declaration of Independence, some historical writings and the Constitution.

The rest of the world failed to understand what the U.S. was about. It was inefficient; so they streamlined. Read some European Constitutions some time, they are not plagued by the same spirit or American idealism. For them, it is all about the tyranny of the majority. Basically, to quote for Star Trek’s socialist cast member, Mr. Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”. Change that to “the rights of the few/one are outweighed by the power of the many”, and you understand European politics. They were founded on things like individuals allegiances to the group, thus individuals have less rights than the group, and in fact, they see honor as the individual sacrificing himself for the group. While in American, it is the group that should sacrifice themselves for the individual. Americans who understand our history, understand that groups have no rights, and the purpose of laws are primarily to protect one individual from another (or from the group). Thus in Europe, it isn’t about “the individual”, it is about “individuals”. Morals are subjective and conform to the will of the group, and individuals that are in the way of the group should be trodden on, and the ideal is to use the largest army to force your desires on everyone else — though since WWII they’ve substituted political army (or public opinion) for military one but the spirit is the same. They represent Democracy.

When you look at their Governmental systems, it reflects that. We have a system that divides Executive (President), Legislative (Congress/Parliament), Judicial (Supreme Court). Most of their systems have legislative parliamentary systems where Parliament elects the Prime-Minister or in yankee-speak, the Congress elects the President from their ranks. Their parliaments usually have the power to alter the judicial system, change the protected rights of the people, and put mutton on the menu whenever they want. Their parliaments can and often do what is called a “vote of no confidence”, which means the Prime-Minister (or his party) is not getting enough new laws passed, effectively enough, which requires a new “election” for Prime-Minister (done in their congress, and doesn’t go to the people). This gives their legislature far more power, and makes their system based on the principal, “the government that governs most, governs best”. There isn’t a balance between the three branches of government, there is some limited sharing of power by the parliament with their puppet leader and puppet judges. Now the fact that the puppets have wills of their own and some autonomy doesn’t make it a parliamentary autocracy, but there system is far more legislative centered than our own, and puts far more absolute power in the hands of the few (in the name of the many), while the individuals are victims of that power, with abstract influence over it.

Once you understand these fundamental differences, it is far easier to understand their history, their present, and their futures. When you look at France or the EU (European Union), you understand why they have/had Napoleonic law which says, “guilty until proven innocent”. You can get why they are trying to rewrite the EU Constitution to suspend that pesky Habeus Corpus. Public opinion is what matters, not the individual. Individuality, and the protection of that persons rights are not the purpose of their government, just a byproduct because the public sort of tolerates it, unless they are in the way. What matters is the hive, the collective, that the will of the many (or politically empowered few) can crush all others, and efficiently steamroll the rights of everyone else, in order to govern. Royal Court politics hasn’t matured as much as just evolved to another court, and thrown in a lot more spin and PR. They double-deal and step on individuals in the name of the people/group. Of course we do that to, but at least it conflicts with our philosophy, instead of aligns with it.

England, seems to be caught between worlds. They aren’t quite Europe, in laws or in spirit — but they aren’t quite America either. They have a bit of the old court thinking, and their old Royalty (and house of Lords), their traditions — mixed with a more modern system. They more socialistic than Americans, but less than the other Europeans. Or to put it in the terms of Donnie and Marie, they are a little bit country, and a little bit Rock and Roll. Many of them realize their fate, that they will be dissolved and diluted into the EU’s new world order. They don’t want to give up their past and their individuality, but they are afraid of stepping further towards American ideals either. So they gave the world the magna carta, but we had to take it to the next level with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. For me they are like a person who has lost all of their friends to the Borg collective, and is trying to decide whether to die alone, or join the hive. Sadly, I think it is inevitable that they’ll join the Borg, er, EU fully, and another ingredient in the stew, will be blended into the flavorless soup.

Of course things are never as simple as a small article can sum up. The American electoral college has a few similarities to Parliament in elections, congress can impeach a President (with far more hoops and difficulties than their parliaments can), many Americans fail to understand their own history and subscribe to a socialist group-think more similar to Europeans, and there are certainly a few Europeans that understand the American system and are trying to teach the masses, even if they are drowned out by the collective voice of the miseducated/misinformed masses and biased European media. While Americans may have certain ideals on individuality, we have often fallen quite short of them — and while Europeans may not have those rights codified as well, they have often tolerated individual liberties fairly well (sometimes better than us), and not slid completely down the slippery slope into totalitarianism. So the world is a complex and not an easy black and white.

