Traffic Jam!

Today was a little change of pace for me in the morning. I had to take my daughter to a doctor's appointment so instead of my usual routine of leaving very early in the morning to go to work and also going against traffic, today we left around 8:00 and headed east on the 10 Freeway towards Baldwin Park. Actually this drive should have been against traffic also, but we wound up getting stuck in a traffic jam.

As we crawled along, I observed how wonderfully well put to use the carpool lane was. I would estimate that about once every 5 seconds or so a car would go whizzing past us; considering the number of cars massed up alongside us was in the thousands, this was a pretty slim ratio of carpoolers to unfortunates stuck in the regular lanes. Granted, we were supposed to be headed against traffic so the number of cars would be less, but I also spent some time glancing across the freeway to the westbound, incoming traffic and found that there were not that many cars using the carpool lane on that side, either.

Well, it turned out that there was an accident up ahead. A two-car accident that had happened some time ago because both cars were along the right shoulder, the occupants standing by their vehicles waiting for tow truck to come. This was nothing at all spectacular but yet they managed to bring traffic to a crawl while all the yoyo heads had to stop and see what happened.

So we went to the doctor, luckily we didn't have to stay too long, and then a little bit after 9:00 we began heading back. Now we were westbound on the 10 Freeway. Where the heck did all these cars come from??? Yes I know we were now headed into town and thus the traffic would be heavier than those people going in the opposite direction, but this was after 9:00 - don't these people work???

Now when we were headed toward the doctor, my daughter asked why we didn't get in the carpool lane. Well first of all, I sort of remembered that "carpool" on the 10 Freeway was considered to be 3 or more occupants, and there were just the two of us. Secondly, there was nowhere we could have joined the carpool lane anyway. On the left of us were two sets of double yellow lines which means you are not allowed to cross them. Never ever. So even if there were three of us, we couldn't get in the carpool lane. As we continued driving, I kept looking for signs to confirm the number of occupants in a vehicle that would constitute a carpool, but every sign I saw only indicated the lane was for carpools and that there was a $271 maximum fine for violators. But no sign that actually told you what constitutes a carpool. Finally when we were almost at our destination I saw a sign that said carpools mean 3 or more occupants. So I was correct.

I mentioned above that on the way back we ran into a traffic crunch. Well this time I saw a sign that said that from 5-9 am Monday through Friday a carpool was three or more. But after 9 am a carpool was 2 or more. So, very happy about this, we joined the carpool lane and sped past all the suckers backed up way way back to who knows where. However, as we approached our return destination my daughter asked where we were supposed to exit the carpool lane. There was just an endless set of double yellow lines ahead of us, certainly way past our exit. So I caved in and broke the law, crossing the lines to merge into the common people in the regular lanes, then exited the freeway.

Now let me tell you, whoever designed the carpool system on the 10 Freeway (and the carpool system for Southern California in general) is an idiot. And let me tell you why:

First off, carpools are totally impractical for So Cal. We are sooo spread out around here, that it is not very easy to even find anyone to carpool with, let alone two other people. Yes if you are in New York or Hong Kong, places that have high concentrations of people in a relatively small area, then it makes sense. But in Southern California? At least make the magic number for being a carpool TWO people, not three!

Then I also noticed that a good many of the people using the carpool lane didn't even meet the required number of minimum occupants in a vehicle anyway. Many had only two (as far as I could tell; maybe there are more dwarfs on the freeways than you think), and many had only the driver.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the pair of double yellow lines is unyielding! From beginning to end it seems like there in only one place in between that you can either enter or exit the carpool lane. Pretty much every other carpool lane I've seen has entry/exit points for each freeway exit. But not the 10. Nope. Unless you want to break the law, you have to live at least a certain distance away, and if you are at least that distance, then there is only one place to join the carpool lane unless you get on at the very beginning. Same thing on the way back - if you don't live a far enough distance away, past the only entry/exit point, then never mind, you can't use the carpool lane even if you have 50 people in your vehicle because you can't cross those pair of double yellow lines. Now how stupid is that?? What motivation is there for people who don't live far enough away to use the carpool lane?

Now, on the 10 Freeway there is the carpool lane in both directions, plus a divider area between the carpool and the fast lane that itself is wide enough to be another traffic lane. So that's like two more lanes on each side of the freeway (the carpool and the divider between the carpool and the fast lane). On top of that, you have the median which has tracks for the Metrorail. The Metrorail that every time I look at it, is never close to being filled. So that's another lane or two. Mass transportation in New York, Hong Kong and other densely-populated areas is always crowded, because it is convenient. Our mass transportation is never crowded. So don't you think something is wrong here?

We have a carpool lane whose usage is probably a ratio of 1 per 1,000 or more cars. It effectively takes up two lanes on the freeway. You have to have three people (at least on the 10 Freeway) to make a carpool so that rules a lot of people out. Don't you think something is wrong with this picture? Don't you think it would make more sense to open up those two lanes to everyone? Carpools, at least as they now operate, don't make sense for Southern California! Every city is not the same. We are not New York (for which we should be thankful, although those people in New York are thankful they aren't flaky Californians). It is just an absurd picture that I saw this morning, and what is worse is that it happens Monday through Friday, week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out. And it gets worse.

Just what the heck is our transportation management group thinking??

Maybe We Made a Mistake

If you look at the polls, Arnold's popularity ratings are at an all-time low, most likely due to the avalanche of Arnold-bashing ads that are critical of the ballot measures he has introduced. The enemies of Propositions 75 and 76 are particularly vicious, trying to lift him up to join the ranks of the most hated people in history who are known by one name: Hitler, Saddam, now Arnold. Oh, I forgot Satan.

Now as I recall (no pun intended?), the reason we got rid of our former governor Gray "Gumby" Davis, was because of the mess he made out of our state, particularly the budget. Supposedly we voted in Arnold by a wide margin so he could clean up the mess.

Well, that's what he's been trying to do and because of his efforts now he is labeled a big meany and power monger by the sponsors of the anti-Prop 75 and anti-Pro 76 measures (i.e., the unions).

How do you think we got to be in the fiscal mess we are now? Because all the unions and special-interest groups had their way with Gumby, that's why. He let them ride the gravy train for the years he was in office, piling and piling up the debt and spending like there was no tomorrow. Of course those who were and are on the receiving side of these funds weren't complaining -why should they want to move from Easy Street? Gee, could it be those same beneficiaries of Gumby's lax fiscal spend-more-than-you-take-in policy who are now sponsoring the hate Arnold ads?

You know, Arnold makes perfect sense when he says you shouldn't spend more money than you have. The propositions he is supporting are designed to enable him to keep the campaign promises he made, namely to get our state back into fiscal order. To do this, we have to control the groups who are most responsible for putting it out of whack - the ones who enjoyed the Gumby Gravy Train for so long, the ones who had their way with him and put us deep in the red.

Did anyone really think that it was going to be an easy task? Did they think just because Arnold makes it look easy in his movies, that he accomplishes the impossible on film, that he would work a miracle in office? I bet some people did, and that shows just how moronic our state is. It took a while to get us into this mess and it will take a while, plus some hard measures, to get us out of it. And there won't be any miracles. The only miracle would be if unions suddenly turned honest and unselish, but that's way too much to ask.

Did people vote for Arnold just because he is a movie star? They wanted a glamour guy for the governor? Now that he is actually trying to fix things and it means having to make sacrifices, people are disenchanted. You know, if we turn down the ballot measures that Arnold has proposed, then we might as well have saved us the expense of a recall election and left Gumby in office.

