Jump to navigation
Letters To People Who Do Not Read This Blog: The Show
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
To The Leader Of The Band With The
Hair Problem,
That bandana is ingenious. Good work.
Sincerely,
Author of the Blog You Do Not Read
Dear People Who Go To Shows And Get Right In Front Of The Singer And Then Try To Talk To Each Other Over Him,
I was not impressed.
Sincerely,
Author of the Blog You Do Not Read
To The Guy Who Was At The Boland Show And Is Probably Someone I Should Recognize But If I Ever Did I Disavow It And Have Lost All Respect For Said Person I Should Probably Know,
Are you bloody blind? I mean, I don't mean to be mean here, but damn, get a clue, buddy.
She does not dig you!
If you would have realized that as early as I did, you would have saved yourself a hell of a lot of trouble. That laughter when you were flirting with her? That wasn't flirtatious laughter. That was nervous laughter. Not even nervous like "Ohmigod I can't believe the guy who was on stage with Jason Boland is talking to me" nervous, but rather "If I laugh I might not pee in my pants cause I'm so afraid of this guy" laughter. Between the numerous times she turned away from you to talk to someone, anyone, else and the way she managed to dance with everyone (male or female) but you, I am uncertain as to how there might have been mixed signals. And no, that stunt you pulled by picking up another girl just so you could not look pathetic didn't work. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing this if it wasn't for that cause you really screwed her over.
So the lesson of the day: Find a chick that digs you.
Sincerely,
Author of the blog that you do not read
Triumphant Return of Jason Boland
R. Alex Whitlock
Jason Boland has reclaimed the coveted title of The Best Country Singer In The Universe According To RAW. He lost it a week ago when Edmondson claimed the title after his umpteenth consecutive great show. Edmondson now stands strong at #2.
I didn't blog on the last Boland show because it was... well... disappointing. Kevin and Callie saw him play in Oklahoma and gave him a
lackluster review. My biggest problem with his last show was that while he has some of the best songs out there, he spent all his set-list doing covers of the classics. That might be a plus for a band starting out, but he's not going to make it big singing Mama Tried for the umpteenth time, no matter how good the song is. I was a little worried going into the show tonight, which is a first for a Boland show. I was worried that with his increasing popularity, he may have lost his touch.
He hasn't. Tonight he not only put on one of the best shows I've ever seen from him, but perhaps the best weeknight show I have ever seen from anyone. He was personable without being cocky, he dealt with some rowdy fans admirably, and he played some great music. He played up until 1:30, which for a weeknight was not required, and didn't leave a single hit unsung. It was good enough that I bought another copy of Live at Billy Bob's (the old one was stolen) on the spot.
Most excellent.
-30-
Mathematically The Coolest CD/MP3 Player Ever
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the Original RAWbservations]
A couple days back, I got a CD player installed in my car at a great price by my friend Andy. This means retirement for my portable CD/MP3 player, which is a shame because it was cool. So cool, in fact, it was mathematically one in a million. One in over a trillian, actually.
Bear with me.
I was driving up to Waco and listening to it when it played the a song two times in a row. Now, this is an MP3 CD with approximately 178 tracks. So what are the chances that it would play the same song two times in a row? 178x178=31,684. I hit Next Song and... wah-lah! Same song again. 31,684x178=5,637,952. I hit Next Song and it played the same song, yet a fourth time. 5,637,952x178=1,003,875,856
So there is a 1-in-1,003,875,856 chance that it would do that. Well, that's my player!
So what happened after the fourth? I powered it off and powered it back on. The magic was gone and it went to another song.
Why The Liberals Are Wrong on Education
R. Alex Whitlock
[Originally posted on the original RAWbservations]
A couple years back, I was in a conversation with the (then) president of the UH Democrats, in which she touched on just about every Republican I don't care much for (David Dewhurst, Tom DeLay, etc) and mentioned a couple Democrats that I don't hold in as low regard as others (Chris Bell, John Sharp). At some point she asked me "How is it that you're a Republican again?"
