This JOA Agreement

WARNING:

If you are not from Seattle, or in the journalistic field, do not read on - this will bore you. Of course you may do so, but at your own risk - don't blame if you find the following boring.

Now, here's the post.

Today, or yesterday, it was announced that the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI would find a way to resolve their dispute over the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). Binding arbitration.

As you know, this dispute has gone back a long way. The Seattle Times Company has claimed it has been losing money over a period of time - thus giving good cause to terminate the JOA. The Hearst Corporation, owners of the PI, claim differently. So they have duked it out legally for a few years.

I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of this. But I will provide some historical background. In the early 1980's, the PI was losing money. It was about to go under. For fear there would be only "one editorial voice", they let the two papers form a messy pact called the JOA. Basically, newsrooms would be seperate, but all business operations would be combined. And, if the Seattle Times Company lost money, they could terminate it, end the PI, and pay the Hearst Corporation a bunch of money over the succeeding 40 or so years.

That was put together before Cable TV, the "New Media," and the internet all became major forces in the way people get information. I still think that the owners of the PI live in that past world. For I think it is advantageous for the Hearst corporation to let the Times end the JOA. Here are a few reasons why.

First, newspaper circulation is declining. If not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, generally, less and less people buy newspapers. There is less of a chance that younger readers will subscribe. Even though I read the PI and the Times, I get the news - free - off their websites. If younger readers do not subscribe, then there is less a chance it will continue.

In the last three years, PI circulation has declined to 133,000 - down 15 percent in just three years. That is circulation they will never get back. And it will keep going down. This is bad for business.

I actually did subscribe to it. But I realized I was not reading it (at the time), newspapers themselves are messy to deal with, and I was getting news off the internet. And I was looking to save money. So I cancelled my subscription after two years.

More and more, advertising is subsidizing the cost of news today. That means some of the cost will be pushed onto the consumer. Since you are paying for it indirectly anyway, doesn't it make more sense to read these things off of the internet?

Secondly, there is no real "one editorial opinion" anymore. If the PI goes, you have the Times as the only statewide paper. But you still have regional papers (the The Everett Herald or the King County Journal) city papers, neighborhood papers. You have several network newscasts. In wired Seattle, you have a plethora of blogs. There are news and talk radio stations. There are plenty of places to get other editorial opinions. Trying to raise this argument will only result in more battles - and a loss of revenues for the Hearst Corporation.

Finally, the Seattle Times Company will be giving the Hearst Corporation free money for the next 40 years. That is payment for doing absolutely nothing. Hey - I like free money. The archaic Hearst corporation does not need to do anything - only collect.

I suspect that the reason why the Hearst Corporation is fighting this tooth-and-nail is because they want to have a forum in every major city to have their boring columns read. Columnists are themselves an obsolete breed. Now, with the internet, people make it their hobby to collect news, comment on it, and put money into it. Twenty years ago, this was not possible, but the internet has made the distribution of news much, much cheaper than it once was. It turns out that Lincoln Stephens was right "Freedom of the press is only available to those who can afford a press." Or, Charlton Heston: "The internet did for the first amendment what the industrial revolution did for the second amendment."

The Hearst Corporation needs to pull their heads out of - well, you know where - and understand that this JOA termination is in their best long-term interest.

Here is an article, by the way, which agrees with me (and from a leftist paper):

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31029

Why the Aztlan theory is a bit wrong

The inmates are running the asylum!

Over the last couple of weeks, America has witnessed Mexican illegals blocking the streets of our cities demanding that Congress not pass the Sensenbrenner bill. Many of them claim that they want to work, become citizens, learn English, (and eventually become Americans). However, there is a disturbing element to the crowd.

That carrying the Mexican flags. And some very insidious signs. Here is one site:

www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm

While I generally think that World Net Daily is generally propaganda, the perspective does ned to be addressed:

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49482

The extremists, some of whom call themselves the Palestineans of America (will that win sympathy- by comparing them with a terrorist people?), want to ignore some messy facts of American history that deflates their point of view - in addition to their generally genocidal arguments.

1) Most native Americans are part, well, Native American.
Those who are ethnically American have some Indian in their geneological background. Or more. I have been told that I am descended from some Indian in Quebec (in addition to other illustrious parts of my genelogical background). And even though I live in Washington state, a lot of people I know, who would appear to be white, have a clear Cherokee ancestor they can point to. I probably know more people of Cherokee descent, in fact, than I know of individuals with something like Russian descent.
So, if you expel the "white invaders", how do you pick and choose? As probably the majority of American ethnics are part Indian, do you leave certain parts, like say, a finger, a hand, a leg, behind?

2) By-and-large, much of America really was empty when the settlers moved in.
No, America was not some kind of wilderness. Instead, diseases like smallpox wiped out large groups of Indians. Areas like New England, the Pacific Northwest, California, and even Virginia, was empty enough so that people could move in and settle with relatively inconsiderable disruptions to native lifestyles. The Pilgrims, for example, settled in areas where the fields were already cleared! And the villagers had pretty much perished from the scene, due to disease.
Yes, there was genocide up thru the 19th century. This is an ugly fact of American history. But it was small compared to other genocides throughout history (see below!). In some areas, however, the Indians melded in quite peacefully. In New England, they became almost totally assimilated. In western Washington, many natives went quite peaceably to reservations (although I do admit that such a practice violates basic human rights principles). In the Piedmont areas of the south, there was very little in the way of "Indian Wars," so plantations were quite easily set up.
While not a sterling picture, most old-world immigrants, and the descendents of the original immigrants, did live peacefully side-by-side. "The land was stolen" argument presents a too simplistic picture of American history that ignores way too many details. Especially the following. Had the land been heavily occupied by the natives, and European descendents truly did steal all land forcibly, there would have been much, much more bloodshed in American history.