I keep hoping Europeans (and Canadians, and Australians, and Asians, and Middle-Easterners, and Latin Americans, and Africans) will learn the lessons of history, which is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that too much efficiency in government isn’t necessarily a good thing. Making governments inefficient and slow to change may be “conservative” and frustrating to the liberals, but most swings in power go too far and hurt many people in the process — thus a little dampening isn’t all bad. I hope they learn that a government or society that doesn’t put individuals first, is on a slippery slope, whether they ever fall down it or not. I have hope that they will grow and evolve and backlash against their own “politically correct liberal hive-mind” and steer more towards individuality and freedom, just like I hope the same for us. But I’m realistic enough that I can see what is, and what is likely, and raging against the machine may be a fight in futility. Still, like watching a wayward child make bad choices; you may not be able to sway them or change them from their bad paths (only they can do that), but it is still your responsibility/obligation to try, and to love them and offer them support anyways.

Many in America want “us” to become more like “them”; while I, obviously, hope for them to become more like us. Just because more think like them, doesn’t make them right — that’s the fallacy of Democracy. If it weren’t for the unreasonable individuals challenging the status quo, the group, the collective, then there would have been no progress for human kind. Hopefully this article will open a few American and even Europeans minds, just a little.

MacOS Rumors (http://www.macosrumors.com/20050523B.php), discussed Apple creating their own cell phone network.

This is bizarre to me; the cell phone industry is a HIGHLY competitive industry; some would say hyper-competitive with thin margins, high operating costs, and so on. Providers want quality of service beyond the established network — not a thin subset of what they can get now. Apple’s stores are not close to a real usable network by themselves — so it makes no sense at all that they are going to compete on this alone. Apple would have to partner or acquire someone else to be viable as a national network. Possible, and interesting. I could see Apple trying to leap to another technology; satellite based phones, or something else where they could charge a premium. But the cell phone industry doesn’t need another player, unless Apple can seriously add some value beyond a slightly cool but bulky phone that can play music.

Now, having a device like an iPod phone with PDA capabilities and a higher end data network, may make a lot more sense. Apple offering broadband or wireless service on their own backbone (802.11/something else), might make more sense. I could see them making an agreement with a cell phone provider to add their iPod technology to a custom branded version of the network — or offer some services for one of the cell phone providers. But again, just being another cell phone provider can not be the whole story — it’s just too outside Apple’s domain. I could even see this as a tactic to force the other providers to play nice, “or else”. But by itself, there’s something missing to the story. (IMHO).

Michael Jackson just got off, kinda literally and figuratively. While he wasn’t declared innocent, he was declared not-guilty, and a serial weirdo goes free. I don’t know if the guy is a pederast or not; I think he obviously has an unhealthy attraction to little boys, and I wouldn’t leave my pets alone with him, let alone my children. I think some of the past parents and all future ones, should be brought up on child endangerment charges if they let their kids sleep in the same bed, unsupervised, with someone like that. But either way, another once black man didn’t get justice due to the California courts; that’s three famous court cases in a row. Of course this isn’t really about race. But then neither were other famous “black” cases.

Rodney King was a drug abusing reckless driver, that sped, ran red lights, endangered people, was driving under the influence, and had a history (past and future) of getting in trouble with the law. When pulled over, he got out of his car, charged police officers and knocked them to the ground. He was told to submit to being arrested, but charged them, was tazered, twice, and 50,000 volts didn’t phase him. Cops had two choices; shoot him (lethal force), or baton/beat him into submission. They went out of their way to save his sorry life, and that choice cost the city and country millions if not billions of dollars. Every time they approached him to put the cuffs on, he showed more contempt of cop, and tried to get up, so they beat him more. For this they got labeled racists. That there were 3 other black people in the car at the time, that weren’t beaten (because they didn’t break the law or attack officers), but that was irrelevant. And of course the cops would have done the same to a big, drugged out, reckless samoan, mexican, asian, or white guy; but that was irrelevant too. All of my friends of different racial backgrounds knew better than to do the things Rodney did, then blame the results on racism, as there was a police abuse (or at least perception) problem with the LAPD. But the inner-city Los Angeles black community knew it was because of the color of Rodney’s skin that had all happened. And when the officers were not convicted for doing their job, many dumb people burned and looted local business and homes of their neighbors in protest. Woo hoo. Big win for reason and justice.