We voted for Arnold because (1) we realized Gumby was not doing his job and (2) we were in a fiscal mess and it needed to be fixed. So now I say let the man do his job. There is no easy way out of this and we all need to cut back. Don't listen to the greedy unions who sponsor the anti-prop ads on tv making it look like our governor hates education and hates public safety. Instead, go to the State of California website and read the measures yourself. Then decide. But don't take the word of these thugs, the selfish unions who want to keep riding their gravy train and keep riding California further down the deficit trail. Read for yourself, compare what you read to the ads, and then see who the real villians are.

Check the Source!

Well, watching tv these days just gets me madder and madder. Soon we'll be heading to the polls here in California to vote on the various ballot initiatives and naturally in the meantime we are being bombarded by ads sponsored by self-interest (selfish interest) groups that have oh-so-carefully amputated the truth about these measures before presenting it to us, the television viewers.

In particular, the anti-Proposition 75 and 76 ads have me fuming. I confess I really haven't had a chance to investigate Prop 78 and 79 which are also getting lots of airtime so I have no comment on those. Yet. But as for Prop 75 (see yesterday's posting) and 76, all I can say is the folks sponsoring the "no" ads ought to be ashamed of themselves for being outright liars.

I will write more about 76 as well as all the other propositions in the upcoming days but for now I just would like to say that the best and really only dependable way to learn about each and every proposition is to go to the source. In this case, that would be the official initiative website that belongs to the State of California. There you can read the actual initiatives as well as the arguments for and against each one, without listening to a bunch of subjective and selfish cretins telling you all sorts of lies in an effort to play on your emotions and get you on their side. By reading the actual intitiatives, you will see just how big the lies are in the "no" campaigns, which ought to tell you something about the integrity (or complete absence thereof) of the people sponsoring them.

Of course the sponsors know that most people are too darn lazy to take the time to go to the source and actually have to spend more than 30 seconds trying to digest the meaning of everything so they call your bluff in the ads. Well it is time to call their bluff and actually prove them wrong by going to the source to see for yourselves. You read it, and then see what seems to make the most sense.

There's a passage from the Bible that I feel applies here:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelations 22:18-19)

The Apostle John was basically saying that the words he set forth in the Book of Revelations were a true account of what had been shown him by God, and that anyone who tried to alter these words would incur God's wrath. Now, whether or not you are a believer, the point of this is that there is a source and one shouldn't try to alter that source. But if you compare what those anti-Prop 75 and 76 ads are telling you versus what the actual intitiative says, you will find little resemblance between them. I do have to give them credit for at least getting the numbers of the propositions correct, however.

Proposition 75 - It's a GOOD Thing!

If you've read some of my previous posts, it is no secret that I support Arnold Schwarzenegger for reelection in 2006 even if I am always not sure if I am spelling his name properly. At least when I say 'Arnold,' everyone knows who I am talking about. And it is no secret that I loathe unions, especially the ones sponsoring those dishonest, chicken anti-Arnold commercials polluting our television airwaves at the present time.

Once again the various parties against Prop 75 are at it, trying to villify Arnold. They show firemen and policemen telling you how Arnold is trying to take even more of their rights to speak up away from them (as if somehow he has already done some taking away). They make it sound like the Terminator is trying to put a pillow over them.

Everyone ought to find out for his or herself exactly what Prop 75 is about, rather than listening to these self-interested union-backed misinformed people on the television. You can find out about it by clicking here. This is the State of California's website containing the actual proposition along with the arguments for and against, same as you will be seeing on the upcoming ballot.

Basically, at this time members of a public employees union can opt out of having their dues used for political contributions. This means that one has to be proactive if they don't want to have their dues used in this manner. Prop 75 changes that by requiring that employees must opt in and be proactive if they do want to have their dues used for political contributions. Without their explicit consent, the union administrators and leaders would not be able to use those dues for political contributions.

Detractors of this proposition say that Arnold is trying to make it more difficult for democrats. After all, the majority of union members are democrats and unions generally support the democratic candidates and more liberal propositions on the ballots. So by supposedly limiting the ability of unions to make political contributions, this hurts the democrats more than the republicans. Since Arnold is a republican, the critics say he is trying to influence elections against democrats.

Now I can understand these arguments, but I don't agree. First of all, there is nothing whatsoever that says anyone's right to speak up is going to be taken away or diminished by this proposition. Yes, if you do not actively indicate you want your union dues to be used for political contributions, then indirectly that does prevent you from being heard, assuming your views coincide with whatever your union is trying to promote. But all you have to do is give your consent. Is that so hard? We see all these media pictures of union rallies with the members all gung ho looking like they just burst out of the tunnel into the 2nd half of a USC football game, ready to take on the world. So is it just that difficult for them to fill out a form giving their consent to use their dues? Or aren't they literate enough to understand the printed word?

Given the way unions usually work, if Prop 75 should pass I am sure that union management will be out in force persuading (to put it lightly) their members to sign the election form. I am sure there will be no trouble whatsoever obtaining a form if any member so desires it; he or she will probably receive tons of them in the mail along with reminders left and right if they fail to submit it on the first pass.

So what's the problem with that? You know that most people are prone to favor inaction rather than action even if it means they are getting their 2nd choice in something. That's why people who are trying to win favor for something prefer to use a silence implies consent approach rather than an active consent approach because they know a whole bunch of people aren't going to respond even if they either don't care one way or another, or are opposed to the measure.

Take a look at all those privacy disclosure statements you get in the mail from your credit card companies, banks and other institutions. They tell you, after reading all this fine print that some slimy lawyer put together, that if you wish to opt out of whatever list they want to put you on to invade your privacy, you must actively notify them that you want to opt out. Well, don't you get sick and tired of receiving so many of these things and having to go to the trouble of opting out on each one? I know I sure do. I am sure many people don't even bother to read this junk and just put it in the round file instead, thinking it is just another advertisement for a Simpsons commemorative plate, or a bunch of credit card vouchers you can use just like checks and be charged 22% interest from day one if you are stupid enough to use them.

Would it not be easier and more legitimate if you actively had to opt in to allow other companies to invade your privacy and send you trash because your credit card company or bank gave them a mailing list with your name and address on it? In other words, if you didn't want to put up with this annoyance, then you just wouldn't respond. Of course it would be easier and most people are fed up with junk mail and would prefer not to get any more. But nooooo, all these companies who want your business know that if you actually had to opt in to give permission to have your name distributed on a mailing list, that list would be significantly smaller than the list obtained by making you actively opt out of such a list.

So naturally unions would prefer that members have to opt out of allowing them to make political contributions, rather than having members opt in. It is so much easier for the unions.

But let's think about this. Maybe what the union wants politics-wise is what you want. So fine, you don't mind having your dues used by them for political purposes. But let's say you don't agree with them. Or, you don't like how much they use of your dues, so much that after the political contribution portion is taken out, there isn't enough (in your opinion) for things that you feel the union ought to be doing to support you. Instead, the union is using your money for their self interests.

So what is wrong with saying that before the union can do anything like this, they have to have your written permission?? Nothing, that's what!

