"No one expects a Spanish Inquisition." - Sliding Doors

It's sad today. We know tragedy happens everyday, but with the speed information travels today, we know instantly when something bad happens. And because we have such tremendous coverage of these negative events, some of us get so immersed in it we feel that we're actually there. But we're not, and weren't.

The recent shootings, particularly in Connecticut, will once again call the resonant voice of the anti-gun population. Claiming that innocent lives were taken by guns, and they should be banned. Or some sort of similar rhetoric.

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The anti-gun populace is aiming their efforts incorrectly. Do not challenge the Bill of Rights, removing our right to own firearms. Firearms aren't the issue. The misuse of firearms is the issue. The crackpot, the emotionally unhinged, the spontaneous person is what needs to be controlled.

Instead of fighting the NRA and the Founding Fathers, anti-gun efforts should be focused on getting the wrong guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Illegal arms carried by criminals and ex-felons. It's up to the courts to determine "well regulated" so there's plenty that can be handled on that front. Mandatory training. A federal permitting process. More severe penalties for committing crimes with legally or illegally obtained guns. Focus on strengthening the laws and the court system that punish law breakers. It's ridiculous that a felon can be set free on appeal just because a paper was filed wrong.

The money saved from lobbying- on both sides of the argument- could be better spent lobbying for more police, better citizen training, better security in public spaces.

A person who shoots up a school, theater, or mall may be somewhat dissuaded if they don't have access to a firearm. Maybe they choose a knife. Or drive their car through a drive-thru. Or they could be uber-determined and rent a U-Haul. All are horrible, deplorable actions of society's worst; but what is preventable? None. It's just managing body count (that may be a bit caustic, but someone will play the numbers game). No matter what restrictions are in place, someone will always find a way to get a gun, explosives, or whatever.

You can pick and pull numbers from anywhere that compare gun fatalities to drunk driving, or work deaths, or cancer, or any number of equally horrible things. That doesn't change the fact that the Bill of Rights says we can have guns. We have the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. Guns enable responsible people to protect life, ensure liberty, and (a bit glib here) be happy shooting those guns (at a controlled shooting facility).

"He's holding out for a management position." (Christmas Vacation)

The Twinkie is dead. Long live the Twinkie.

Not really. I'm sure Keebler or Kraft will pick up the "never-gonna-expire-survival-food" shortly, ensuring that future generations will be exposed to that culinary "delight."

Apparently Hostess was mismanaged (shocking!) over the past decade with poor financial and operational decisions- at least according to the alphabet union president. The union contract was at the crux of the matter. While I'm not part of the union, nor Hostess employee, I can't speak to the details of why these two parties couldn't agree to work.

We are in a wildly different employee market. It reflects the global market. Cost is king. Rather, it's the lowering of costs to maintain profit margins- that's king. Hostess kept itself in America, if you noticed. Twinkies last practically forever, so there's no reason why Hostess couldn't ship the production to a low-cost center country. The products weigh next to nothing, so freight wouldn't be an issue.

It's a lose-lose situation now.

On a different note, I'm reminded of the recent news about CEO pay and golden parachutes or termination "bonuses" for CEOs that have run the companies to the ground. The defense to this compensation is that companies have to pay a lot of incentives to attract the top talent. Guess what? If a CEO burns a company in 3 years or 5 years, obviously they are not top talent- hence they don't deserve the compensation package offered to them. Incentives are for doing good, not bad.

"You fight the fights that need fighting!" (The American President)

How America longs for a President that is portrayed with reverence, honor, intelligence, and integrity in movies and books.

It's a position that requires it, yet for some odd reason, the American public is incapable of voting someone in that has those characteristics. Granted, it's not all their (our) fault. They vote for whom they are given an option for. Unfortunately, those options are chosen by business, politicians, and money; it's really not an option. It's choosing the lesser of two evils.

But here's the deal with the American people. We live in a time when information is freely passed, and available. Well, most information. The information is out there. Like the X-Files: The truth is out there.

The problem is that the news machine picks and pulls bits of the information to feed to the public. Information isn't fully disclosed, or bits are pulled out of context, or facts end up mangled and twisted. And a lot of people have grown complacent and just accept whatever news is provided to them from their favorite station, anchor, news show, or sadly, Jon Stewart.

And with this wealth of knowledge available, most of which has come about through the Internet age, we lack the critical skills necessary to absorb and analyze this information. We're so inundated with facts, figures, policy, perception, and positioning that we don't focus on getting the right data, and making the right decisions.