3) The Southwest was once predominately Mexican.
Not true at all.
Most of the land taken from Mexico at the end of the the Mexican-American war contained hardly any Mexicans. The boundaries between the United States in Mexico were first drawn up in the 1820's. And these were based upon Spanish land claims - and they were recent Spanish land claims. Before the 1760's, the Spanish did not get too far north of New Mexico, and was only prodded to do so when the Russians started making their way into Alaska. And that was only along the California coast.
In fact, Mexico had little idea of what it possessed! For example, when Jim Bridger entered the Great Salt Lake valley in the 1840's, he was the first white man to witness the Great Salt Lake. And this lake was completely within Mexican territory. The Great Salt Lake is something that is kinda hard to miss.
And by white man, I mean anyone descended from Europeans. At that time, few people from the central Valley of Mexico came north.
The reason why Mexico had problems with Texas is because of illegal American immigrants to that area. Why did they come? Because, in 1821, the Mexican government invited them to settle because it was underpopulated. Immigrants to New Mexico probably came largely from Spain.
In fact, the only area with a significant Mexican population was California. And even then, Indians vastly outnumbered that ethnic group.
When it came to population, vast areas of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and western Colorado had a serious dearth of Hispanics. To say that they had occupied that area for generations is not only false, it is almost laughable.

4) The American southwest was the original homeland of the Aztecs.
Probably true. However, there is a degree of falsehood to this claim.
Many of the indigeneous people of the southwest spoke languages in a language group called Uto-Aztecan. This goes down into central America. The northernmost reach is in southern Oregon and western Montana. And Aztec myth points to their homeland somewhere in northern Mexico - or maybe somewhere in the arid part of the United States (even southeastern Oregon?)
However, the Aztecs left this area sometime in the 11th-13th centuries. Long, long before the Europeans made any attempt to open up the new world. I.e., the Europeans had absolutely nothing to do with the Aztecs leaving their homeland. They did it on their own accord.
By the time the Europeans discovered the Aztecs, the were pouncing on everyone they could get ahold of. In the valley of Mexico. And maybe beyond - like to Colorado, as some archeological evidence suggests. If the Aztecs came back home, it was to engage in their ritual slaughter for which they were famous.
Once a people leaves an area, they really have no claim to it anymore. This sounds a lot like Aztec imperialism. In fact, these extremists sound much like the bullies from whom they claim descent - the Aztecs, who were among the top five bullies in world history.

5) Aztlan is a recreation of the Aztec homeland
This has no historical truth to it. As I noted above, they left a long long time ago.
In fact, Aztlan includes much of northern Mexico. To create this so-called homeland would be to destroy Mexico, too.

6) By implication, Europeans screwed the New World up. So they have a right to claim the southwest and expel all other races.
The goal of these extremists is to expel all those of European descent and make them pay reparations for what has happened over the last 500 years.
Most Aztec bullying.
The very reason why the Aztec empire was conquered by a handful of Spaniars was because the Aztecs were extreme assholes. They would go to war to provide ritual sacrifies in Tenochtilan. Their neighbors were kinda tired of this, and welcomed the Spaniards almost as liberators. Had they not enslaved the natives, the Spaniards would have been liberators.
On the other hand, it was the ancestors of today's Americans - known as the Founding Fathers - who were the pioneers of human rights. Those things which would have made every single Aztec leader, general, and even infantryman subject to war crimes tribunals in the Hague.

Americans need to see the goals of the extremists to see who we are dealing with. The site is:

aztlan.net/

One can see their bigotry extends to other areas as well. They are very anti-semitic, cheer on the Palestinean uprisings, and are clearly homophobic.

In sum, some of those egging on the protests do have a rightful claim of being the descendents of the Aztecs - a bunch of intolerant bullies who will stop at nothing to get their way. Even if it means instigating civil war. Hence, some of these need to be monitored as hate groups.

The Tale of Two Themed Protests

Over the past month, there have been types of protests that have erupted in this country.

The first is the standard anti-war protests. Several 50 year olds, still in adolescence, want to relive the sixties, and go out and protest the liberation of Iraq. And by several, I mean hundreds and hundreds.

Yup. That's right. Just several hundred - except in San Fransicko. In Salt Lake City, for example, only 50 came out to protest. In New York, a heavily Democrat town, and one with a huge population, only about 200 protested. Go figure.

On the other hand, in the last 1 1/2 weeks. there have been huge protests over another issue - immigration. That is because a large percentage should be greeted by paddy wagons - and shipped back to Mexico. Because they, well, are breaking the law. That is because Congress has finally gotten serious and has considered deporting them (which fell out of conference committee). In Los Angeles along, there were 500,000 people. Chicago has had protests of 100,000 or more. And these in towns smaller than New York.

What is going on here? Several people do not want to go back to Mexico. They want to stay. They have a very important issue that affects them. In a big way. So they voice their support.
In a huge way.

On the other hand, while supposedly the majority of Americans oppose the war, it does not affect them. To many, Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be the clown she truly is. The war is a Coke-Pepsi issue.

What I mean by that is that, while the majority of Americans like Pepsi, they will be nearly content if Coke is served to them instead. Only a small minority will be unhappy if given Coke. While there is a slight difference in taste, it is not much. And to Americans, it does not matter much as to whether we are in Iraq or not.

The people who form the anti-war lobby do not understand this. They still have visions of 1969, when there were huge protests. That was because the war issue did affect those who were protesting. Back then there was this thing called the draft - and there was a very real chance they could get drafted and sent to Vietnam. Protesting was the best way they thought they could prevent this. And when Nixon ended the draft, the protests shrunk a great deal. I think the anti-war lobby, the most ardent of the anti-Vietnam people in the 1960's, kinda forget this.

Thus, the war is not much of a big issue any more. In fact, wars are not something people are interested in protesting any more. What we are now witnessing is a shift in issues.

The issues of five years ago are largely going away. There is only a certain part of one's life on e can devote to issues - so some issues have to make way for others. Gun control is settled. Abortion will be around a while longer, but diminished. Social Security may not be as big a deal anymore - because the children of recent immigrants will be paying my bill (which, in a way, is not fair to them). Education will diminish as an issue (it is too complex). The environment is going to go away. Taxes will fade as an issue in the next couple of generations. Size of government will go away, too. And foreign wars will be much dimished as issues.