And that really is all Prop 75 is about. Read it yourself and see. Now if the shoe were on the other foot and the republicans stood to lose out, how would I feel? Well, I wouldn't like it but I also could not argue that it was unfair. I'd have to admit that it made sense. That doesn't mean I would necessarily vote for it but I also could not say in good conscience that such a proposition was attempting to prevent me from speaking up. That's a bald faced lie. I really don't feel anyone with any integrity could appear on those anti-Prop 75 commercials and say what they are saying.

Finally, take a look at the arguments for and against Prop 75 that appear on the State's website. Look who is for and look who is against. The people against are union members, ones who, in my opinion, are as greedy and selfish as they come. The ones who want to take and take and dip into your tax dollars rather than understand that we all have to cut back because of the sorry State of California's sorry state of finances. And they are afraid that voters are going to come to their senses and eliminate the gravy train they've enjoyed all these years.

Also take a look at who wrote the rebuttal to the argument against Prop 75- you've got three union members. Rather than take the greed path, they are taking the path of trying to make California a better state for everyone and promote accountability, rather than the union way of making a better state for unions and a better state for unions and (so on and so on).

Like I said, read Prop 75 yourself, then listen to those misleading and downright mendacious ads put on by the unions against Prop 75, and then you decide for yourself who is really trying to prevent union members from speaking their mind.

It Ain't No Yellow Brick Road!

Continuing with my rant against tonight's episode of 60 Minutes, I have to get on the MonkuBox to express my displeasure at their piece on Iraq. They interviewed several Iraqis who said while they don't like Saddam Hussein, they thought life was better under his rule than having the United States occupying their country.

At this point in time, I sure wouldn't want to be living in Iraq. There's chaos in many places and its a dangerous place to live. Trying to patch up this country after the war has been a much more difficult task than was originally anticipated.

But does that mean things are always going to be worse there? Assuming we had never invaded Iraq then control of the country would have been given to Saddam's two sons when he left office. Sons who sound like they were even more vile and sadistic than their father. I doubt if Iraqi life would have improved under their reign.

Our office recently installed a new phone system. We had had the old one for 13 years and frankly, it was just too old. The voice mail didn't work right and since it was so old there was also a lack of support available when malfunctions occurred. So we purchased a new system, one with more features, support and on top of that it was cheaper to use. This new system was and is still not without bugs, however, that need to be ironed out.

What was the reaction to the new phone system? Some people absolutely hated it, decrying the new and fondly remembering the old. They hated this thing or they hated that thing, and this didn't work right and that didn't work right. Some even complained because the function buttons (such as the button to push to transfer someone or put someone on hold) was in a different place than on the old phones. Well, I am happy to say that almost all of the bugs have been ironed out and of the remaining ones, none are serious. Meanwhile, snide comments continue to be made each day about how this new system is so much worse than the old.

I remember 13 years ago when we got a new phone system, the one that some people now remember so fondly and wish it would make a return. These same people hated that new system and longed for the old one. Personally I thought the old one was horrible. I think what the critics really missed was the comfort of having the old system - the familiarity of it. The ease of not having to learn something new.

Well if you ask me, that's just what we have in Iraq. A lot of people have embraced the change but a lot of people haven't. In the long term, do you think the Iraqi people are going to be better off without the murderous Saddam and his sons? You bet, but again, this is long term. In the short term there is going to be a lot of suffering. It's unavoidable. You can't make a change this big without having major bugs no matter how well planned or executed the invasion was. The phone system had its bugs and some people went nuts over that; how does a little phone system compare to a whole country?? You've got to look at this in the long run, something apparently lost on the 60 Minutes crew. They lack a long term vision with the Silver Ring Thing (see the previous post) and they lack a long term vision with Iraq. All they could show on their segment tonight were unhappy Iraqis complaining about today's problems. And indeed there are problems - waiting in line for seven hours to get gasoline is a severe problem and they are to be commended for not rioting (which is better than you could expect for Los Angeles if anyone had to wait even half that long for gas). Plus every day they have to worry about insurgent terrorism. There is a high price to pay for major change but in the long run they will be better off.

America paid a high price to maintain freedom during World War II. If 60 Minutes were a radio show back then they probably would have had a segment dealing with how silly it was to fear Hitler and how we shouldn't sacrifice our people for some cause way overseas that didn't concern us.

A long time ago, Moses led the Jewish people out of slavery in Egypt. It was the beginning of their trek to the promised land, the land of milk and honey. With the power of God with him, Moses parted the Red Sea and led the slaves to freedom. He was their hero.

Disillusionment soon set in, however. The Israelites got tired of wandering around in the desert and got tired of eating the same old thing day in and day out. They started to whine and complain, and wish they were back in Egypt, land of the familiar and comfortable. Never mind that they were treated cruelly by Pharaoh and that they hated being in captivity; all of a sudden when faced with the hard life in the desert the old life in Egypt didn't look so bad. Never mind that Moses was leading them to the promised land. Had the 60 Minutes crew been there, they would have shown just how unhappy the Jewish people were, and how Moses had made a serious, serious mistake. Maybe they would even have shown how God Himself really blew it this time. Of course things didn't look very good for the Israelites in the desert - it was, no doubt, a rough life. But we can see where they were and we can see where they were going. And it was from a harsh life to a better life.

No matter what, there are always those who will resist change. Or those who will intially jump on the bandwagon and embrace change but when things get a little tough they will start pointing fingers and talk about what a mistake this was. But I say look to the long term - keep that vision and work toward it. Otherwise things are never going to improve.

That Silver Ring Thing

So what are these kids doing in the above picture? They're wearing their silver rings. Before watching 60 Minutes tonight, I had never heard of this organization, but thanks to their unfavorable portrayal of this group, I am now aware and I'm disgusted with yet another piece of CBS News' slanted journalism.

What is Silver Ring Thing? It's a program that uses sketch comedy and music videos to promote sexual abstinence before marriage. The silver ring, which you can see being worn by the kids in the above picture, is a symbol of making a commitment to abstain from sex until marriage. Besides encouraging kids to abstain from sex, it also discourages them from using condoms, saying that they are not as effective as the manufacturers and other proponents would lead you to believe.

So what did Ed Bradley think of this? It was apparent he took a dim view. He kept trying to press the point that yes, abstinence was the best policy but if that didn't work and a person decided he or she was going to have sex anyway, then at least they should be prepared by using protection such as a condom. The founder of SRT, Danny Pattyn, disagreed. While condoms may work in the short term, he felt in the long term they were ineffective.

Ed also brought a fancy-schmansy so-called expert from Columbia University to point out how wrong Danny's attitude was. The stance they took was that while admirable, a high proportion of the kids who took the abstinence vow would break it after an average of 18 months and if they then decided not to use a condom, they were exposing themselves to the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy. In addition, while these kids who had made a vow to abstain may not technically have intercourse, it was pointed out that they may engage in other forms of sexual activity such as oral sex, etc., which exposed them to the dangers of disease.

Ed asked Danny, wouldn't it be better if you told your kid that you didn't want them to have sex but if they did, then at least give them a condom to protect themselves? Danny said no, aside from the fact that condoms were ineffective, that would be sending a mixed message to the kid.

No, said the expert from Columbia U. That is not sending a mixed message; it is telling your kid you love them and you are trying to protect them.