We have evolved from a country passionate about obtaining, establishing, and securing our freedom from other countries to a country that accepts this freedom without understanding the cost associated with it. I'm not talking about wars fought for this country and the sacrifices of our troops and their families- that's very honorable and should be revered.

I'm talking about the political ideals and processes and ideology. We fight for the wrong things, in my opinion, in the political arena. "We" fight for individualistic needs and wants. "We" want lower taxes. "We" don't elect people who will fight for lower taxes, or tell our elected officials not to raise taxes. "We" need to really understand what it means to have an individual right versus an individual want.

We have science. Get over it. We have religion. Get over it. Science will always be searching for the "how." Faith may not sync with science, but why does that matter? You can't argue with faith. Science may be able to poke holes in parts of faith, but in the big picture, does that really matter? Will it solve the issues of AIDS, cancer, obesity, poverty, malaria, economic collapses, or stock market fluctuations?

Our government should be providing our country's citizens with the capability to be financially viable, economically sound, and intellectually challenged for future generations. Our government is to supply its citizens with infrastructure to support the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our government is to protect us from those that wish us harm.

Our government is not to create jobs for itself. It is not to pander or puffer to the media and citizens when a mistake is made. We're all human. Accept responsibility for your actions and act accordingly. Don't spin it. Don't lie. Don't blame the pressures or the system. Our government isn't to micromanage it's citizens. It isn't designed to spy on, track, trace, or detain it's citizens.

Uphold the Constitution. Uphold the office in which they were elected or chosen.

The citizens are responsible for being educated. If they can't be bothered with that, the government needs to make it easier and simpler for citizens to get the information they need. And tools to understand it.

That's how good decisions are made. By getting all the facts, understanding the facts and situation, and having the analytical skills necessary to make critical decisions.

Little did he know... (Stranger Than Fiction)

What is the deal with Hollywood writers/producers. Why has the internal cog of the movie machine completely bollocksing up the transition of source material to a viable film. Meaning they're totally screwing up the book stories when they make the movies.

Now that's obviously not news. Hollywood has been destroying book stories for generations. It's very disconcerting that even today the stories are just shadows of the original materials. Of the movies I've seen that I've read the books before or after the movie, The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck has been one of the worst adaptations. They changed a lot of the major components of the story. Horrible. Might as well made a "Jump to Conclusion" game.

I know it's difficult to pare down a 300-page, 500-page or more book to a 1.5-2hr movie. But here's the deal- the story is already written. Cut out what doesn't fit or mesh with the story. That's okay. I gloss over a lot of storylines in Tom Clancy novels. Most times it's extraneous story that I'm not too concerned with. Overly detailed. Sometimes I do the same with Michael Crichton story.

Another movie I detest because of the changes from the book- Congo. I had so high hopes for that movie only to be severely disappointed with the changes in the characters (Bruce Campbell notwithstanding).

Which brings me the catalyst for my rant. World War Z. The book was done as a collection of interviews of survivors of a zombie outbreak/war. It was done from a retrospective perspective. The movie, starring Brad Pitt, is now apparently placing the writer/interviewer in the zombie battles. Changing the origin of the character as a basic narrator, recording the experiences of survivors, to an active participant dropped into the zombie events is unimaginative and a poor decision.

The book clearly outlines stories of horrific experiences and there is no real main character. To make a compelling movie, it doesn't need a central character that spans the rewritten/consolidated experiences. A retrospective storytelling can be accomplished. Spy Game and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt movies coincidentally) are both told in snippets covering the past.

Each story from the book doesn't need to be told, some can be consolidated, stronger characters could be featured more. Multiple storylines is very possible as well, just looking at British movies. Love Actually featured many different storylines.

So looking at World War Z, it looks completely disastrous compared to the original story. They should have just called it a different name, because it's hardly the same story. LAME.

I won't go see this, even though I thought the book was pretty good.

Movie: Stranger Than Fiction

I love the movie Stranger Than Fiction. It stars Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, and Dustin Hoffman. The synopsis is this: A dull, ordinarily boring man, Harold Crick (Ferrell) is going about his life when he hears an author's voice, narrating the simple mundane tasks he performs. And little did he know the voice would ultimately announce his impending death.

With the assistance of a college literature professor (Hoffman), Crick sets out to find out who he is, who the voice is, and to do something meaningful with his life. Like maybe eating nothing but pancakes.