There will be new issues. The biggie is immigration. Health care may come back - farm laborers will want free health care - so we conservatives will still need to battle there. The minimum wage will be coming back big time. Given the Catholicism of the immigrants, I can see morality will come back in a big way in a generation.

Over the last two weeks, we have witnessed a the underpinnings of a changing America. It may not be an issue anymore of left vs right. Instead, we may have an issues landscape similar to the 1890's and the 1930's. While we can hold some of this back, we need to find ways to deal with it's worst abuses.

I created yet another blog!

I have two other blogs besides this one.

The first is a history of my Grange that I am working on. It is

SVGhistory.blogspot.com/

I put it on a blog in case I lose all the data - here is a place where we have it. My computer crashed in September, and it was a long time before I could get the manuscript off the hard drive, so I created this one. Unless you like history (and history of Western Washington, for that matter), you will probably find it pretty boring.

The one I created tonight is a review of blogs. I was going to call it blogreview, but someone took that name (uselessly, because he only has one post - in October). So it is:

ericsblogreviews.blogspot.com/

I did a blog search, and could not find anyone who does blog reviews. So I figured it was about time that someone does them - since most blogs are pretty bad.

Comments Allowed Again!

I have decided to allow comments, now that I see that I can moderate them.

Basically, I will not moderate those that address the content of the post. You can be as inflammatory as you want, and chances are, I will not censor it. However, for those who want to use this to advertize their crap, that is a no-no. I will moderate such comments to fit my needs.

This is medium to promote my ideas, not yours. Because my ideas are way better than yours. If you want are looking for free advertizing, wear a clown wig to the Final Four and carry a poster with your product.

What do I need all this speed for?

I believe the market for computer speeds is slowing down.

My reason? The frontiers of computer technology has pushed so far, that people are able to keep up. It is other devices that have advanced.

My first computer was a Mac, in 1990, circa 1988 technology. That was fine, as I was in college and used it for simplified games, word processing, and some spreadsheet technology. These were the days before email, and viruses were passed between discs - although people did get them. I was able to use that computer for about four years, and the hard drive very crashed within two weeks of my final projects. After I got back from Russia, I was never able to get it going again. So I gave it away. I still have the hard drive, though.

For four years, I lived at home (a common problem of my generation), so for two years, we used my father's pre-pentium machine. Then I got a P1 in August 1996 (I moved out in 1998). During that time, computer technology moved very rapidly.

So much so that by 2001, I could no longer handle the new software (or hardware). Yet in 1996, when I got it, it had 133 MB - still pretty far in that year.

So in late 2001, I purchased this machine - with 1.8 GB. And 256 MB RAM. And a big hard drive. While it is not the top of the line, however, I can still pretty much purchase all the software I need to run it. In fact, even though I have increased it's capacity in the last month - by adding DSL and a digital camera (I am a bit behind the times), I still am sufficient for what I need.

The computer makers have pushed the limits out so far, that the latest devices still have yet to catch up. It will be awhile before they catch up.

The next machine I will get may be a laptop. However, I expect that I will be able to utilize this desktop over the next 2-3 years, for the software I use does currently meet my needs. At this time I need nothing fancy (well, what is considered fancy in our day-and-age, as the computers sitting in bedrooms today have functions that would have been impossible to duplicate a generation ago). I suspect that many Americans, who may be technologically fatigued for the time being, may be the same.

Making perfect the enemy of the good - South Dakota and abortion

Want some entertainment? Try this.

Host a talk show. And make the topic something like "are you for keeping abortion legal, or do you think that abortion should be outlawed." Then open the lines. And you will get every opinion imaginable - and you may learn some new words, too!

Abortion became such a hot topic because of the way it was made legal, i.e., Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right, and whammo! - it was a constitutional right. I heard an interview with the attorney for Roe on NPR (yes, I once listened to it!) and even she was very surprised that it made it this quickly.

By doing this, almost by legislative fiat, you had a bunch of pro-lifers quite angry, because they never had a chance to really battle it in the states, so that is how the pro-life movement got started. In fact, the reason why much of the remaining ideals of the 1960's got socially accepted is that it was worked over very slowly in society, and thru state legislatures, etc. It is the old metaphore about turning up the heat slowly on the frog in the water - versus throwing a frog into a boiling pot of water.

Just in the last few days, the state of South Dakota made abortion illegal - except to save the life of the mother. It passed by large majories in both houses - even many Democrats voted for it. Which kinda explains how Puff Daschle really was an inappropriate choice to represent that state (the current minority leader is socially conservative, and even he represents Nevada).

The rationale is that since there is a Supreme Court that is more likely to overturn Roe, they will pass it. However, there is still a chance this will not happen. There are only four conservative justices. Justice Kennedy is a wild card. And, this provides ammo to the Democrats in the Senate when the next nominee comes along - unless W appoints a Libertarian judge, which is appropriate for a Republican to do, and there is no argument with Democrats on the abortion issue (I am hoping for the day when the court rules the gun registries are a violation of the right to privacy).

However, Justice Kennedy is a wild card. So he might vote to overturn it.

Which shows how much less sense those who are pro-abortion truly have.

Here is why. South Dakota only has one abortion clinic. And, less than 1000 abortions are performed there every year - I think it's something like 700. And how many of those are to save the life of the mother? Even one is enough to influence this statistic - and for every 7-8 abortions, that affects 1% on a specific aspect of this statistic. By comparision, I understand there are over one million abortions per year in the United States.

With this new law, if a woman wants an abortion in South Dakota, she can hop on a bus to another state. It's not like many are performed there every year. And, there are many other options of birth control, too. Sometimes, life is inconvenient, and if you want something, you have to go some distance to get it. Thus, if a Californian wants an AR-15, they have to drive to a gun show in Montana to buy one and bring it back home. However, there are far more Californians who want AR15's (even by percentage of total population) than there are South Dakotan women who want abortions.