The thought has occured to me that RAWbservations has been drifting a bit to the left lately. Opposition to the death penalty, concern for wealth inequality, pro-gay marriage, and so on. Rest assured, I am no further to the left than I was when the site was started over six months ago.
So, I'll start on issue #1 with which I cannot stomach establishment Democratic policy: Education.
The Democratic approach to education seems to be "Don't change a thing! Just send more money into our failing system!"
I had to read over that statement a couple times to make sure that I'm not being unfair, but after doing so, I don't believe that I am. They state that (a) any substantial change to the system is bad, (b) the system needs more money because (c) it's failing.
One would surmise from the gyst of that statement that the system is failing for lack of money. In a way, that may be true. Not enough money makes it into the classroom and schools often cannot afford what ought to be basic educational equipment. What I don't buy, however, is the notion that there is not enough money going into the system and, furthermore, putting more money into the system would be a substantial benefit. In Texas, the average Houston Independent School District student is worth $6,500 to the district (that stats on this are a bit outdated, but the point stands). The average student in neighboring suburban Clear Creek Independent School District is given $5,500. The latter offers a substantially better education.
Of course, one could argue that the HISD needs more money than the CCISD because the latter has the cream of the crop. They have the children of engineers and professionals. They have computers and home and so forth. That's both true and valid. However, how much money would it take to compensate for parents who cannot afford to assist their children's education or choose not to? How much is that worth? In my case, it's invaluable. Without my father's demand that I stay focused, my grades would have perpetually stayed poor and I never would have gone to college. Others get by without my parental support, though, so it's a difficult thing to gauge.
So would an extra $1,000 per student do it? Apparently not. What about $2,000? What about $3,500 per student (enough for a laptop and substantial educational software for every student. Well, it so happens that $10,000 is about what the Washington DC school district spends per pupil, and it is universally regarded as one of the worst school districts in the country. You could argue that the DC school district is abnormally corrupt, but money feeds corruption. Throw enough money at the HISD without reform and it'll start looking a lot more like the DC district. Why? Because money or no, they presently have no incentive to improve. They have a captive audience and virtually no one to answer to.
So what would work? That brings me to the next part of my statement: "Don't change a thing."
Now, liberals don't say that much. They are rhetorically in favor of reform, until you start making suggestions. After which, they reflexively oppose any actual substantive change. Some may support some measures and others may support others, but at the end of the day the Democratic establishment is hostile to each and every change I have heard to date. Some examples:
Standardized tests: "They will just start teaching to the test!" and "Some students are not good test takers.
I can vouch for their claim. When I was in school, TAAS testing took up a load of my English course. What I do remember, though, is that my teachers were never more serious about anything than they were about preparing for that test. We spent class after class going over insipid analogies which were a crux of the test at the time. The answer, though, is not to abolish standardized tests, but rather make them more reflective of what students need to know so that when they're "teaching to the test" they're actually teaching the students what they need to know. Then they go to their next argument.
It's true, some students are not good test takers. I'm one of them. I failed the TAAS test not once but twice. I had to take a remedial reading course because of it. That being said, tough luck. Give students multiple chances to take the test, require remedial classes, but making them somehow prove that they've learned something and don't have a socially promotioned diploma. I have always been a slow reader and the TAAS test's time is what tripped me up. Making me prepare to take it again would have done me much more good than harm (it's a bit of a moot point since I passed the exit TAAS exam with flying colors, but the general point stands).
Charter schools: "There is no oversight"
Most Democrats don't come out opposed to charter schools outright. Instead, they promote an increasing amount of oversight. That, of course, defeats the entire purpose of charter schools to begin with. The more oversight, the less charter. They are meant to be able to experiment. They need to be able to try new things. Even new things that [gasp] the teachers unions don't approve of. They need to be able to set their own academic calender, schedule, and curriculum. Forcing them to abide by the same rules as standard schools merely waters it down. Once it's watered down, then Dems and libs can point out that they're not all that effective. The convenience of this is not accidental.