The movie is pretty entertaining, even if you don't like Will Ferrell. He doesn't play the kooky, comical characters most of us are used to. He plays a pretty mundane guy who freaks out, as we probably all would, when he finds out his death is imminent.

The film is directed by Marc Forster, a British chap who directed Monster's Ball, Quantum of Solace, Finding Neverland, and the upcoming World War Z (please don't suck, please don't suck). He does a great job of blending fiction, visualization, and "real life" within the movie.

Another plus for the film is the use of overlaying graphics and text in specific scenes, used to define how Crick sees the world. The graphics add something cool, it kinda brings the viewer into the movie a bit more than a standard movie would. I wish they actually took the graphics further into the film. The use of the graphic slowly tapers down, but it doesn't exactly match Crick's upward swing of having a life. You'll get that once you see the movie.

The best part of the film, for me, is the scene set on an articulated bus. The use of this setting was pretty fantastic.

Overall, I think it's a great movie, one that can be watched a couple of times. A must-have for your movie collection.

Stupid is as stupid does (the sequel)

To begin...
An Internet "genious" spouted off this gem:

"It's not just Wall Street. These non-profits and charities are all for profit and highly profitable like mega churches. Rarely do they give out money and resources to the needy when they have to overpay their employees and especially their CEOs."

In reference to this article on Non-Profit Organizations (NPO) compensation for CEOs.

Obviously his logic is flawed, and his argument based on the vast minority of NPOs that skirt the law and cheat the system. Also, through the inane discourse of his argument, is becomes apparent that NPOs must be all charities or churches, despite the information in the article singling out hospitals, the arts, and museum CEOs.

So here's the deal: NPOs are not limited to charities, churches, foundations, or hospitals. NPOs are any organization that does not pursue profits for the employees of the firms (bonuses/profit sharing/etc.). We can all go read the information on the IRS website (boy, that sure sounds like fun!), but at the end of the day, an NPO is a business, just like every other business. It has bills, employees, and rent to pay.

The mindset of some in this world that NPOs shouldn't make money, or pay it's employees a decent wage, just because it's an NPO is backwards and ignorant. What people need to look at is the money that goes to help people, or towards the NPO's purpose. NPO work isn't all about "charity" as some suggest. And taken as a whole, NPO CEO salary is still paltry compared to the top CEO pay in for-profit companies.

Maybe a better argument would have been to compare NPO CEO pay with for-profit companies of similar size. That would make sense. But to argue that just because a CEO of an NPO makes more than you is just plain ridiculous.

There are plenty of watchdog groups out there. And from my perspective, there are definitely some CEOs that are paid way too much, regardless of talent. But I doubt any CEO on their deathbed will be pulling something similar to Oskar Schindler- this week's pay could have fed a village for months! or- my vacation pay could have bought 15 artificial limbs for wounded veterans!

If you're worried about donating to NPOs that end up wasting your donation dollars on extravagant salaries or perks, look online for the charity's financial statements, they are legally required to make them available to the public. Check the watchdog's sites for information regarding the administrative costs vs. money going to those who need it.

nothing to see here

"Save Ferris? Save Ferris?"

In the iconic movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off, one future Kiva supporter is walking the halls of the high school with his used Pepsi can, soliciting donations for Ferris Bueller's expensive, yet life-saving operation... and it's a hoax. One point might be that it's a commentary of blindly giving money to an unknown cause. Another might be asking the question, do we really need to save Ferris? Ed Rooney might agree with that... but onward.

For years (I think 15), there has been a racing site that focused on West Coast racing. Like most professional endeavors, there is a "hub" for getting your foot in the door. Country music hub is Nashville. Live theatre is New York. Movies is Hollywood. For racing, it's Charlotte, NC. The greater Charlotte area is home to nearly all professional NASCAR teams. If something doesn't happen there, it doesn't happen.

That's where Racing West (RW) filled the void. A private, unaffiliated web site dedicated to racing out here in the West. The site was full-featured. News releases were posted on the front page, it had a classified section, photos, advertisers, a community cares section, and a message board. Before I get to that last one, let me talk a bit more about what the people behind RW did for racing.

As more and more racers joined RW, we wanted to know what was happening at area tracks. RW and some of the more intrepid members would put on Racing West Near Live, basically a chat room or message thread that someone at the races would update as the race was going on. A text-based relay to the users of what was happening at the track. It was great for fans/racers who couldn't get to the race. It was a great feature.