However, rather than realize that the world is imperfect, the activists in the abortion movement want abortion to be legal everywhere, and kick into full gear. And, they are willing to gamble big time. Kinda like betting your house on a single game in Vegas.

Common sense is a category that many activists seem to lack. Activists are by-and-large ideologues, and they are incapable of seeing a generally good world unless it is in perfectly ideal terms. True on both sides of the ideological divide. And true here.

So now there is this law that reduces the number of abortions by maybe 600. That can be done in South Dakota. That means that hanger sales will increase by about 600 - if you are to believe them. Actually, it will probably reduce it by less than 100, because if women really need or want the abortion, they will take the inconvenient steps, take a couple of days off work, and get an abortion in another state. Statistically, this is insignificant - a reduction of 100 doesn't even register when over one million is involved.

However, due to the ideological purity of pro-"choice" zealots, (excepting libertarians, how many pro-choise activists favor increased school choice, increased gun rights, increased consumer choice, and less regulatory burdens - as would be the real pro-choice position?) they want abortion to be legal everywhere. They are incapable of ignoring an insignificant dent in an inconspicious place in an otherwise perfectly functional piece of armor. They must fix said dent now. Even if it involves taking time out from slaying the dragon. Even if the dragon is five feet away and breathing massive amounts of fire on them. Even if they have the lance that could slay that dragon immediately.

And by now taking it to the Supreme Court, they are inviting themselves to overturn Roe v Wade. In case they didn't notice, that is exactly why this piece of legistlation was passed. South Dakota is looking to pick a fight. They could have ignored this very minor restriction in the change to the abortion laws and swept it under the rug. Instead, the abortion rights groups are taking the bait.

And like any salmon that takes the bait, the may find themselves roasting over an open fire soon. Even gay-rights groups backed off on pushing their agenda after the 2004 election - they know when it is time to rest a bit, and that not everything can go their way all the time.

You see, if Roe v Wade is overturned, as South Dakota is gambling on, then each state has to pass new abortion laws. Some will be very restrictive, some will be very liberal (undoing Roe will have no effect in Washington State as abortion was legalized here before Roe). And states like Texas will really restict abortion laws. As a result of the newly restrictive laws, the number of abortions will decrease rapidly - maybe by as much as a third. Which is much, much larger than a decrease in seven hundred abortion, maximum. This is what South Dakota is really aiming for.

Now you know the mindset of an ideologue. As Morton Blackwell said, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

One postscript. While this appears that I am writing like a fear Roe being overturned, those who are readers to this blog will realize I am a conservative, and I am likely to be pro-life. Which I am. I want Roe to be overturned. I am just writing in this manner because I like to give political analysis, as I see it, even if it appears to take a position which I oppose.

The tale of two breakups

I will now relate to you a bit of my past. I'm sure many of you have had the following happen to you in some times in your lives, but some, not.

In any case, we will go back 15 years, to when I was at Central. Next door to me moved some chicks - and one of these chicks had a friend named, well, umm, let say, Beyonce (not her real name). Well, we decided to go party. Because this is what college students do. So we went to several parties that night, and passed out in the bathroom.

I got up the next day - completely hungover - and had a job interview. I got the job. But it was for a janatorial position, so I guess you can be hungover for that kind of interview. In any case, I returned, and saw, well, Beyonce. Beyonce was kinda cute. And I introduced Beyonce to my other roommates, two of whom had girlfriends, one didn't.

Well, two of my roommates wanted Beyonce. Actually, what normal hetrosexual guy does not want Beyonce? Oops - wrong Beyonce. In any case, by simple deduction, you can tell that at least one of these roommates had a girlfriend, also, who we will call Paris (not her real name). And Paris could detect something and did not like Beyonce. I was kinda naive and didn't understand why, but I will explain what happened.

Both of my roommates pursued Beyonce. One quite brazenly. He did not get anything. The other one, with the girlfriend, was more suttle. And Paris was not happy about that (duh!). Now, Paris herself was a hot, dynamic personality (much hotter than the real Paris), something that lots of guys would want.

Well, one day, when eating with us, Beyonce had anxiety attacks. This was because Beyonce could not get what Beyonce wanted - my suttle roommate. So eventually Beyonce was cast away.

Years pass. I became a consevative. I became a conservative activist. And because I thought the Young Republicans were far too liberal (and too full of opportunists) I formed a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Why a near-comatose organization? I like to see if organizations of good character can be revived, and being a right-leaning near-nihilist, this would be perfect for me.

Well, we had our meetings at a resturaunt in Kirkland owned by another Republican activist. In the back room. And we had several. One day, I met a friend of Paris's at this resturaunt after one of our meetings. She told me an interesting story of what happened to Paris, Beyonce, and my roommate.

The year I went to Russia, my roommate decided to have some fun with Beyonce. Paris did not like that. So they broke up. And that was the end of that relationship. And Paris's friend told me that Paris got involved with a bunch of really wierd guys. In any case, both Paris and my old roommate were both narcissists, in my estimation, so I guess it was bound to happen.

Here is something odd.

At that same meeting, some of my friends, who are about ten years older than me, attended. We will call them Jack and Jill (not their real names). Jack and Jill liked to have parties, too, but being older, and homeowners, they did not have anything that resembled college parties. And their parties were more creative than those you did in college.

I decided to introduce them to my friend, who was also ten years older, to this couple. We will call him Amos. Amos was also part of YAF, but he became better friend of Jack and Jill then I did. Jack and Jill wanted as many people at their parties, so I brought my little brother Jason, a friend Matt (these are their real names, by the way), and Amos. I did a lot with Jack and Jill, and given they were Republicans, and so was Amos, I kept in contact with them.

Well, I left my district, and moved to the sticks. And I had a lot going on, so I lost contact with Jack and Jill (and Amos, too). What happened next is interesting.