The same with OJ. Some guy kills his ex-wife, and leaves a trail of blood and DNA evidence. There was one in a few hundred million chance that it wasn’t him that did it; the jurors felt that was reasonable doubt. As if it is reasonable to assume that there was more than one psychotic control-freak stalker with a history of attacking Nicole, that had been in the same area, cut his same finger, run from the police in a low-speed chase, and so on. Every other color/race would have convicted, but the California jurors would rather believe in conspiracies to frame an innocent black athlete, than in common sense.

So in the grand scheme of things, the Michael Jackson case was a win. At least this time, there was a little common sense behind the decision. Heck, if I had been on the Jury in this case, I probably would have had to let Michael Jackson go too. You can’t convict a guy on prior acts, and while there was plenty of evidence to show a pattern of behavior, you should only convict based on the evidence in this case. Jackson left porn available to children; bad thing to do, and I believe proves he is a pervert — but not necessarily that he molested this kid. The stuff with Jesus Juice, and alcohol spiked coke, happened in prior cases and was weak in this one; again, bad pattern but not evidence. The prosecutor proved that Wacko-Jacko label exists for a reason, and probably that there was a history of bad behavior; but still failed to prove this case. The only real evidence was the testimony of a whiney and self-contradicting kid with a history of false claims, a psychotic money-grubbing mother, loony claims of abduction (while they voluntarily hung around), and a monomaniacal prosecutor. So I’d probably have to let the sick little freak go too. So at least in this case, I can’t find fault with the Jury’s decision — even if we all know that justice wasn’t served. No matter if you think he is guilty or you have delusions of innocence, it is time to move on and let it go. In the grand twisted scheme of the world, this injustice took way too much time and attention — and it’s time to move on with our lives.

Still, I can’t help thinking of some of the lyrics to his song:

Your butt is mine
I’m giving you on count of three
To show your stuff or let it be.
Your talk is cheap
You know I’m smooth
I’m bad – you know it
You know I’m bad
I’m bad – you know it…

I often read many foreign papers after a major news event, just to see what their take on things is. NYT, Guardian, Le Monde are had their one moderate day after a tragedy, and are already starting to get back to their normal patterns. But Der Speigel ran an interesting article that just sort of got me thinking.

They contrasted how sorry Americans were about Bush winning with the website: http://www.sorryeverybody.com with the new British site http://www.werenotafraid.com, which focuses on how the Brits are not scared and are going to stand up against terrorism.

I found their choice of sites, insightful not only about their bias, but also insightful about some of our own.

The apologetic whines of a few anti-Bush or anti-U.S. left wing fanatics,about the evil’s of U.S. policy, W, or the election is almost amusing in its tastelessness. I didn’t see France sending us postcards apologizing for Chirac’s, or Germans apologizing for Schroeder, despite far more economic incompetence, corruption, and duplicity on their part. So despite the offense I take at the arrogance of the site creators, it points out the amusing double standards and hypocrisy of the world today.

That British website would be seen as right-wing neo-con imperialistic fanaticism either in the U.S. or by the world looking at the U.S. But for some reason, in the case of the UK, it is seen as natural. I have no problems with the latter, and agree that is reasonable for the British to be defiant, stoic and more than a little bit pissed off — but get a little tired of the double-standard and hypocrisy of the former. We’d be called names for anyone here doing the same. Of course, I think the names are going to be coming for the Brits soon, already there’s excuses being made for why the terrorists did what they did.

The argument already starting is, “this was bad, but…” and then they go on to say that it was inevitable because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan or Palestine. I wonder how pragmatic those same people would be, if fanatical Jews started strapping suicide bombs to themselves (or using F-16′s) in order to bomb Mosques all around the world in retaliation for all the muslim fanatics bombing their innocents. Would they make the same excuse, if we nuked the middle east, and said it was in retaliation for 9/11? Oh, wait, I forgot, rationalizations are only valid for those who are working against us.

Many papers are calling London a tragedy. A tragedy? Really? A tragedy means a disastrous event, which implies misfortune, bad luck, or unhappy situation. Sort of an inevitable accident. Oops, at least a few separate people coordinated building and distributing bombs to blow up innocents in the name of their own ignorance, and the Newspapers will excuse that by soft-pedaling it as a “tragedy? They are editors at major papers, they’re supposed to understand the English language and what words mean. Last I checked this was murder, terror, or proof of a war were many want to kill people and change our way of life. This is well beyond a tragedy.