Well, time to get on the Monkubox. Let's see... telling your kid NOT to have sex but IF you do have sex, then make sure to use a condom. That's NOT a mixed message??? That's like telling your kid that you want them to study and get good grades in high school so that they can get into a good college, but IF they goof off and get lousy grades, then at least you will pay for their education anyway. Or telling them NOT to go out and get drunk but IF they do, at least sleep over a friends house instead of driving home. That doesn't send a mixed message? If I were a kid I'd take the low road because the low road would be more appealing to me and what the heck, there's no consequences for taking the low road anyway because I still arrive at the same place! Well on second thought I guess there really isn't a mixed message because you aren't giving your kid ambivalent feelings about it, you are implcitly winking your eye at the behavior you are saying with your mouth is not acceptable.

I don't think Ed Bradley or the Columbia expert really got the point of what Danny Pattyn was trying to say. He wasn't saying that condoms don't work in a literal sense. When used properly they are effective. What he was saying was that telling kids to use condoms is not going to solve the problem we have that arise from teens and pre-teens having premarital sex. Excuse the bad stab at humor but using condoms is just a band-aid approach to things.

This is just another example of trying to take responsibility away from the person who is doing the action. Let's just go for the quick fix -use the condom or whatever form of protection instead of getting to the root of the matter because people are going to have sex anyway.

Well, people are going to get drunk anyway, take drugs anyway, beat their spouse anyway, etc., so does that mean we shouldn't try to eliminate such things?

It is not an easy thing to abstain from sex because it is so pleasurable. Things that are pleasurable are hard to avoid doing in excess - eating, alcohol, etc. So you have to work extra hard at it. Quick fixes may work in the short term but in the long term they don't. Take a look at diets - people go on one diet after another, looking for the quick fix in place of the real answer of eating less and exercising more. Some of these diets work - for a while- but then the dieter finds himself or herself back where he or she started.

Premarital sex is also hard to control because unlike violence or overeating, the media very rarely shows any negative consequences of having sex. Look at the popularity of Desparate Housewives. Sex before or outside of marriage goes on all the time in tv and movieland and nothing negative really comes of it. Violence usually winds up with the offender paying some sort of price; fat people are made to look unattractive so the pressure is on people not to look like that. So trying to stop kids from having premarital sex is an uphill battle. It's not easy, and to take the cop-out way of saying, oh, please don't but if you do, (wink wink), then please use a condom because I love you - that's not going to help in the long run. And it sends the wrong message! If you really love your kids then you will explain to them the consequences of having premarital sex and let them know in no uncertain terms that it is NOT a good thing to do so and it is imperative that they don't give in to their urges. Then you have to let them take responsibility for their actions. To say all that and then say, but if you are gonna do it anyway then take this package of condoms is hypocritical.

You know, we all make mistakes in our lives. No matter what we do, there are always going to be those people who have premarital sex, who take drugs, who do whatever it is that they are not supposed to do. But if they aren't made to take responsibility for their actions and suffer some consequences, then they are never going to stop. If we give them quick fixes for everything, they'll just figure life is a succession of quick fixes and there's no need to be responsible in the first place.

I'm on the side of the Silver Ring Thing. I'm thinking long term solutions here that put the ball in the individual's court, not short term quick-fixes that give the wrong meaning to everything. I hope they can keep the ball rolling and get more commitments to wear these rings.

Didn't Your Mama Never Learn You No Manners?

I read an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday entitled, China Changes Coarse. The subheading of the article that appeared on the front page said:

The government has set itself a monumental task ahead of the 2008 Olympics: teaching the nation's 1 billion people how to be polite.

Among the behaviors officials hope to eliminate or at least mimimize, according to the article, are: public spitting and urinating, driving that evokes a "Road Warrior" set, and an inordinate fondness for cutting in line.

My wife and I had the good fortune (and I am not being sarcastic) to visit Beijing back in June of this year. Honestly, I was expecting a lot of rude, pushy behavior so I figured I ought to prepare in advance by increasing the frequency of my visits to Costco on weekends and hang around the food samples or checkout lines. What we found at the real thing, however, was much more pleasant. Now I have to qualify all of this by saying we were part of a major company tour and got the red carpet treatment during the organized activities, plus we stayed in a good part of town. So we did not really see any "underside" although we did spend some time on our own walking around plus we encountered natives during our tour activities. And from my observations, I see much more rude behavior by customers at Costco and on our freeways and streets than I did during our one week in Beijing.

The staff that helped us at our hotel, plus the wait staff at the restaurants we went to and the stores all seemed sincerely helpful. And there were so many of them, too. China has a tremendous population and there is no shortage of people to fill the labor pool. Maybe it is the competition for jobs or maybe it is the result of the training efforts that are underway but we were treated very nicely no matter where we went. I noticed a refreshing lack of "attitude" among those who helped us. We also, thankfully, did not see any instances of urinating in public but we did see some spitting. Heck, I see people spitting over here; it's no different.

One thing that really stood out to me was that traffic in Beijing is crazy. There are motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians going every which way at all hours of the day and night. As far as I can tell, it is a laissez-faire system in which the largest object on the road has the right of way. Those idiots over here who think it is their right to take their time strolling across the street and holding up traffic wouldn't last very long over there -it's every man, woman and child for themselves when it comes to navigating the roads or crossing the streets. You see bicycles weaving in and out of cars, and pedestrians standing on the white line lane dividers in the middle of the street while cars and bikes whiz past them on both sides. On first glance it is chaos.

But, it seems to work. People get where they are intending to go and they just fill in the gaps and keep moving. I was impressed by the efficiency. That's not to say there aren't traffic jams because there are; the number of vehicles is too large for the amount of roadway in many places. One thing I also noticed was that I saw very, very few cars with any dents in them. You also do not see any road-hogging SUV's. There are buses and some vans for public and tour transportation but the majority of locals use small vehicles and bicycles. Everyone just goes. Like I said, it seems to proceed in an efficient, matter-of-fact manner.

I didn't see any line-cutting, either. So what is this Times article talking about? Well, like I said, we were in a nice, touristy part of town and didn't see the underbelly. As we rode in our tour buses, we could see plenty of broken-down houses and poor neighborhoods, and families sitting outside their houses and stores with their little kids running around naked or taking a bath in a little sidewalk tub. I guess that would be cause for some people to turn up their nose at those "disgusting natives" but it really didn't seem that shocking or horrible to me.

Maybe the people where we were had been trained well in order to get tourist business. That's fine, it has to start somewhere. At least there is evidence that the training works. Maybe someone ought to start doing that over here because there's plenty of businesses that could take a lesson from the help and wait staffs we encountered in Beijing.

Coming back to the USA: One place I'd like to commend for making an effort to improve their customer service is Mervyn's. Every time you buy something your receipt has a web address and a customer code/password to allow you to complete a brief survey about your experience at the store that day. I think they are taking this seriously because I've noticed that the cashiers really make an effort to smile, and be courteous and polite. That's not to say Mervyn's has a monopoly on this as other places have good service, too. But there are also too many places that don't have good service. It's a matter of training and weeding out the people who don't know how to take care of a customer. So what they are attempting to do in China is a good idea no matter where you are; China by no means is the only place that needs to learn manners!

By the way, another thing we noticed was that there were very few overweight people in China. The biggest examples of rudeness, and the worst examples of obesity were among the tourists. The Saturday after we returned, I made a shopping excursion to Costco. In the checkout line I took a look around to compare outlines of people here versus China. The majority of people in line were huge compared to the Chinese people in terms of belly overhang. With so many people in China riding bikes and walking, it keeps them in shape. As cars become increasingly prevalent I can see the population becoming heavier. The end result can be seen in our country by walking around your neighborhood warehouse store or mall, or attending your neighborhood sporting event.