Last year, I went to a Republican caucus meeting at a nearby Grange hall, and met up with someone who was a mutual friend of ours. Well, I had lost contact with Jack and Jill and Amos. She told me a story of what happened.

Amos introduced Jill to a friend of his (whom I probably have never met). Jill liked this friend. And this friend liked Jill. And when people like each other, they sometimes like to have sex with each other. Despite the fact one of them is married to someone else. Which is what happened. And Jack found out, and ended the marriage in divorce. Amos felt really guilty - but honestly, could he have done anything? He didn't know his friend was looking to engage in some extracurricular activities. And oddly, I introduced Amos to Jack and Jill, so I guess I am kinda guilty here, too, if you want to stretch it out.

On a side note, I recently read in the paper about a campaign worker who stole a lot of money. And I mean a lot. From a candidate. I met her at one of Jack and Jills' parties. And I did know her husband, from various activities. And her father is a doctor whom I deal with in another aspect of my life, my work.

Anyways, I am sure you have had this happen to you. Just I kinda find it ironic that the times I have had some responsibility for the breakup of two serious relationships (the first would have ended in marriage, I believe), there is a connecting factor of that one evening. When I was told of the first story, I was at the same location with the couple in the second story. And this is the only time they came to a YAF meeting. And this is the only time, since college, I have seem the friend of Paris (I gave her my number, she mine, but she never returned my call).

Sure there is such thing as coincidence, but for believers, there may sometimes there may be something else going on. There is a supernatural world out there - it will come to you, you need not look for it (you might get in trouble if you do). Is there any kind of divine message here (however convoluted the circumstances it was introduced)? I do not know. I just thought I would bring this up as it makes for an interesting story.

This is creepy

Tonight, I went to a Republican caucus. For those of you who are Democrats, I think you would consider that creepy enough and stop reading. However, that is not the purpose of this post.

Anyways, one person and I went to this bar to discuss politics - which I like to discuss. So we eventually came down to Ted Bundy.

Ted Bundy was once quite an active Republican. No, he was not a conservative one. You see, back in the 1970's and before, there was a very active liberal element in the Republican party. Now, that element is gone today, but at that time, there was a struggle between liberals and conservatives in the party. Ted Bundy was one of the liberals.

I had brought up a legend about how Ted Bundy was the very first person to drive the entire distance of the North Cascades Highway - as Dan Evans' honorary chauffer (Dan Evans was governor at that time). The North Cascades highway is quite scenic, so this was quite an honor. The bartender was a woman who suddenly looked at us, and had a story to tell us.

It turns out that in the 1970's, she had met him. Except she was a teenager then. She was going to hitch-hike to Tacoma from Seattle. So she put her thumb out, and there was a man in a brown VW bug.

There were no seats, baring the driver's seat. So she had to sit on a crate. He was quite handsome, intelligent, and very charming. And his name was Ted. He drove her down to Tacoma - where his family was. And he kept asking her, over and over again, if she was comfortable with her coat on - like she should take it off. She refused. Also, as they were going down I5, he lit up a joint - while he was driving - and offered her a toke (she mentioned she did not smoke pot). Actually, it is my understanding that in those days a lot of people lit up while driving - there's a reason why there is an ashtray in the car.

In any case, he dropped her off, and left. She told me how she did not realize it was him - until she read the biography of Ted Bundy. About how he picked up young teenagers. And how she realized she was a potential victim - but did not fit the perfect victim's profile. The author of the book (she had to get it autographed) said a lot of women who would fit that profile would also mention that they were potential victims, too, and wanted the book signed.

Although I was eight when he was finally locked up, I have a bit of a Bundy connection. When I lived at Central Washington University, in Ellensburg, I lived in one of the very closest dorm rooms (actually, an apartment - but without a kitchen) to "Bundy Bridge", a darkened bridge where one of his victims was found - dead. For two years, I slept no more than ten yards from that very spot.

Stuff like this kinda gives you the creeps, huh?

Time to retire Snoopy, Charlie, and "The Gang"

Today, I will talk about something everyone should be concerned about. The funnies.

And I promise I will talk neither about Doonsbury, nor Boondocks, nor Mallard Fillmore!

Instead, I will talk about a strip that has been around for a long time - too long - Peanuts.

When it first started, in the 1950's, everyone thought it was hilarious. And it became America's top strip. However, the sentiments did not evolve with the culture. While some strips are carried on from father to son, to son, to son, etc., and can last, and are still funny (like Blondie, Gasoline Alley, Henry, even the Katzenjammer Kids are still around!), some get old and need to be carted away. Like Peanuts. Schultz did not leave the strip to any heirs, like other artists have done.

The late Charles Schultz apparently wrote Peanuts because he had a crush on a red-haired girl who rejected him. I'm sure he didn't mind it 20 years later when he was raking in all that cash and engaged in whatever other activities he liked to pursue (if he did). In any case, everyone in the 1950's liked Peanuts and thought it was funny.

Well, humor changes. Do you still find "Who's on First?" (by Abbott and Costello) still funny? I can't find it funny - although the audience obviously loved it, who apparently roared over this in the early 1930's.

I will give an example of "Classic Peanuts" which appeared in the Sunday papers yesterday:
















Now, to contrast, let me direct you to the most popular strip of today, Dilbert, from the same day:















I was rolling when I read this Dilbert strip. However, while one can see the humor from that 1959 strip, I do not find it funny. Yes, the key to good humor is inappropriatness, and what the boy (whatever his name is - it doesn't matter) does at the end is inappropriate, but my humor senses are different than those of my grandparents' generation. My grandmother would have been four years older than me when that specific strip was created, so we are thus about the same age when each respective strip was written, but each generation differs in what tickles it's funny bone.

On the other hand, someone from 1959 would have been utterly confused by the Dilbert strip. It would have made absolutely no sense. "Firewall?" "Laptop?" "Hard Drive?" "Smut?" "External Drive?" And, why is a "server" in an office? They belong in a restuarant! And why would someone put a bunch of "smut" on a server?