RW also provided a great outlet for press releases for teams. Sometimes I wondered why anyone would send out a press release about running a great 8th place finish, out of a field of 18 cars. The news was great for those who could promote their team and driver.

The section for Event Photos was awesome. We (racers) all love racing shots. Especially when the photographer gets the shot of that guy who clearly dumped you in that one race. It's nice to see action shots of cars.

RW also had a classified section for members. A lot of gear was traded/sold/bought through that section. It also spurned some rumors when a team would list cars, haulers, engines, etc., prompting many to question if it was retirement, quitting, or buying all new stuff.

These are just highlights of what RW did, it is by far an incomplete list, as most of what I listed I found the most beneficial. Now for the ugly part of RW: the Message Board.

Now, racers aren't the smartest group of professionals out there, and I think they'd agree. I'm not saying they're stupid, because everyone is stupid at one time or another. Sometimes they don't think. Paired with a cursory knowledge of a keyboard, mouse, and the Internet, racers can be downright dangerous online.

RWs Message Board was an open communication forum for racers and fans. It was divided into many different groups, from the Northwest section, Southwest, NASCAR talk, West Series, and Tech Talk, to name the most used ones. A few years ago there was a board spawned from a need to be uncensored. Thus the "Red Trailer" (and later Brutal Groove) boards were created. These were paid-access boards where users could be completely anonymous to other users. It was amazing what people would come up with.

The boards were useful probably 3/4 of the time. Tracks and users would post event schedules, payouts, info and more. Tech Talk was a useful board that helped a lot of racers across the nation with their racecar setups. Discussion on previous events would spurn multiple pages. Nostalgia would run rampant on a few threads. And sadly, arguments would get out of hand, resulting in name calling and threats. All helped by the anonymity of the Internet. Eventually RW users would slip and it would be known who was behind the screen name.

Horrific drama was played out on the message boards, and the stupidity of many came out. Some could debate and disagree with civil accord. Others tried to argue with a lack of common sense and coherent messages. When basic grammar failed them, they resorted to childish online tantrums, further solidifying the "infantile egomaniacs" perception we thought only existed in the world of Tony Scott.

RW opened the door for racers to express grievances and perceived slights in a semi-anonymous forum. What should have been said behind closed doors, or between racers, was played out online time and time again. It was sad; the "me" mentality of some, who were so concerned with keeping what they had, they didn't give back to the sport that so many love.

I don't know the reasons why, but RW has closed it's site down, and is using Twitter and Facebook to get the word out to the racing community. Time will tell if racers will have the sense to realize they are not so anonymous anymore.

I've been looking at mountain bikes lately. I want to get a new one, one that fits me, since the current bike is over 10 years old. Add on the v-brakes, a dozen or so missing teeth on the gears, I think it's time I picked up something new-ish.

So I'm looking at the bikes, comparing the components and cost. I've paid attention to biking components marginally; I know that for Shimano, components with names are mid-range, abbreviations/letters like XT and XTR are high-range, and stuff that has "Shimano" are bottom range components.

I really wish the naming conventions would make it easy on consumers. Starter. Entry. Value. Solid. Beat on it. OMG YOU'RE LANCE!

Or tree themed. Acorn. Sapling. Fir. Oak. Redwood. Or activity level. Potato. Sunny. All-Terrain. Don't Stop. Crazy. Or by food. Generic. Fast food. Chain. Fine Dining. Are You Eating GOLD? Or by costs. $. $$. $$$. Buffett/Gates.

At least SRAM makes theirs pretty easy. x3, x5, x7, x9, xx, x0.

"Come, D'Artagnan. We're saving the Queen!"

Ok, so we're really not saving the Queen. A) I'm not in England, and B) She doesn't need to be saved. However, automobile manufacturers have to be saved, and not just from poor money-management and a collapsed demand structure.

The automakers need to throw away the notion that attractive cars must have tons of horsepower and performance ability. Practicality and desire and all those psychological reasons why Ferrari, Audi, Aston Martin, etc., design their cars the way they do needs to be revamped across the industry. Look, Mercedes-Benz and BMW already have- great cars that look absolutely horrible.

Seriously, why- in all that is petro- do "econo-box" cars look so horrifically, and utterly banal? Why do cars destined for commutes, where owners choose MPG over OMG, or entry level cars end up looking like it was designed by whoever designs oil bottles.