So am I suggesting that they be able to do whatever they want and thus be free not to teach the kids a damn thing? No. They would be required to take the same standardized tests as above. That way, they have to teach the same basics, but are given flexibility to do so how they choose. Ironically (and conveniently) they oppose charter schools partially on the grounds for which they oppose the remedy as well.
Vouchers: "It takes money from public schools" and "It's a violation of church and state" and "It'll only help the students that least need helping"
The first argument is just silly. Yes, it does take money from public schools, but it also relieves them of some of their responsibilities. Currently, schools are overcrowded, so think of it as a way to ease that. If the schools have too many students, then take some of them away and it's win-win. But no, schools want to have their cake and eat it too. It's a flawed argument, to say the least.
The second argument is also wrong-headed (though I'm willing to give those who make it the benefit of the doubt for good intentions whereas I'm not on the first). So does money going to religious institutions to provide an education create a problem for church and state? I would have to argue not, and I have existing law to back me up on it. Those recieving money from the Montgomery GI Bill can spend their money at any institution they choose (even Baylor and Brigham Young). Because it's there choice, it does not constitute government-sponsored religion. Now, if you believe that's wrong, I disagree but at least you're ideologically consistent. So to those who make this argument: Do you agree that vouchers or constitutional or would you say that Montgomery GI Bill folks shouldn't be able to go to Notre Dame?
And on the last argument, I concur that in its existing form vouchers would only help a small number of students. That's why they are part of the answer and not the entire answer. Additionally, when these programs are started, new schools will pop up. The same applies to charter schools.
So even though vouchers and charter schools are not the answer, they can be a part of the answer. They are at least doing something, but liberals are so interested in preserving the status quo that they find reasons to oppose anything and everything to disrupt the school system that is, in their own admission, failing the kids. So should I call them liberals, conservatives, or just plain wrong?
Goo-Goo Feingold For President
R. Alex Whitlock
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably vote against him, but I'd almost feel bad about doing so. Those who wonder if there are "any good liberals left" with Wellstone's tragic death should keep Feingold in mind. He's not quite as liberal and not nearly as professorial, but even when I've disagreed with him I've always believed he was sincere. I believe McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional and bad law, but I am inclined to be more trustful of Feingold's motives than McCain's.
Articles like
this one, which my friend Mike sent me this morning, remind me why:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) yesterday (Jan. 28) reintroduced his Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which he says will help consumers, small and independent radio station owners, and indie concert promoters by prohibiting anti-competitive practices in the radio and concert industries, Billboard Bulletin reports.
And yes, below it says that McCain is co-signing the legislation, so I am remotely grateful to him as well.
Give'em hell, Russ!
You Know, That Word, That Four-Letter One That Starts With...
R. Alex Whitlock
Arthur Silber
echoes my previously unexpressed thoughts on newspaper self-censorship:
In case you can't figure it out, the ellipses are for the word FAGS. Fags. Good lord. This isn't the point I started this post to make, but it just occurred to me: if you're going to report an incident, REPORT IT. All this political correctness is way past the point of being ridiculous. If the person said FAG, use the word FAG. If he said NIGGER, use the word NIGGER. If we don't know what they said, how the hell are we supposed to evaluate it? And for God's sake, don't make us guess when we're reading the newspaper. Report what the person said! How hard is that?
Be the word either of the above, or any other four letter word in which the word used is important, newspapers do us no favors by editing it out. If someone was shot after yelling an ethnic slur, I want to know what the ethnic slur was. If he was "taunting him" with cuss words and the cuss words underscore the nature of the taunting, say the goddamn words. I know, I know, plugging the ears of the children, but come on. They know the words. They know how they're not supposed to use them and, in the case of articles like this, it's obvious that they are being used offensively. Of course, that might make them use it when they want to be offensive... but you know what? They're going to anyway.