Thus, I will now take my keyboard to bash yet another beloved part of American culture - I don't call this "Iconoclast" for nothing.

So, despite the fact that newspapers want to hold onto something that was part of their glory days, it's time to get rid of it and make room for somthing people will find funny.

AT&T+Southwest Bell=Nothing to be concerned about

Warning: This post may not be appropriate for all audiences. No, there is nothing titillating, pornographic, or violent in the following. Instead, it may be considered boring by those who are uneducated, lack economic literacy, or have their ideological blinders on.

Recently, I heard on the news that AT&T and SW Bell are merging. There are fears amongst regulators and other groups that it will increase the price of cell phone service. There is a fear there is an attempt to re-create the old Ma Bell, and it will soon abuse it's "monopoly power."

Nonsense, I say.

There is nothing to fear here. Things have changed quite a bit since those days. Before I explain however, I will briefly go into a bit of economic theory.

According to economic theory, a corporation has "monopoly power" when it had complete control of a product for which there are no close substitutes. So it can increase the price of the product at will. Of course, that is the simplified version of monopoly theory, and I am not going to spend my time here going over all those other details.

At one time, AT&T controlled pretty much all phone service. And, nominal phone prices were just about the same as they were today. I saw a phone bill from the 1970's, without long distance charges, and saw this was the case.

So, phone service was much more expensive then than today. But wait - you think - you said it was slightly cheaper then. If this is the way you think, review the warning at the top of the article! In any case, to return to my post, there are several reasons for it. There could have been some monopoly power in the pricing. The technologies were not as advanced. There may have been some other reasons. While I do not have a study at my fingertips as to why phone services is cheaper today, it is obvious that monopoly power did have a role to play. For example, even with technology, since AT&T had no competition, it could take it's own sweet time when converting it's switching from the old operator technology to electronic switching. IN fact, it started this project in the 1930's, and did not conclude until the 1970's! This undoubtly had some reason for higher prices.

However, in 1984 (I think) the federal government ordered AT&T to have a breakup. That meant that AT&T could no longer dictate inane rules like no devices on it's phones (like dialup or answering machines) and had to face lower pricing. So now, people could buy cool phones, cordless phones (before the breakup, one had to rent a phone), could attach answering machines to their phone, and use dialup technology. Things were good.

So, if AT&T gets it's monopoly back, does that mean that we will have to go back to the way things were before the government broke up it's monopoly?

NO!!!!!

You see, things have changed a little bit since 1984. In fact, telecommunications technology has advanced quite a bit since then. And, many of those technologies are increasingly obsolete. In fact, many people under the age of 30 would find that paragraph two paragraphs ago somewhat odd. Instead, they use cell phones as their primary line and a service like Vonage as their secondary line. They do not use dialup, but instead have DSL (at a minimum), cable, or wireless technology, for their internet. Isn't dialup what their grandparents use? And in fact, many do not have a "phone" but instead use devices like a blackberry.

There are several cell phone companies out there today. The costs of scale may allow for there to be several. If they ever got so huge that only a few companies would be able to function, technology is moving so far forward that within a few years, new substitutes would challenge the old.

One thing that people seem to forget about anti-trust theory is that if a monopoly raises it's price too much, new technologies come into play that are the functional equilivent of that which a company has a monopoly over, and soon, that monopoly has to cut prices or go out of business itself.

Also, sometimes, products consume such a small proportion of a person's budget, that there is no social loss if a company has a monopoly over a product. I will give three examples.

First, imagine if all sod companies throughout the country merged and formed "Sodco". It gets to sell sod at whatever price it wants. Is there a loss of social benefit from Sodco gouging it's customers? No. First, people only buy sod, at most, twice during their lives. It consumes an insignificant part of their lifetime budget. Secondly, they can always seed their property with grass seed, hydroseed it, or plant bedding plants, if sod is too expensive. So for some products, the abuse of monopoly theory is actually quite irrelevant, even if people need that product.

Now, lets imagine there is only one typewriter manufacturer. Not a keyboard manufacturer, a typewriter manufacturer. And, they decide to gouge customers. Is there any loss of social benefits from this situation? No, not here either. Because almost everyone who sends correspondence today without hand writing it uses a computer. And paper is skipped altogether. In fact, if you want a typewriter, the best place to buy one is from an antique store. I am not sure if it is even profitable to make a typewriter anymore. Thus, a monopoly over typewriter manufacturing has no loss because it is socially irrelevant.

Now, take trains. At one time, they were the height of technology. And they merged, thus able to exercize monopoly power. But they were regulated quite heavily. Would there be any loss of social benefit if the regulators went away? No! Today, good are transported in several ways. One of which is railroads (and it is still relevant, as I see locomotives haul at least 100 cars at a time). And in terms of people, it is irrelevant - which is why Amtrack must continually be bouyed up. Every time I see an Amtrack train come by, it usually has six cars attached - as opposed to 100 for freight trains (maybe a good way to see the country, though). Even with freight trains, there is lots of competion from trucks, ships, planes, and now, even via computers (when was the last time you bought software from a computer store?). So railroads, while still relevant, have enough competition to keep from exercizing any monopoly power.

And, like to prior two examples, land line technologies are becoming increasingly obsolete. Instead, phone companies are beginning to offer communications packages that affect not only the phone, but the internet, the cell phone, and even the company who delivers the television channels to your home. Even they see the day is coming when land line technology will be obsolete.

However, the federal regulators may not see it this way. Instead, rather than understand that anti-trust regulation is best applied to relevant technologies that consume a goodly share of a person's budget, they instead see an attempt at a monopoly, and no matter how obsolete the monopoly, they are so focused on the fear of monopoly power, they must do everything in their power to stop it. In the meantime, they allow a monopoly (and an organization engaged in racketering) like the NFL to continue such that they may try to stack the deck against consumers.