(note: the picture of the polite sign was taken at the Forbidden City)

Easy Like Saturday Morning

The lyrics to the Commodore's song really are "..easy like Sunday morning," but today is Saturday. This morning I took a look at one of the websites on my normal daily tour, Chowhound.com, and read a post about the Mexican food goodies one of the hounds found in El Monte.

I'm a sucker for good salsa and chips so after reading how "bags of the best chips and salsa anyplace" were to be found at Los Toros Meat Market, and having a free morning on my hands, I just had to get in my car and drive a little ways to see if this claim had any validity.

The place was easy enough to find. It's just a little market. Inside I went, straight back to the meat counter and looked for the chips and salsa that the poster had raved about. There they were so I munched on a sample. The man at the counter told me this was the "medium" version and it seemed pretty hot to me so I asked for a tub of the mild. This, along with a plastic bag full of chips (which you see here) was taken to the checkout stand where a boy who must have been about 11 or 12 years old energetically rang up my order: $1.99 for each item.

I brought the goodies home and tried them out. Indeed these were good chips: crunchy, a nice golden brown color, very good texture and not greasy. They were of just the right thickness, too. Not that sickly Doritos thickness or texture, nor too thick that you had to overfry them to get them to be crunchy. I'd say there was about a pound or more in the bag, plus they were nice and warm. Obviously freshly made!

Okay, now on to the salsa. Of course I had to try the chips in a pristine condition before possibly having my tastebuds knocked senseless by the salsa. The chips got the thumbs up. As for the salsa, there was lots of stuff going on there. As you can see by the pictures, it was not shy on ingredients and it was a decently thick concoction.

I scooped some up in a chip and put it in my mouth. I am not sure but I think the guy gave me the medium version because unlike what the Chowhound poster said about the mild version being, well, mild, this definitely had a kick to it. My mouth wasn't on fire but it did give me a craving for water to cool off.

Tastewise, smoky, roasted pepper was what I noticed first, with the tomato being secondary. Then the heat kicked in. The flavors were nicely concentrated and the salsa itself had a nice chunkiness to it.

Were these the best chips and salsa anywhere? I've had chips and salsa like this before at a few restaurants and on those occassions have always given them the thumbs up for being a cut above the rest of the crowd. These are comparable, certainly the best I've ever gotten from a store. So I feel good about putting my Saturday morning to good use. Meanwhile, the rest of the bag of chips and tub of salsa are waiting for me and there's plenty to enjoy for the rest of the weekend and more.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Our office had a deadbeat school for a customer. They never paid their bills anywhere near on time and worse, when called about their delinquencies they would tell us all sorts of lies about the invoice being processed and payment would be sent soon, or else the payment had been sent, blah blah blah. But no matter what, it was worse than pulling teeth in Marathon Man or Oldboy trying to collect from them. Yet because it was a school we tried to be nice to them and allow them to still make credit purchases.

One day we put our foot down, however. Here they were trying to order more things and yet their account hadn't changed - the bills still hadn't been paid. So no payment, no further sales. Despite pleading and begging and lying and whatever else they could conjure up, this was just too much. Finally they saved the knockout punch for last and laid it on us: We were hurting their kids. How could we do that to those innocent kids at that school?

Excuse me, but WE are hurting your kids? Because YOU don't pay your bills and YOU lie to us, WE are hurting your kids by refusing to be hoodwinked again? By refusing to subsidize you because YOU can't manage your money? It was amazing how they tried to lay that guilt trip on us, claiming that we were hurting the kids at the school because we were doing what any sensible company or person would have done.

Yes, I realize money was tight within the school district. But money was tight everywhere. Everyone in the school district had to chip in and make cutbacks but yet almost all of our other customers within the district somehow found the funds to pay the bills we sent them. What really got me, though, was how they tried to accuse us of hurting the kids, and also the horrible example they set for their students the way they lied to us about paying their bills. Is that the sort of irresponsible adult they wanted to develop?

Gee, why does that remind me of those ads on television sponsored by the teachers unions that try to portray Governor Schwarzenegger as doing great harm to the school children in our state? Could it be that same attempt to lay a guilt trip by bringing the children into it? Could it be the lying in both circumstances? Trying to blame Arnold for their own irresponsibility when it comes to managing their finances?

As most people know, the state of California is in a fiscal mess. We can thank former governor Gumby D for that, spending left and right as if there was no tomorrow. Well in his case I guess there was no tomorrow, but anyway, we inherited a big deficit from him. During the time he was in office he let it get worse and worse so obviously it isn't something that can be fixed overnight. And because it is such a tremendous deficit, all of us in the state are going to have to cut back and suffer in some way to pay for it. That includes teachers. Somehow the teachers unions think that just because they teach kids they are exempt from having to cut back on anything.

I agree that educating our children is important and we can't ignore this. But take a look at where a lot of the funds for "education" go: they help those fat administrators redecorate their offices every year, pay the salaries of their chauffeurs, pay for all the useless things they waste while kids go without books. It pays for the fancy lunches they eat while our kids get nice and fat eating the slop served in the cafeteria that has plenty of fat and salt in it. We're all in this mess together and we all have to cut back because there simply isn't enough money to go around. Education is important, yes, but there are other things that are important also. Besides like I said, I am sure that the funds supposedly going to "education" could be used in a much more efficient way.

So when you see those terribly misleading ads sponsored by the teachers unions (and any union for that matter) that slam our governor, just remember the greed and self-interest that lies behind them. Remember that they love to use kids as the symbol to turn you into Pavlov's dogs by ringing your soft spots. And also remember these are put on by vicious political types who want your money first and foremost and then maybe with whatever is left they'll use it for what you thought it was going to be used for in the first place.

Today Arnold announced he is running for reelection in 2006 and I am happy. He has my support. I just wish he would take a stronger stand against these greedy selfish groups, but I guess he is learning just how dirty politics is.

You Are What You Eat

Today on the radio as I drove home, I was listening to a discussion about the great state of California acting to remove vending machines from schools. Why? Because the vending machines vend stuff that makes kids fatter, and we already are faced with a severe and worsening obesity problem among schoolchildren in our state.

So we think by eliminating the vending machines we are going to help prevent our kids from gaining too much weight?

I listened as one man spoke about how the problem is not so much overeating as it is a reduction of exercise activity among kids these days. If you are less active you are going to burn less calories. I listened as a representative from a vending machine company said that when they attempt to place "healthy" foods in their vending machines, these items are unpopular. I also listened to points being made about how even though the vending machines may be eliminated, kids can still buy unhealthy and fattening things after school.

Later I asked my daughter, who is a senior in high school, what sort of things were in the vending machines at her school. She told me fattening things, like candy bars and chips. Then I asked her how the "fattening" things in the vending machines compared to what was sold in the cafeteria. She said the cafeteria food seems to be just as fattening and unhealthy (besides tasting bad) as what's in the vending machines. For example, the pizza comes with pools of fat collecting on top, as do many of the other dishes. If you put a napkin or paper towel on one end of the pizza, soon the entire napkin is soaked in grease. They also sell this "taco snack" that is a calorie bomb. She couldn't remember how many calories were in it but there were a lot, something close to 1,000. I asked what exactly a "taco snack" was, and also how she knew the calorie count thereof. Well, the nutritional information comes on the wrapper and this item is a big burrito-like thing full of greasy ground beef and other stuff.