In a similar note,
Susanna reports that a newspaper has
changed its policy so that when they reference the Washington Redskins, they will not actually say the word "Redskins" because it's derogatory against the tribes. Now, for what it's worth, I do think the Redskins should change their mascot. I don't believe that every Indian-related mascot everywhere should be (could someone please tell me how a Brave, which is a word synonymous with courage, can be offensive in respect to the tribes?), but Redskins is the most suspect and I don't believe that it's generally a good idea to have mascots that offend large numbers of people. I don't believe they should be forced to change it, but I believe if they can change the Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards, they can make the Washington Redskins the Washington Warriors and replace the Indian with a Spartan or something. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel.
That being said, this policy is moronic! Now, they are completely within their rights to have a moronic policy,
but it's moronic. If Washington calls themselves the Chinks or the Wetbacks or the Micks, that's between the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Irish and the franchise. It is not the job of the newspaper to pick up the fight for them. Fighting Whities? I don't care, but if I did it's my job to organize a boycott (if they were more than an intramural team, that is) or get them to change their name. The Lincoln Journal-Star even phrases it as joining ranks with an advocacy group. That's objectivity? Is that even a goal anymore?
In any case, if a teach calls themselves the Honkeys or Rednecks, it is the newspaper's job to refer to the team as such. If a Public Enemy-eque band chooses to go by the name Kill All White People, then the music critics should refer to them as such, not KAWP or That Band With The Offensive Name. Report the objections to those names, sure, but do not join them in protest.
On a last note:
Finally, we've decided to drop the stereotypical modifier "Fighting" when used with team nicknames such as Fighting Sioux or Fighting Illini.
No word yet on the Fighting Irish...
Gia Punkarelli Never Took Advice*
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
It's amazing how a few misheard words can totally change a song. I was listening to what I thought was an unfamiliar Jackopierce song. This is what I thought I heard:
"It's 5:58, I can't be late
I can't miss my train
I'll go out of my brain
I need to get away from you
I'm 35 and MLK
suddenly decided to die one day
The same day they said
"I don't think I should be paying you anymore"
Then the song suddenly lead into the familiar song "Vineyard" which was not some abstract protest song (which is what it was sounding like prior to The Vineyard). Turns out it was a live version of Vineyard with a little intro that isn't in the recorded version. So I rewound and listened again, this time catching the actual words:
"It's 5:58, I can't be late
I can't miss my train
I'll go out of my brain
I need to get away from you
I-35 and MLK
my car decided to die one day
The same day you said
"I don't think I should be dating you anymore"
*- "... she a punk who rarely ever took advice" -Verve Pipe
The Gray Toll of the Presidency
R. Alex Whitlock
My hair is in the process of changing from blond to brown. This does not mean that every strand of hair is uniformly blondish brown. Rather, it means that I have blond hairs, brown hairs, and numerous in between. What I find interesting is how different my hair looks in different situations. For instance, as noted below, when it's short it's more blond, as it grows longer it darkens. Of course, lighting plays an even bigger roll. People who look at the picture to the left would say "That's reddish brown" and the second "blond, for the most part" when long or short it's neither brown nor blond and there is no red whatsoever. What's interesting is that small things such as how I comb it make a difference. Which hairs are exposed determined the color. (for what it's worth, my interest in my hair color is based on an ongoing debate with my friend Silk, who assures me that it is unquestionably "dark brown.")
Liberals are digging into George W. Bush because he is allegedly coloring his hair. The proof is in two pictures, one from November where it's gray, the other from a day or two back and it's brown. You don't have to look at
the pictures too hard to see that the lighting is quite different.
Jane Galt:
Well, my first thought was "He's dying his hair gray?" Because I'd just watched him on the State of the Union, and I recalled it as pretty, y'know, gray.