Too much has changed since 1984 to have any real abuse in a new AT&T monopoly, which would be over land lines. The regulators should let this merger pass, as there will not be much adverse affect to consumers.

Left Coast Dreamers - or, why W ain't getting Impeached

Here we go again.

Today, the San Fransicko Board of Stupidvisors passed a resolution demanding that George Bush be impeached. Hehehehehehehehehe! I think this is really funny.

In fact, Di-Fi (former mayor of that city) was probably so embarrased that she essentially told them to shut up, do their job, and get back in their place. At least she knows that the top level of this government is now lost somewhere in la-la land.

Even Seattle's council members haven't gotten this silly (well, at least yet).

When a city council demands that a president be impeached, without any real hard evidence, and without the political reality to back it up, that basically shows a certain political immaturity. In fact, for some reason, major city politicians - who at one time, were senatorial hopefuls - now seem to be unable to do governing. At least in my experience. Hell, they are so embarassing, that sometimes the residents vote for a 20 year old for mayor and almost get him on the general election ballot - like my second cousin did when he ran against Vera Katz of Portland. Anyways, to get back to my point. Big city governments are like large corporations - and there is a lot to manage. They chief responsibility of any city government is to see that the municipal services function (that includes the police department). Then, probably the second responsibility is planning. Everything else is really irrelevant, except cheering it's sports teams and starring in that city's annual festival.

I guess I am biased by where I live, but it seems that, in my experience, council members of big cities like to focus on stupid stuff. To them, governance is secondary. So a council member goes to political rallies for Algore rather than attend council meetings (like Seattle in 2000). In the meantime, the City of Seattle governs City Light, the public power utility. And they go to the city council for setting rates. In times former, the councilmembers could grasp the economics behind rates. Thus, they would have an idea of what was too high for the consumer, and know what was too low for the utility (so it doesn't go out of business) - or know when the utility was truly gouging the customer. Today? Do you think these individuals really have any math skills?

I'm not affected by their power rates, by the way - my county gets PUD commissioners, who often are politicians who also don't understand rates, either (see the WPPSS controvery of 25 years ago).

Anyways, back to my subject matter. San Fransicko - the Venice of North America (meaning that some of it's suburban cities exceed it in population, just like Venice) - is now becoming politically irrelevant. And possibly economically irrelevant, too. If these goofballs have their way, businesses will not want to locate there, because of it's hostile business climate - and increased crime. They will locate elsewhere around the Bay area. It will be less and less important over time - just like Venice.

At one time, this town was the largest west of the Mississippi, and a major American city. Remember, the UN was founded here. This was also where all the big business in California was located. Over time, however, Los Angeles overtook it. Now, I think it is only the fifth largest city in California. And as it becomes smaller in proportion (and possibly in population), it becomes more intolerant. And one thing about intolerance is that it's practitioners become goofier the further away you get from tolerance. Look at the following: Neo-Nazi's, Animal-rights activists, gay-liberation practitioners, "patriots", Farrakhan, Pat Robertson. If you do not see any one of these things as goofy, then we have a bit of an ideological-blindness problem. And it is intolerance for which they elect mirror-images of themselves.

Now, this is what is driving this move toward impeaching President Bush. Of course, there is no reality to their dream, for which I will explain below, but they are so ideologically blinded and motivated that they fail to see how this is impossible. I will explain below.

First, impeachment is a political, rather than a criminal, act. Sure, the constitution states there must be "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but if you have a President who is giving you everything you want, then you kinda ignore the fact that the President is committing high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact, Andrew Johnson was impeached even though he commited no crime - except for getting in the way of the extremists' ambitions. And when Bill Clinton kept blocking the reforms the Republicans wanted to put in place, then a relatively minor infraction such as lying under oath became a high crime and misdemeanor (although I believe that perjury would pass this constitional test). However, when Lyndon Johnson was engaging in massive corruption, ethical violations, acts of a sexually predatory nature, civil rights violations, these infractions were overlooked because, after all, he was getting the Great Society in place.

Thus, for impeachment to succeed, Congress must be controlled by the party opposite the President. Otherwise, individuals are party loyalists, and if the President's party controls Congress, they certainly do not launch impeachment proceedings.

Secondly, impeachment takes time. You have to get those charges in place, and have enough evidence to convict. Now, the charges that would lead to impeachment would be "Bush Lied," and for the really kooky, "Bush Knew." This has to be proven. And, to do so, the Democrats have to control both houses of Congress. Thus, if they finally take control back in 2006, they only have two years to convict Bush before he leaves office. Then again, there is a good chance the Republicans will be in control, which means impeachment will not go forward.

Along these lines, if the Democrats gain control of Congress, they need to get the ball rolling to investigate all this stuff. And maybe more things - I don't know, as I am not a consititional scholar. But I do not that it takes time to get these individuals in place. And the investigation takes time. Remember Iran-Contra? That investigation started in the second-to-last year of Reagan's last term, and did not conclude until the late 1990's - when Americans (even Democrats) no longer cared about it.

Is there a special prosecutor looking into Iraq as yet? I really do not know. It took Ken Starr over four years to get enough evidence to get Clinton impeached. And there was evidence provided that he had in fact perjured himself - enough to impeach him. What matters will lead W to perjure himself - in time for a trial.

If the Democrats regain control of Congress, they will have to wait a couple of months to really get busy investigating. That is because they will not want to be seen as overly zealous. So it would not be until April 2007 that they would do this. That leaves really only 20 months until the end of Bush's term. Who already is almost a lame duck.

Thus, there is a good chance that they will not have enough hard evidence to convict W in time. Even if they manage to dig up enough hard evidence, it will be in 2008 - an election year. And they know that impeachment is political suicide to do in an election year.