I understand that some people are upset over things they might not fully understand. They get mad about Palestine/Israel — of course many ignore the 75 years of terrorists bombings by the Palestinians and only blame the Israeli’s (who’ve tried to make peace a few dozen times, but keep getting bombed into war). I understand people are pissed that Americans and Brits stopped the brutal oppression of millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand that many people are trying to create anarchy and chaos in those countries because they want those seeds of hate to thrive in order to empower themselves to kill more innocents and cram their fanatic agenda down the rest of the worlds throat, and stop these horrible things like freedom, tolerance, choice, and so on. I understand the racist bigot that think that only people of middle eastern decent should be allowed on their part of their Continent, and that if they don’t practice their religion, their way, that they should be publicly put to death by stoning, sword or bullet. But what does tolerance of their intolerance say about us?

What I don’t understand is what happened to liberalism. It was once the party that stood for freedom, tolerance, understanding, progressive change, for victims. But that meant they used to support freedom and fight bigotry, hate and violence — now they advocate it. It has become the party/group that makes excuses for murderers, that soft pedals violence against us, but sensationalizes what we do in response. The views, writings and speeches are full of vitriol, hate and self loathing — while rationalizing and even advocating the enemy position. And through it all we’ve lost all perspective, with ridiculous stories about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, London, and so on. On our worst day, we haven’t come close to doing anything near as bad as the enemy in this war on terror, on their best days. We are far from flawless, but rent a clue. Compare what we did in Iraq — free a country from enslavement to a murderous, terror-sponsoring tyrant, while expending resources (and our own lives) to try to protect and avoid harming innocents, to the intentional murder of innocents who had the audacity to use public transportation in their own city.

Anyone that can’t just say, “acts like London-bombing is wrong and must be stopped”, with out equivocating or making excuses/rationalizations, or adding “but”, is beyond hope and redemption as a rational human being for me. Of course it wasn’t Iraqi’s or Afgans bombing Londoners; while the Iraqi’s and Afghani’s aren’t completely happy, by and large prefer the situation today to where it was a half decade ago. So this wasn’t retaliation and anyone who implies it was is a fool; this was murder in their name, just looking for an excuse after the fact (or before). We should call anyone that defends the sponsors of hate/terror to the carpet, as soon as they start making excuses, or start softening the words of what really happened.

There was an article over at MacNet2 that a friend (known as Mark M) called my attention to, that was sort of the traditional Mac/Apple bashing. http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=606_0_2_0

Normally, I ignore trolls and true “advocates”, but sometimes they just go too far. Personally, I don’t always agree with Steve Jobs or Apple, but as Edward Burke says, “All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing” — so rarely, I’ll choose to act rather that tolerating mistruths or things that I see as “evil”. So I decided to respond point by point to the author (Simon Saint James), and try to offer a little counter balance to what I saw as a rather unbalanced piece. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the author was unbalanced as well.

Disdain

The article accuses Steve/Apple of having disdain for its customers. This is a very immature view of a company that makes its money off of keeping customers. Ultimately, Apple is a business — it needs to balance profits, with giving customers everything they want at a profit point that would put them out of business. This means they must balance features, quality, support, time-to-market, sex-appeal, marketing and other things that are the complexities of running a business. Pundits and armchair CEO’s usually think this is an easy task, and spew their recipes for success — and feel that the others are contemptuous of them if they don’t see the obvious wisdom of the one true path. But that’s just arrogance and often ignorance. We may all disagree with some choices made (I know I do), but to assume that is the same as contempt for customers, seems to be taking a binary view of the world/company, and doesn’t seem very insightful about Steve who is still a sales/marketing centered person at heart.

Steve may want to convince you he’s right, and make you see things from his point of view (the infamous reality distortion field). He may even want to sell products that he wants to build (art), and figures that customers will see his genius for what it is. But that’s a huge ways off from disdain. Apple insiders that have worked with Steve tell me that Steve is very open to input… to a point. Once that point is crossed, and he’s made up his mind, he is extremely resolute — and you are sort of left with the choice of doing things his way, or seeking opportunities elsewhere. But that’s not disdain. Determination? Vision? Ego? Maybe a personality quirk of many good leaders (as well as more than a few bad ones). Disdain is more how Simon treats all Mac users who disagree with him.