My roommate and I watched the SotU and I can't remember who commented first, but we were in such agreement that it didn't matter. We both noticed how much President Bush has aged in the last two years. In controlled lighting, his hair was graying. It's not completely gray, but it's obviously in (very fast) transition. As his hair turns gray (much like mine turning brown), it means that he has gray hairs, brown hairs, and some in between. Therefore, depending on the lighting, the length, the comb, and how is hair is feeling on any given day, there's going to be some variation. Jane helpfully links up to a number of pictures in which Bush's hair looks quite gray. More gray, in fact, than in the "gray hair" picture that the original poster, Chris Something, uses. Drudge even commented on his hair color recently, pointing out that it's becoming gray.
It's not unusual for the Presidency to do that. Clinton's transition to gray didn't take long and by the end, it was quite apparent that he'd gone from one of the youngest looking presidents into an old man. Bush, about the same age as Clinton (and will thus leave office older than Clinton was) is likely in for the same makeover.
The Hierarchial Economy (or "Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend, Part #575125671")
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the Original RAWbservations]
A little while back, I was perusing KAZAA for a couple missing Matchbox Twenty songs (note to
Owen: I have already purchased their entire collection). It's not uncommon for files to be mislabeled, so I searched for Rob Thomas (lead singer) to see what came up. One extremely large file called "4 Millionaire Next Door." Thinking to myself that there may be a song I didn't know about (and that it might be a mislabeled .wav justifying the size), I downloaded it.
Apparently, it was an excerpt from Robert J. Stanley's well-known
Millionaire Next Door series. However, once it was playing, I couldn't bring myself to delete it. It was just too... interesting.
Methinks perhaps I am a bit of a nerd and that might explain my lack of a social life, but I listened to the entire half hour, captivated by Stanley's speculations about where the economy was headed.
What he said, quite optomistically, I found quite disturbing.
What it mostly came down to was that the rich were going to get richer and that the job opportunities for the less wealthy would primarily be serving the rich. As the rich get richer, the boom industry will be in wealthy luxuries and narrow services. For instance, he suggested that someone looking to make a lot of money go into law school. "But aren't there too many lawyers?" he was asked. No, he explained, there are too many people with law degrees. There are too many plaintiff's attourneys and defense attorneys, but not enough estate attourneys and retained attourneys under one or two (uberwealthy) employer. Medical school is another option, though not to be a surgeon or general medical practitioner (of which there are plenty), but rather a doctor specializing in the needs of the wealthy. Enough dentists, not enough orthodontists. Enough demotologists, not enough plastic surgeons, and so on.
Once I recalled who the author was and what he was selling, I tried to just dismiss him as another late-night get-rich-quick infomercialite. The more I thought about it, though, the more he really was convincing before he got to his sales pitch. The numbers he through out and rationale he used were sound. When it ended, I found myself feeling rather concerned.
Now, I'm pro-capitalist and don't have a problem with people amassing large amounts of money, so it wasn't a sense of injustice that got to me. It was a sense of fragility. The economy that he described in the first half is one in which not only do the wealthy get wealthier, but it's going to be required to keep the economy going. The rich will have to get richer or there will be a lot of people who got in the career of serving them out of work. It doesn't take an economist to know that when times get bad, it's the luxury providers that get hit most of all. Bologni sales go up, veil sales go down.
The Millionaire Next Door was written during the height of the economic boom, so much of it may not apply anymore. Had it continued (or if this is just a blip and things will return to normal), the economy that Stanley prognosticated would return. An economy in which a significant proportion of the GDP goes towards catering to the super-wealthy. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing and I'm worried over nothing. After all, if a middle to upper-middle class can be provided by serving the wealthy, isn't that better than no middle class or upper-middle class at all? If people can get work serving the wealthy where they otherwise wouldn't do as well, is that not a good thing? Ideologically, I'd say it's a good thing. I just can't get myself to believe that such a vertical plantation-style (not referring to slavery, just structure) economy is such a good thing. It doesn't produce anything. Then again, a lot of what we do (all the service-based industries, whomever they are servicing) doesn't actually produce anything and I've had little reason to complain so far. I even applaud it in some cases where it gives the poor jobs they otherwise wouldn't have (such as lawn care).