Remember when Clinton got impeached? The Republicans lost seats when they should have won them. The only way for the Democrats to win Congress is with a positive program - like the Contract with America - and they will have to enact it. It takes time to enact a program, and if they instead focus on impeachment, then the words "Do Nothing Congress" will apply. Meaning the Democrats will have a hard time winning in 2008, and once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Americans generally forgive politicians for adverse political decisions. Unless there is a huge disaster - like the Great Depression - they do not get too mad to demand impeachment. Even if Iraq goes bad, this does not constitute a huge disastor - except for those who lack historical perspective. And if the opposition party pours it on the President for doing moderately badly, even though he is trying his best to govern the country, then a backlash comes into play.

However, impeachment is accepted if the President abuses his powers for personal gain. This is what happened with Nixon and Clinton. Thus far, impeachment only works when the issue at hand is personal, not political. It is very difficult to prove that W liberated Iraq for personal gain. Except, of course, if you are politically immature and are tuned toward conspiracy theories.

And in fact, it can be argued that the Iraq liberation has resulted in better security. How many Islamofascist attacks have taken place since 9-11 in the United States? There is the argument that the terrorists we are fighting is in Iraq rather than the United States. We need not convince the left of this - which will not believe it anyway - but the people who need convincing, the middle, are who the arguments are aimed at. And any such move toward impeachment can bring up these arguments again, some people can be convinced, and the Democrats will be argued as a do-nothing party.

The best time to bring this up would have been in 2003 - had the Democrats one. I first heard of impeachment arguments in March 2002 - barely a year into W's term. So they were planning on it already. However, they did not have the levers of power, and their chance at impeachment was lost (because if the president won in 2004, he would win House/Senate seats, and 2006 would have been far too late to do this).

Those Democrats who have at least some political maturity understand all this, such as Di-Fi. They know that a. W is essentially a lame-duck President, so impeachment is essentially a waste of time, b. That focusing on impeachment will make them look like they are on a vendetta, resulting in c. a sympathetic public more willing to vote for Republicans out of sympathy, and partly because d. they focused on impeachment rather than promoting the positive agenda they promised in the 2006 election, resulting in e. a loss of the Presidency once again.

Remember, W is further into his term than Bill Clinton was into his when he made his famous "I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky" remarks." Bill Clinton's impeachment barely made it on time, as it happened after the 1998 elections. The Republican Congress is certainly not going to impeach one of their own party.

If impeachment ever does take place, it would have to be at the very, very end of Bush's term - when we know who the new President is. Even on a fast track, it would take about 1 1/2 years to get an impeachment vote - and an angry electorate voting Republican because this is how the Democrats squandered their time in Congress. Which would mean it would take place in October - December 2008, when it is a moot point. Also, if the Democrats win the house, it will be by a very, very slim margin - such that the judiciary committee might not vote it out of committee, and if it does, there may be a few Democrats who will not vote to impeach - which is enough.

Then there is the matter of moving this to the Senate trial. This would take place in 2009. After W left office. Which means it would be a moot point. And it takes 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict - which the Senate will not be in 2/3 control of the Democrats.

In any case, even if W gets impeached by an infuriated Congress (over the fact they lost the election over impeachment zealotry), it ain't going anywhere. That is because the clock will have run out. And so many minutes have ticked away, that there is not a chance to do so.

Let me draw an analogy. Lets assume W impeachment were a football game. It is the R's vs the D's. If you get more points than your opponnent, you remove him from office. In terms of this analogy, it is toward the end of the third quarter, and the R's are leading the D's by a score of, oh, say, 82-10. Any reasonable person would assume the game were over.

However, not the anti-Bush zealots. They fail to see the realities of impeachment, and that the clock to do this has just about run out. And they look silly by demanding this. Any time my political opponents look silly, I want to promote that to make them look bad. And to those who wish to promote impeachment, I say - bring it on!

Well, the Internet is no longer a new thing - PSRC

For those of you who have been reading this blog, you know I am a conservative. And an activist.

When I first started my activism, over ten years ago, I put my energy into a. writing an ezine (which died) and b. organizing internet discussion groups, known then as listprocs. I created several conservative ones (and one devoted to discussing Russian things). The one that kept going was Puget Sound Conservatives. Later, it changed to Puget Sound Regional Conservatives. Below tells the story - as it now has been going ten years.

Who knew that a simple discussion group could last this long? And how long will it continue to last?

Oh yea - this discussion group can be found at

groups.yahoo.com/group/psrc/


Hello! My name is Eric, and I am one of the people who got this list going. I am the owner of this list, and I started it 10 years ago to discuss politics for conservatives from a regional perspective.
And, we are now at the 10th anniversary of this list. It was sometime in the spring, maybe it was now, I don't know. But this list has been going for 10 years.
It started as a listproc on the UW server at my instigation, and the first owner/moderator was Megan Dosher. I have no idea what she is up to these days and in fact I never met her. She just responded to an email of mine and volunteered to take this on. I know that she ran for the Student Senate a year later, and did not do screwy things during her term like the current UW Student Senate is notorious for today.
For a few years, I asked some UW students with whom I still had contact to keep it on the UW server, and finally moved it in 2000. I had originally set up a Puget Sound Conservatives listproc on yahoogroups, but forgot the password to enter, so I had to set this one up (as Puget Sound Regional Conservatives) and transfer everone over. I asked one person to moderate it, I forget his name, and then appointed Dan as the moderator in 2000.
Anyways, I set up several lists ten years ago, mostly having to do with conservative politics (I set up a Russian discussion group, too, as I studied Russian history/language in college). This is the only one that has lasted this long. In a way, this has become a bit of an institution. How many internet discussion groups last 10 years? And, is anyone setting up these things any more?
Well, I hope it lasts a lot longer! At least another 10 years! With a review of the posts, it looks like it is going fairly strong.
Anyways, I turned over the moderatorship because I was too busy to read messages, much less approve them, so I have not had time to read them. I still am involved in Republican things, as well as conservative causes, too, but if you have not heard from me, that is because I have not had time to write much.
So, for those of you who have not heard from me in years, you know what is going on. I hope you all are enjoying the information this list provides.
Eric