So I ask you, what difference does it make if you remove vending machines from schools when the stuff they sell in the cafeteria is equally bad for you?

I also asked my daughter how many physical education (PE) classes are required. The answer: you have to have 2 years of PE to graduate. Being a 4-year high school, that means that half the time you don't even have to exercise. As for what is done in a normal PE class, she says most of the time the teacher just hands out a bunch of balls and tells people to go play something. Then maybe once a month everyone has to run a mile, after which they all return huffing and puffing.

Regarding exercise, she says most of her friends have little or no regard for it. They do not see any importance in such things because they are too busy trying to get good grades, and exercising just takes time away from that pursuit.

My son is starting his third year in college, at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. I'm thankful for the education and experience he is getting there, including the requirement that the midshipmen must stay in good physical condition in order to remain at the academy. I remember asking him during the summer if he thought his friends had changed much since high school. I meant this in terms of character or personality but he took it a different way. Yeah, he said, a lot of them are getting fat. Why? I remember most of them were thin as a rail when they were in high school because most of them were on the cross country team. But now they don't exercise and now they are getting fat.

So whose "fault" is that? The vending machines? Mc Donalds? The mayor of New Orleans?

Then my daughter asked, Don't those people (referring to the politicians who make these kinds of rules like getting rid of vending machines) have anything better to do? Do they just pick something because they need to find something to do? I told her I guess some people just think they have to run people's lives. She also said that with all the emphasis these days that are placed on good grades, people don't have the time or the inclination to exercise. If they do, it just puts them further behind in their studies. She thought that was stupid and I agree.

When I was growing up, I had time to go out and play. Plus, we always had PE time in school and once I got to junior and senior high, PE was required each semester. It was NOT an option. And we used to enjoy it - that is except for when we got stuck playing tetherball. But the point is, we were given the time to run around and burn off some calories. Whoever planned our curriculum felt that physical activity was important, just as mental activity was. These days, instead of giving physical activity its due place, we instead get rid of vending machines. What's next? Closing down the 7-11 store? I can just imagine those greedy slimebag attorneys who bring suits against fast food chains for making their slimeball clients obese will now go after the vending machine and convenience store companies saying that they knowingly (oh how shocking) sell products that contain unhealthy and highly caloric ingredients!

People, when is our stupid society going to get its priorities straight and take responsibility for its own actions??? If you are fat, then do something about it! Don't go trying to take away the vending machines or other food sources because if someone is hungry then they're gonna eat anyway. Instead, why don't you educate people as to what constitutes a healthy diet? Why don't you educate people as to the benefits of exercise? Why don't you stop putting such a high premium on getting good grades and studying 24/7 to the exclusion of all other things in life? Give some PE teachers back their jobs! I am fed up with these bureaucrats who try to hold everyone's hand and encourage people to stop being responsible for their own actions but instead try to place the blame everywhere but where it really belongs.

The recent disaster relief failures in New Orleans were just another example of the way our society loves to point fingers and find scapegoats rather than taking responsibility. This mess about removing vending machines from the schools is one more for the pile. We are just not focusing on the root of the problem. Trying to spoon-feed people is not going to work; it is not going to develop the type of self-sufficient, responsible people we need to make a decent society.

You know, there are all sorts of reasons and excuses for being obese (or substitute any condition you want in here). People say they overeat when they are unhappy, or they had a bad childhood, or whatever. Well I can understand what they say. But if you choose to engage in behavior that is unhealthy for you when you know you shouldn't, then it is your responsibility to do something about it. Yes, we should provide help and support but ultimately the responsibility has to rest on the one who needs to improve. Kids aren't stupid. These vending machines are in high schools, not in nursery schools. They know what food is good and what food isn't good for them so why do we feel we have to legislate things down to such a fine point? We are creating a people who will be increasingly dependent on lawyers and legal this and that in he future, who can't act unless they know something has been legislated. How sad. Can't we do any better?

Stupid Is as Stupid Does - Encore

Well some of you may have read my earlier entry entitled Stupid Is as Stupid Does and I am just overflowing with dumb things I've done in my life so this is a continuation of that blog.

By the way, I received a nice comment about that entry, which I have reprinted here:

We read about the stupid things you did and may we say that if those are the most stupid things you've ever done in your life, consider yourself truly lucky. We've done way more moronic things than that - for example, before coming into office each of us had our brains amputated. Yet here we are, still making policy for the great state of California. I guess we're proud to say we were elected by our peers. So, Monkeyboy, you just hang in there because as we are the living example, things could indeed be worse. And by the way, if you're planning on doing more stupid things in the future we'd like to help fund it by directing some tax money your way. Sincerely, and thanks in advance for your vote, The Democrats of the California State Assembly.

So, energized by the encouragement I received, I now present to you more stupid things I've done in my life:

Moving from the first entry's elementary school setting to junior high, I sat in back of Eva Q. in Miss Hutton's history class. Eva was very nice, bright, personable and also plump. We used to chat a lot when the teacher wasn't paying attention. Well one day curiousity got the better of me and I asked her how much she weighed. I was genuinely curious and honesly had no ill intentions. She was taken aback by this question but politely demurred saying something like how she couldn't tell me something like that. I was persistent, though, and kept saying I wasn't going to tell anyone (which I wasn't) and just let me know because I was wondering about how much she weighed so just tell me real quick and I'll stop asking. Eva kept smiling but kept refusing, too, and finally we had to stop our conversation and I never did find out. At the time I really saw nothing wrong with asking a pointed, nosy and impolite question like that. So Eva if by some infinitesimal chance you should ever read this, I offer my humblest apologies for being an idiot that day.

Now moving farther back to the days before elementary school, I can remember one time when I told my older sister that I had trouble falling asleep at night. Of course being one who hated bedtime, it wasn't surprising that I didn't want to sleep, yet when there was really nothing to do once the lights were out I figured I might as well sleep. Except it took me a while to do it and the more you think about it the more you stay awake.

My sister had the solution, though. All you have to do, she told me, is hold onto my big toe and you'll fall asleep. Absurdity aside, had I been critically thinking about her statement I would have
pointed out that this remedy would be of little use at night since we had different bedrooms. Instead, I was happy because this was such an easy fix, even though it did involve holding her stinky toe for a while. I asked how long I would have to hold it. Not very long, just a little while. That's all I have to do? Just hold the toe and nothing else? She assured me it was that simple.

I couldn't believe that this was all I had to do, and here I had spent all those previous nights tossing and turning and waiting to fall asleep. You want to try it out now? she asked. I nodded. So I grabbed onto her big toe and sat there and waited. Maybe I wasn't doing it right because I didn't feel the least bit sleepy but she encouraged me to hold on because soon I would fall asleep. So there I sat until finally my sister couldn't keep a straight face. Honestly, I don't remember if I was more mad that she had made a fool of me and had me holding her big stinky toe for so long, or more disappointed that there really existed no quick fix to fall asleep. I really wanted to believe it even though it made no sense and if I had any money on me I probably would have given it to her in exchange for the secret.

As I look back on that now, I see that sometimes adults aren't any different.

Here's the last thing, for this entry anyway. Our kitchen wall had two little holes in it. I figured out that God and Santa Claus were behind the wall watching me to see if I was being a good boy. Pretty clever, huh? That's why I never had nerve enough to go up to those holes and look inside. Now I did have enough sense to think about physically what was behind that wall. The answer was, a bedroom closet. So God and Santa Claus must be sitting inside my bedroom closet, watching me as I go past. A few times I even sneaked to the door and opened it up quickly to see if I could catch them but either they were too quick or they were invisible. Or maybe there was still some secret area between the closet and the kitchen wall on the other side that I couldn't see.