Steve does respond to customer demands, and does listen to the market (especially up front). Once his mind is made up, he may not be as flexible until very strong evidence proves him wrong — but Apple and Steve have adapted quite well on some things. That’s not disdain as much as self-assuredness and determination. Would you really want a flakey, touchy-feely CEO that couldn’t stick with an idea or products long enough for any to ever succeed? With the Cube, Apple sort of learned fairly quickly that they’d over-priced the little booger, and pulled it. With Rhapsody, Apple realized that Carbon (backwards compatibility) was a necessity — so they adapted. And there are many other examples of adaptation, when forced. So calling Steve/Apple arrogant is probably fair. As would be calling Microsoft, Dell, Intel, IBM, Oracle and most of those leaders arrogant as well. Are they all showing disdain for their customers too?

OS X

To see OS X’s reason for being as a way to milk it’s customers might be true. But only if you see Dell or Intel not building Pentium 12 machines today as a way to do the same. The same for Windows 2050, Photoshop 14, and so on. Companies build what they are able to. They add features, and charge customers for new sales or upgrades. Apple is not unique in this “evil conspiracy to screw customers”. Last I checked, it was called “business”.

There are many business models. The author claims that offering $129 upgrades, with no upgrade path, it is part of the evil conspiracy again. Yet, I far prefer Apple’s business model to more complex software licenses like Oracle’s or Microsoft’s (especially for their Server stuff, but Office is not always a walk in the park either). Upgrading can be incredibly complex and expensive propositions. Apple took a simpler approach; one price upgrades with some very limited site-licenses (volume discounts). No complex checks. No software installs that need to first verify a previous version is installed, with intrusive network serial number checking, and so on. I hardly call a simpler and often less expensive upgrade path an evil conspiracy; but the author (Simon) does. Whatever.

The same with feature sets. Most people consider lots of new features in each release value. Simon sees it as proof that Apple is making his life difficult. Microsoft, Linux and many others have version dependent Applications, tied to version of the Operating System (or tied to versions of Libraries that come with versions of the Operating System) and change things version to version or add features — but when Apple does it, its the evil conspiracy.

To a point, I understand what Simon is saying — the new Apple (since Jobs took over), is far more willing to ship now, and fix later. But they took that business model from all their competitors like Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Dell, and others, that were doing better in the industry than they were. I don’t always like it; but it doesn’t take much common sense to understand it. So sure, Apple upgrades more now than they used to. I also feel like Apple’s little beta tester at times — but I feel like Microsoft, Dell’s, Intel’s, IBM’s, and others little beta tester at times too. The new Apple also ships products sooner than they used to, respond to problems sooner, makes more money, grows the platform, adapts quicker, and I’m much happier as both a stock owner and customer. I definitely swing between liking the quicker response time, and disliking that they aren’t as much better than Microsoft as they used to be. But it would take some serious drugs to only see the bad in Apple and the good in Dell or Microsoft.

Mistakes

Simon whines about Apple refusing to admit mistakes. Um, admitting mistakes is often accepting liability. It is also not in the character of arrogant CEO’s, or arrogant anyone’s, to admit they are wrong. If Simon doubts this, let’s see how quickly it takes him to apologizes for going “over the top”, and retract his article. How many times have you heard Balmer or Gates get on stage and tout the stupidity of their previous decisions? Has Michael Dell publicly apologized for his outsourcing fiasco?

Sure Apple has had recalls. They had them before Steve left, they had them before the return of Steve, they had them after he came back. Dell has had them. HP, Gateway, IBM, Sony, and so on. Personally, when you compare the complexity of computer hardware to the complexity of cars, and the far more frequent recalls on cars, I’m amazed at how few the recalls are on Computers. But more of the evil conspiracy. Oooh, scary, Apple is resistant to admit mistakes that will cost the company the money. That wouldn’t be managers trying to cover their butts, or typical humans dodging responsibility and pointing fingers; it’s a conspiracy.

iPod

Simon goes on to complain that something that the iPod, which has sold millions of copies and has created whole new words and a culture around, is really a giant rip off. Why? Various things; battery and support issues, iTune’s proprietary nature, and so on. Gee, Apple was reluctant to lose lots of money on support on a device, in a new segment of the industry, that had the thinnest margins and lowest per unit profits of just about any hardware product they had ever produced. Who’d have thunk?

Have you ever tried to get a VCR or DVD repaired a year or two after you bought it? Good luck. Consumer companies don’t usually offer the level of service and support that even bad computer companies do. Instead of Simon seeing it as Apple maybe being cautious while starting into the consumer marketplace, it too was part of the evil conspiracy.