Some of the entry/commuter cars do need to be quirky enough to attract buyers. Quirky does work, but the car has to be quirky. The Scion xB (I'm a previous owner) was quirky. The Prius *was* quirky, but now it's mainstream.  The Yaris? It looks like a reject from the Dig Dug arcade game. Nissan's LEAF? Juke? I used to like Nissan's designs. Not so much. It just looks that automakers are forcing a "quirky" look, making all the cars the same- ugly. I love Audi cars. Look at the line-up. They all share common lines and looks. BMW, similar. Ford SUVs as well. Automakers need to pare down the designs and build the "look" of the nameplate.

Basically stop making ugly entry cars. There should never be another Aveo, Fiesta, Sonic, Yaris.  There's nothing wrong with building an attractive econo-box. Volkswagen's been doing it for years.

"Put the lotion in the basket."

There are two kinds of people that you need to surround yourself with: People that pay you, and people that cost you. Ideally, more people should pay you rather than cost you.

People that pay you
I'm not talking about pure monetary transactions, but rather the ability for people to pay you intellectually, emotionally, and physically (and any other **-ally characteristic). That means someone who pays you in information (no, the Internet does not count), like someone who mentors and guides your life and career.
People that pay you in emotions are those that support and guide you. They are the good friends, best friends, and those that you enjoy having fun with.
Physical payers are those that help your physical needs like work out partners, spouses, inspirational people.
Identify those that pay you, and spend more time with them.

People that cost you
People that cost you are the ones you spend giving out your information, emotions, and the like. These are the people you help build up and create. They also include the ones that can drain you. Those that cost are also anoynomous in nature. Meaning you may not know who is costing you directly. Samples of these people include trash-talking Internet users- those that get you worked up on Facebook, YouTube, or message boards. Or in my case, idiot drivers.
Look at those around you, and see who costs you the most. You want to limit your obligation to protect the pay/cost benefits.

Stupid is as stupid does

Of the news stories I've had the unfortunate occurrence to read/skim, here's my synopsis/one-line recall:

TSA idiot throws coffee at pilot who asked her to mind her language and the N-word.
Toddler drowns in washing machine when mom leaves it for a second.
Multiple traffic violator mother of 3 arrested when texting and hold a baby while driving.
Multiple stories of fast-food rage where the obese "customer" charges an employee, jumps over the counter, or drives their vehicle through the restaurant, just because the eatery is out of chicken nuggets or something just as retarded.
Horrible, horrible decisions made from unfortunate adult advertisements posted on Craigslist.

What I want to know is: What the NERFHERDER is wrong with people? Are they truly that stupid, or has the information age pulled the curtain back, exposing us to the stupidity our society is capable of?

Drivers make me want to punch a bunny.

Why are there people that can't figure out how to drive? It isn't that hard once you have a few years of driving under your belt.

An old man in an Audi A8 takes a wide left, moving from the inside lane to the outside lane on a two-lane left turn lane. No signal, no look, nothing.

Teenage girl moves into the far right lane over a solid white line where the new lane is. Nevermind the fact it's my lane, and I'm there. She doesn't check and crosses right over, and I had to slam on the brakes. If I had an old crappy car, I would've let her crush the front end of my car and promptly flip her on her lid.

More often than not, in my experience, crappy drivers aren't always driving crappy cars. They have nice ones. The new Acura TSX/TL/MDX, Mercedes Benz SUVs, BMW 5/7 series, etc. I've come to expect crappy cars will be driven horribly, because they're crappy cars. But with nice luxury cars I've never expected to have horrible drivers. But now I do.

A favorite quote of mine

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.." - Ian Malcom, Jurassic Park

I love this phrase from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. In context, a mathmatician (or chaostician, if Ian had anything to say about it) argues that scientific power requires no strong disciple for using that power, just because it's available. To apply it to today's standards, sure, you can definitely post that video of last week's party on Facebook and YouTube, but should you?

That's an example of gross oversimplication, because the should/could argument can apply to very complex decisions. And it's something that is grounded in some morality, not just pure discovery. Just because we have the technology, ability, and knowledge, to create something, that does not mean it's something that should be done. Our goals, morals, and laws dictate the should/could decision. In absence of laws, our own morality will provide direction.

I've often thought of many things that fall in the should/could bucket. I've been involved with should/could decisions. Inside me I knew what the right choice was, even though others around me didn't. Too many people focus on the "we could" because it can be new, thrilling, and something "no one's done before!" Perhaps no one has done it before because it's not something that should be done.

Flashback

I'm back!

Just because it's free.