So whenever I was in the kitchen I would make it a point to be on my best behavior. I would stand up straight and hold my head up, accumulating brownie points by demonstrating that I was being a very good boy. See God? See Santa? I am being good. I am behaving myself. That way God wouldn't punish me and Santa would bring me good presents. I imagined them conversing with each other, exchanging positive opinions about that little boy being so good.

So was I stupid or what? Of course, I got wise and now know that God and Santa ride around in police cars.

Survival of the Fattest

Our office recently conducted a course on the subject of harassment and discrimination in the workplace, consisting of definitions thereof along with examples of offending behavior and how to deal with it.

There was an accompanying video that illustrated various situations that any reasonable and decent person would perceive as obvious incidents of harassment and discrimination.

Believe me, I am all for showing respect for one another not only at work but in all areas of our lives. But this course got me to thinking about the odd one out in the workplace, the person that everyone knows is high maintenance, the one that everyone just loves to gossip about because each day they manage to outdo themselves. The person that, simply said, everyone has to 'put up with.'

Now I'm not talking about people who are ostracized because of their race or creed or anything like that, I'm talking about people who are ostracized because of the dysfunctional way they behave and in essence, bring misfortune upon themselves. But yet you have to step lightly around them because of all the labor laws that exist these days along with our society's obsession with tolerance and political correctness. Yes, we should be nice to people as much as we possibly can but when they become a black hole that absorbs all of our tolerance and they take no responsibility for their own actions or make no effort to improve themselves, what are we to do?

With the current emphasis on tolerance, what we are really doing is catering to the lowest common denominator. Rather than aspiring to achieve, we aspire to accomodate and sometimes that just leads us towards mediocrity. Personally I think unions are a grand example of this. I find it outrageous that Arnold's (our governator, in case you don't know to whom I am referring) initiative to make teachers more accountable by instituting merit-based pay increases was so soundly criticized by the teacher's union and they've resorted to running anti-Arnold ads full of lies, trying to make him sound like the next Hitler. Some man or woman shows their face on television and complains about Arnold trying to blame him or her for things - well, if the shoe fits, you wear it. If you are a member of a union that encourages mediocrity then you are indeed to blame because you are part of the problem. What is wrong with using a merit-based system to reward those who do and deny those who don't? Part of the argument against it is that the means of evaluation are flawed. Well, I agree that this may be true in some cases but the correct answer is to fix those flaws, not get rid of merit-based pay. The odd ones out who can't teach are doing a disservice to our children and wasting our tax money. Why cater to the lowest common denominator?

There's an episode of King of the Hill in which the little boy in the show, Bobby, decides to quit football and instead play soccer because on the soccer team, 'everyone wins.' Games are played but no score is kept because the important thing is to make every kid feel good about themselves no matter what. I do agree that people get carried away in sports and I find professional (and collegiate, although sometimes there is a blurring of distinction between the two) sports to be too fanatical. But there are always going to be winners and losers in life and the positive evolution of our society depends on 'winners' who are motivated to achieve the best in whatever field of interest they happen to pursue. If all of us are instead raised on an 'everything is cool, everyone is a winner' philosophy, where we all feel good about ourselves no matter how really dismal we are, then that's entropy. I'm not saying that people shouldn't realize they have self-worth; what I am saying is that each person needs to take responsibility for realizing that self worth and achieving what they are capable of achieving, not being made to feel like they are all part of one big happy hug and they don't need to do anything but be themselves no matter what that self happens to be.

People need to be responsible for their own actions. Yes we must be respectful of one another but we also have to do our duty to be a productive member of society. People should not have to tippy-toe around us if we are part of the problem.

I just got the chart at the top of this blog from the internet somewhere and it is reminiscent of the sort of tests I used to take in elementary school -find the picture that doesn't belong. Do they still administer tests like that, or has the ACLU stepped in to outlaw them because it promotes discrimination?

The title of today's entry is Survival of the Fattest. I have nothing against fat people but all the health studies done so far indicate that it is healthier to be slimmer than fatter. Being fat is not good for you. I know it's a struggle to lose weight, but it's a good thing to try to do. With all the stuff going on in our society in the name of tolerance, however, it's like we can all be like we want to be and there's nothing the matter with that. But sometimes something is the matter. When we aim for the lowest common denominator we take a step backwards. We should always be respectful but that doesn't mean being tolerant of everything. Sometimes we need to circle the one that doesn't belong and do something about it.

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

I was just thinking about some stupid things I've done (only a small fraction, otherwise this would be a lengthy task) and laughing about it so I figured since I need to make a blog entry I might as well write about a few. The title of today's entry comes from Forrest Gump and I didn't really understand what he meant when he said it in the movie and I still don't but then it helps set the tone of this piece.

As a youngster I was very self conscious, never wanting to draw attention to myself for fear of somehow looking bad in front of others. I still feel this way but it was more extreme in elementary school. When Halloween came around and all the other kids were excited about the costumes they'd be wearing to school that day for the Halloween parade, I'd be filled with anxiety because I didn't want to wear a costume and thus call attention to myself. But since everyone was wearing something, I would get a cheap plastic mask from the grocery store and wear this uncomfortable thing when it came time for the parade around the play yard.

Well one year I got bold and had a bright idea for a costume. Not a store-bought one like most, and not one that was sewn by my mom. I would be a ghost. I'd wear a pillowcase over myself with two holes cut for my eyes. So that's what I told my mom I wanted to do. I don't remember much else except that particular Halloween I went to school with my ghost costume in a bag and then dutifully (and even excitedly) put it on for the Halloween parade.

I felt like I finally blended in with people (never having realized that not participating in something draws more attention to you than if you do participate and thus blend in with the crowd) and also thought my costume was pretty good. We marched around the yard and that was the end to the festivities.

It wasn't until years later that I happened to remember that Halloween and then started laughing to myself because here I was, a student at an elementary school in south-central Los Angeles located near Western and Exposition (an area that was nearly all Black), parading around wearing a white sheet over my head in front of a bunch of what must have been horrified parents. Of course I had no idea who the KKK was and I guess neither did my classmates; the adults must have been tolerant knowing I was just a naive little kid but boy was I stupid. I don't know why my parents let me wear that costume, either!

Stupid time #2: As I mentioned I was very self conscious so I hated drawing attention to myself. One day our class attended some boring play at the Shrine Auditorium (must have been Peter and the Wolf or Peer Gynt or something like that). It was the first time I had been there and to me the rise of the rows of seats upwards from the stage seemed alarmingly steep. From where we sat I felt like we were way up in the air, perched on the edge of a cliff; leaning too far forward would cause me to tumble down to the bottom row.

Well, I sat down in the chair and thought it was quite uncomfortable. Not only did the seat not feel good but I also felt high up which only increased the sensation of being on the edge of a cliff. For most of the performance I sat there, sort of wiggling around in my seat trying to get comfortable and also looking around at the rest of the audience wondering if anyone else was feeling the same way I was. Then, almost at the end of the play, I discovered that the seat of the chair had not folded down all the way and I was actually sitting on the edge of the seat. Oh, so that's why I seemed to be towering above everyone else! I slid down into the now-comfortable chair and breathed a sigh of relief when the kid sitting next to me turned and asked, "you were kinda high up there, huh?" I just gave him an embarassed smile and slunk down to watch the rest of the show. But at least I was now comfortable. All this because I didn't want to draw attention to myself by getting up to reseat myself or look at the chair to see what was the matter. Talk about stupid..