Simon complains that there are probably tens of thousands of unhappy customers, compared to the many tens of millions of iPods made, I’d consider that an incredibly low percentage and extremely high satisfaction level. Compare that to car buyers, or people who bought Dell’s or Gateways, and then we’ll see if he has a point. I know I bitched and whined and some areas I got burned by Apple. But I’d be a tad clueless to think that represents all customers or even most — or not to remember the times I was burned by Dell or Microsoft as well. Or BMW. Or my home builder. Or my contractor. Or a boss. Or a Woman. Or….

Intel Switch

In the Intel section you see some of Simon’s real bias. He slips in that he is unhappy because Mac OS X is finally approaching the productivity of OS 9. I think we see what is really going on. Here’s someone who was mad that things changed and he had to go from OS 9 to something else, and is now ranting cathartic about everything the company has ever done since Jobs took over. Hey Simon, things change — welcome to the real world. I like many things about OS 9 too; but I’ve mostly gotten over it. Some things are better in OS X, some things worse; unfortunately, that’s called progress. Get over it. Breathe deeply and then let it go. Wine about specifics — but concluding that because a company makes some bad choices that they make no good ones shows the wisdom and insight of a suicide bomber.

In truth there are many business and technological reasons that can justify the switch. We can’t know all the things Apple gets out of the deal — but we can make a long laundry list of possible upsides as well as a smaller list of downsides. But instead of seeing Business as business, this too is part of the Evil Conspiracy by Jobs to obsolete machines. Are you seeing Simon’s pattern yet?

I don’t always agree with with Apple — but I’m sure Apple is not daft, and knows that refreshment sales are going to go up in a year or so. Yet, they are also smart enough to realize that sales may take a lump in the short term too. And if the future machines aren’t really better in the marketplace, then Apple is a worse place than they are now. So obviously, Apple believes they’re going to get something out of the switch to make up for the risk.

Michael Dell

Throughout Simon’s article, there are a few comments to point out how good Dell has been, and how evil Steve/Apple is. Which begs the question, “what has Dell done”? Dell is the Walmart of the computer industry. Discounting machines that other people make, by virtue of their name, size and negotiating position. They are king of the supply chain. That doesn’t make them bad — but on the other side, what have they really done? They don’t engineer; they repackage. Dell is known for having worse support than Apple and lower customer satisfaction. They have had more hardware recalls, and more quirks. I’ve had problems with multiple machines bought from Dell in batch, where they changed parts mid run, and so two “identical” models aren’t identical, with both models having different problems. That’s better? Have you called Dell’s support? I kept getting some guy in India named George Washington (ask their last names sometime, the Americanized one’s are quite amusing), that would read off his script and could not adapt to anything that was off script — like everything I needed or I wouldn’t have called. While I’m not always enthused with Apple’s help, I never wanted to put my fist through a wall as badly as after I dealt with Dell.

The Bottom line

Most people that want to give themselves credibility on a topic that they may deserve none, start by telling everyone their credentials. “I used to be a Mac user and advocate… but now I’ve changed”, and they go on to tell you their conversion. This is a the same as saying “I used to be a sinner, smoker, jogger…” or whatever behavior they are about to criticize. This author was no different. Simon starts out this way, and then gives us a lecture about all the virtues of switching from Apple/Macs, without any of the reason or balance in why not to.

I don’t care about zealots history or false credibility, it is their present bias and insight that I care about. This person is a convert; and we know how zealous the converts can be. The author (Simon), has some business or part of his business in switching Mac users to Windows, or in the anti-Mac market. Now there’s an objective observer if ever I’ve seen one. He feels that switching to Dell saved him money; probably because he’s either in a segment where it has, or because he’s not looking at all the costs fairly. But then he goes on to tell us that we are all fools for disagreeing with him, without him knowing our needs or our business. Simon says, “Switch”. But what are his real complaints?

Apple has forced upgrades. And who doesn’t? Apple has limited models/choices. And who doesn’t? Steve is arrogant? Name a CEO who isn’t? Heck, name people who aren’t? They are called “self-image challenged” and don’t make very good leaders. In fact, look at writers that criticize CEO’s, or writers that criticize other writers if you want to see arrogant egomaniacs. Apple has questionable support. Compared to what? Dell? Microsoft? Gateway? Come on, rent a clue. There are certainly areas and ways that Apple is falling down, and other ways that they cream the competition. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be millions of return customers for Apple’s products. Apple’s are too expensive. Compared to what? If you want a machine with the features that Apple offers, then Apple is often very competitive. And you can’t get machines with the style, elegance, security, and so on, in the Windows world. Many people are willing to pay for that. To Simon, that’s too much. There is only one true path to him, and that is the one he’s taken. But customers vote with their wallets.