Then time number three took place when my dad took me to his company Christmas party. Yes back then you could call it a Christmas party and no one got offended. Of course I got a lot of attention, being my dad's boy and all, and of course I didn't like this but what could I do. I wandered around looking at the trays of food, none of which really looked that appetizing to me.

Finally I settled on a sandwich tray that had submarine rolls, cold cuts and condiments. None of the meat or condiments looked good (I was such a picky eater) but the roll looked appealing. So I picked one up and took a bite but it didn't taste like I was expecting it to taste. I decided I didn't want it so after making sure no one was looking, I just put it back down on the tray. There it sat, a sandwich roll with a bite taken out of it sitting on the tray. I can imagine what people must have thought as they passed by and saw it there.

Anyway, those are just three of the many stupid things I did.. one thing leads to another and now I remember more. I'll just post them up later, as if anyone cares.

Constructive or Destructive?

Well by now the media has inundated us with coverage of the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast, most particularly New Orleans. I certainly don't mean to minimize the significance of it as this has been a horrible tragedy for so many. I want to focus on one aspect of it, however.

It seems much of the coverage has focused on fingers pointed left, right, up and down (and often the middle finger is the one doing the pointing) about who is to blame for this, that and whatever else is there to have blame assigned to it.

But how much of this is constructive? I think we would all agree the response to the disaster was lacking in efficiency and could have been handled much better. But what is the motive behind all of the blaming that is taking place right now? To improve things for the future so this doesn't happen again? To shift the heat away from oneself? To increase media viewership and readership? To make someone else look bad, or look worse than yourself? Probably all of the above.

I just hope we learn from this and move forward, rather than mire ourselves in trying to squash people into the ground. It is painfully obvious that an extreme lack of coordination and organization existed, enough to strike glee in the hearts of America's enemies -most notably the terrorists. Sure this was chaos of an unusually large nature and I doubt no matter how organized we were that we could have effectively handled this. It did point out, however, that there was room for improvement and even had this been on a much smaller scale there were still a bunch of headless chickens running around.

9-11 had its commission to investigate the handling of the situation. One will surely be formed for Katrina, also. But will we learn from this or will their report be an enormous use of tax dollars with the result being a thick volume that winds up sitting on the $3.00-and-under table at the publisher closeout outlets?

Before we cast stones at those who responded, let's take a look at our own selves. How many of us are prepared for a disaster in our own homes? We look at the people living below sea level in New Orleans and wonder why they want to stay there, given the regularity with which devasting storms strike them. Are they stupid or what?? Yet living in Southern California I am sure others around the country wonder the same thing about us - why risk another earthquake, especially when you know it is going to happen again. If the big one struck tomorrow would we be ready? We're constantly told to expect it, yet how many of us really do expect it to happen to us?

Then take a look at the businesses around you. At your own workplace, for example. Not just in terms of if a disaster should strike, but in day to day operations would you say that your management has it all together? Or is the Peter Principle glaringly exemplified in your organization? I often wonder just how we manage to get by in this country when I hear about all the waste and stupidity that takes place around us.

It's not just confined to the U.S., either. Take Russia for example; they've had their share of disasters and they don't seem to be the coldly efficient Russkies that I grew up fearing when the Red Scare was still part of our culture (admittedly I wasn't around during the height of this but I was a youngster in the days of JFK and Kruschev and believe me, those were not comfortable times what with having our weekly air raid siren testing and random drop drills). We're all human and we all share a basic human nature. Those whining people who love coming out of the woodwork to take any opportunity they can to criticize the U.S. need to realize it's everywhere in this planet, not just here. Critics have pointed out that though we possess all this great technology which supposedly makes us better than those less "advanced" than us, we were embarrassingly inept at responding to Katrina. Understand, however, that technology is only as good as the people who run it and when it comes down to it, we're all human.

But that is also a good thing. As humans, we are capable of learning and bettering ourselves though often I think that goes against our basic natures. Still, we need to rise above this and focus on being constructive. All of this finger pointing does no good unless we are able to make improvements so that next time we do better. Not just for major disasters like this but in all things that surround us every day, remember that opportunities abound to fix things before they break.

Best of 2005 (so far) - Dining Out

Bistro Aix in the Marina district of San Francisco gets my vote as the best dining out meal so far in 2005. You should be able to see the address on the door but if not, it's 3340 Steiner. This was simple and delicious. I apologize for some of the pictures being blurry but what's done is done. Take a look.

We started off with tempura calamari in a red curry aioli sauce. Unfortunately we ate part of it before it occurred to me to take a picture, plus it came out fuzzy anyway. But you get the idea. A decent-sized portion of squid came on a bed of shredded cabbage and cilantro, drizzled with the aioli sauce. This was a tasty combination and we gobbled it up.

G ordered the sirloin steak. It came accompanied by some great shoestring fries and a watercress salad. I'll let the picture do the talking (but just in case you think looks deceive, the steak was excellent).


K went for sirloin on a smaller scale, as a hamburger served on a focaccia roll. It came with the same great fries and she pronounced this the best hamburger she had ever eaten in her life. I sampled a bite and have to say I can't remember ever having a better burger. This was pure essence of beef in a burger patty! But at $10.95, it had better have been good.

And me, I got the cracker-crust pizza with grilled chicken and sun-dried tomtao pesto on top. This was one thin pizza but it was also one tasty pizza. All the ingredients blended well, and the flavors were concentrated. Despite having a thin, thin, crust, I was filled up after having this and the calamari.

Like I said, it wasn't anything fancy but it sure hit the spot. Since I live in So Cal I'm not planning on returning soon but that's a matter of geography, not preference!

Best of 2005 (so far) - Movie

Well I know this movie was actually released prior to 2005, but my criteria is based on the watch date, not release date. I haven't even been to the movie theater this year on account of the price of movie tickets, the crowds, the people who can't keep their mouths shut during the movie, and the relatively low cost of either purchasing or renting the dvd to enjoy in one's own cozy home.

So as of today, my hands-down pick for the best movie I've seen this year is Oldboy, made in Korea and the winner of the 2004 Cannes Grand Jury Prize. Now receiving an award from the Cannes festival does not guarantee greatness, as evidenced by their awarding the Golden Palm (top prize) that year to a work lower than the lowest garbage, but at least for the Grand Jury prize they were right on the money.

You may have already heard about the movie and you probably heard the word shocking in the description. Yes, it was shocking but if someone fixates on the scene in which Oh Dae-Su, the main character, devours a live octopus as the shocker of the movie, let me tell you, they didn't get it.

The basic premise of the movie has to do with Oh Dae-Su getting mysteriously abducted on his way home one night, and being imprisoned in a hotel room for 15 years with no clue as to who did this to him or why. He's got a tv, a bed, gets fed fried dumplings every day, and that's about it. Finally he gets out and embarks on his odyssey to find out the who and why behind his incarceration, and extract revenge upon the guilty party(s). You can read a more detailed description in Roger Ebert's review.

Enough said. Just be aware that this isn't a movie for children or the squeamish. I'd say use Kill Bill as your guide to whether or not you'd be interested in this movie. I loved them both.