So in the end, you are left with a choice. Either you believe Simon as the one true visionary that has seen the light, and all of us are fools if we don’t follow him to the promised land — or you believe the tens of millions of satisfied customers, investors, and employees of Apple that to at least some degree, disagree with what Simon says. I know where I stand, and it isn’t with Simple Simon, who’s logic that went through the sieve even faster than the water in the nursery rhyme did.

Every year or so, I hear some America basher, here or abroad, bring up the issue of Hiroshima and “the Bomb”. That the U.S. is the only country to use the atomic bomb in war, that this was the first use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, that the Japanese were ready to give up without the Bomb thus we caused the unneeded deaths of more than a hundred thousand lives, and so on. It seems appropriate during the anniversary of Hiroshima (August 6th) and Nagasaki (August 9th) to remember what really happened, and not what the revisionists, biased, or ignorant are saying.

The First weapon of mass destruction?

The Atomic Bomb was not even close to “the first weapon of mass destruction”. I’d say the use of fire-bombing cities out of existence goes back thousands of years (athenian fire anyone?), and was not an uncommon practice in war. The Atomic bomb was an easier way to do that, but the ends was the same; burn the enemy en masse. Chemical, nerve agents and gas weapons, all considered WMD’s, were used in WWI or before. The gassings in WWI may have estimates ranging from a few hundred thousand to tens of millions because of delayed effects. Biological weapons were used for thousands of years before that. So the atomic bomb by the U.S. wasn’t close to the first use of a “Weapon of Mass Destruction”

More importantly are the the policies of Ghengis Kahn or others involved in total war; they would kill every man in a city, and sometimes the women and children, as well as salt the fields. That’s at least a policy of mass destruction. Germany and Japan started these policies in WWIII, with attacking civilian targets in London with V1′s and V2′s terrorist weapons (no military value). The Japanese with the rape of Nanking puts anything we did to shame; mass rape, executions, throwing babies into the air and catching them on bayonet’s in front of their mothers? Death marches, starvation, torture, forced prostitution, and so on. That is a policy of mass destruction. Our fire-bombings of Japanese cities like Tokyo killed more people than an atomic bomb did. So the policies of mass destruction were in place long before the use of the Atomic bomb. Those that claim otherwise are trying to alter meanings to fit their agenda. They also focus on the tool, instead of what is important; the policies of usage, who has it and how/when they will use it, and why.

The Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc., would not have hesitated to use the Atomic bomb on us. Those claiming that we were somehow wrong for using it on them first, are choosing not to see the times/attitudes and context in which it what used. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there is a huge difference ethically between assaulting someone, and defending against that assault using the same means they would and had already used. In war, the biggest bastards set the rules. And the Germans and Japanese had set the rules long before we came along and fought by them. Our choice was to lose or to win, and in order to win a war, you need to do bad things. Still we chose to fight more honorably than our enemies; but frankly we didn’t ethically have to choose that path.

The Japanese were ready to surrender? We only needed to drop the first bomb (the second was spite)?

They were training girls to fight fires, and attack American soldiers using spears. They were training the rest in mass suicide bombings; how to throw themselves in front of trucks and tanks with bombs strapped to their chests. This was after Kamikaze planes, boats and subs, suicidal mass charges, throwing themselves from cliffs rather than surrender, and so on. They were taught that they were going to die either way, only they could choose to die gloriously in defense of the homeland (sacrificing themselves), or as a shameful coward. These are not the preparations of those who plan surrender.

Certainly, there were elements in Japan that wanted to surrender, the same elements that didn’t want to go into China and didn’t want to attack America/Hawaii in the first place. But they didn’t have the power. They had repeatedly failed. The Military was running the country, and they did NOT want to give up. They felt there was glory in dying. That they could win by showing more heart than the Americans had stomachs. The “Potsdam Declaration” gave the terms for Japans surrender at the end of July: Japan must immediately agree to unconditionally surrender, or face “prompt and utter destruction”. The Japanese promptly refused. Those that think the Japanese were ready to surrender should ask, “why didn’t they?”. There was ample opportunity.

Remember, we were intercepting the Japanese communications; military and diplomatic; we knew where their heads were at. The Japanese seemed to be especially concerned about losing their emperor, and we knew they were an egomaniacal culture that was myopically focused on “saving face”. Truman, unilaterally, went out of his way to give them an out and be softer than the international agreement made on Postdam (of unconditional surrender). He broadcast a much softer demand for “the unconditional surrender of the Military of Japan”. The face saving (and emperor saving) out was meant to show compassion and give the Japanese that wanted surrender more leeway. But that compassion was seen as a sign of weakness. The Japanese Military felt the Americans are softening, thus if they could hold out and cost more lives in the invasion, that America would give them more concessions. Those communiqué’s are what sealed the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese were not ready to surrender before the first bomb. Proof of that is that they weren’t ready to surrender even AFTER the first bomb. The mayor of Hiroshima made defiant broadcasts after the bomb, telling his people about how casualties were to be expected in war, and to remain resolute. Truman gave a public warning that more were to come if they did not surrender. The Japanese had 3 days after Hiroshima, and still they did not surrender. They didn’t know if we could produce more, or if it was a fluke. They still wanted to figure out how to avoid the shame of surrender, and cost more American lives. If we had not forced that surrender, their culture would not have had to change, and we would have been fighting the same war in another 10 – 25 years, like what happened after WWI. So Nagasaki was a testament to Japans arrogance.

Even AFTER two bombs, the slaughters in the South Pacific, all the way to Okinawa, the Japanese Military still wanted to fight for terms. It took Prime Minister Suzuki going to the emperor himself to break the deadlock. It was this extreme measure that got the Emperor to accept the terms of Potsdam. When the Emperor finally did agree to surrender, there was an attempted coup! There were plans to assassinate the emperor before he surrendered or gave the radio address, so they didn’t have to give up. They still didn’t want to give up. They were going to fight, and there were many in power that wanted to kill their own God-on-earth, before surrendering or accepting the shame of defeat.

The U.S. was vindictive/doing it for revenge?

This is so out of character of the U.S., that it should be discounted out of hand as the raving hatred and ignorance that it is. The U.S. let the Japanese keep their emperor, despite knowing that the emperor was responsible; because it was in the best interests of the Japanese people and Democracy. We immediately setup massive food distribution programs to help the Japanese, who were starving. We also helped the country rebuild their economy and manufacturing (similar to the Marshall Plan). Americans were donating blood to help the Japanese. These are not the actives of a vindictive culture out to kill or harm as many Japanese as possible. Proof is that most Japanese know that they would have been far worse occupiers than we were.

Conclusion

Those that claim Japan’s surrender was imminent, or the U.S. didn’t have to drop the bomb are ignoring Japanese history/culture and almost of all of what was happening at that time. The Japanese from the era will tell you the truth; they were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child if necessary. Each death brought honor to the Japanese, by their way of thinking. The atomic bomb took that honor away, and made them face the cost of war, and accept the shame of defeat. Still, one bomb wasn’t enough to get the message to sink in. Two might not have been enough if Russia hadn’t declared war on Japan as well. It still took over another week.

Those that label Americans as doing it out of pure hate or revenge, ignore what we did before, during and after the war to help Japan, Germany, or the world. While there are always grays, and we can question whether the intent or analysis at the time was correct; we can get a much better idea of the motivations of the people involved. Those that repeat these myths and facts or implications raise questions not only about themselves; but about the very nations, schools, cultures that raised and taught them.

War sucks. I hate it. Almost every man who has ever fought in war, hates it. But look at the alternatives. Sometimes a small war now is better than a bigger war later. Sometimes the fastest way to save lives is to end a war as quickly as possible. The choice was to tolerate a xenophobic culture that was doing vivisections, biological and chemical testing on humans, and preparing to kill millions as a tribute to their own arrogance. A culture that had little value of life for their own kind, and none for anyone else. They had ignored all rules of war, starved and tortured their enemies. Not dropping the bomb would have meant the invasion of Japan; with the cost of a million American lives, and up to twenty or thirty times as many Japanese, or more. So perhaps the camera plane for the Hiroshima bombing said it best in its very name: Necessary Evil. Nuking Hiroshima sucked, but was still better than the alternative.

Links to more

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html#hiroshima

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/hando.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

http://www.dannen.com/decision/