So I'm stumped. What do y'all think? Am I turning into a pink hippie liberal or does anyone else see this as a little disturbing?
The Great Division: Mike McClure's New Band
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
Mike McClure has hit the ground running with news of his exodus from Great Divide becoming public. Though there is no band name yet, he's assembled his team which disturbingly includes Bleu Edmondson's (soon to be former) lead guitarist Coby Weir. The Lester Brothers haven't announced that TGD is in fact a former entity, so it's possible that they will find another lead singer and continue under that name. McClure isn't the most replaceable person, though, as he has a rather distinct voice and wrote a good number in the TGD catalogue (in other words, he wasn't just a pretty boy frontman). But whether it's under the Great Divide name or Lester Brothers Band or whatever, I look forward to hearing them. It's a little tough now, but the prospect of two good bands coming of this leaves me room for hope.
UPDATE: Nope, Not Coby Weir. He's still playing with Bleu Edmondson.
Kevin says the guitarist they do have is pretty bad-ass, though.
It's 1987, Do You Know What Your Children Are?
R. Alex Whitlock
1987 or 2003, judges have ruled that the X-Men and their fellow mutants are
not human.
[link via
Amygdala]
WWTOTD Redux
R. Alex Whitlock
I suppose in this case it's alright to put forth a WWTOTD scenario since Susanna doesn't actually suggest Republicans do what Democrats would regarding George Clooney's insensitive comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimers. I just thought
her scenario is almost Simpsons-worthy:
When someone like Clooney pops off like that, unless it's hammered into our faces most conservatives just shake their heads, say, "idiotarian extraordinaire" and go on with their lives. But in a similar situation, the professional victims segment of the left would immediately descend on Selleck (to continue using him as the example) en masse, and demand not only that he apologize, not only that he donate the proceeds of his last five films to their organizations for the victims of conservatives (no self-interest there), but also that the entire country wear mourning for three days and pass a tax hike to fund educational program throughout the country to teach our young people that Tom Selleck is a cancer on humanity.
The Olsen Twins, Matchbox Twenty, & Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I have a confession to make. When I was little, I watched and enjoyed the TV show Full House. What can I say? When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid. So as such I will always remember the Olsen Twins as being little baby Michelle. Post-Full House, all they are is the excess-growth of the cute little baby/kid. The things they were in after Full House annoyed me to no end because, well they were just really stupid and unlike the days where I watched Full House, I was smart enough to see how stupid they were. Then at some point they ceased being people at all and suddently became properties. They weren't selling a TV show or a movie, but rather themselves. Making a pretty buck doing it, for sure, but would you sell your soul for that kind of money? I can honestly say that I wouldn't. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one. Anyhow, to put it nicely, they're just little spoiled brat plastic doll media whores that annoy the living hell out of me.
Not that I'd make a very good spoiled plastic media doll whore.
Not that I feel particularly passionate about this.
A year and a half or so ago, I made the acquaintence of an attractive young lady named Tiana. She had connections and those connections gave her eighth row tickets to a Matchbox Twenty show. All she needed was a ride. Cool, I thought, I'll drive out to pick her up in return for 8th row M20 tickets. Good deal. Well, turned out that she needed a ride because she was fifteen. Okay, I rationalized, since there is obviously this
glaring age difference there is obviously nothing there (nor was there any indication of something their prior to the revelation), so it was all good.
Except that she was interested. Very interested. That became obvious by the way she was looking at me during the show.
Just relax, Alex I told myself,
a couple more hours and it will all be over. And I managed to convince myself this when simultaneously she put her arm around me and I had the revelation: She's younger than the Olsen Twins.
OH MY GOD SHE'S YOUNGER THAN THE OLSEN TWINS! There was no relaxation after that. My shoulders and back were stiffer than a board. I was practically standing in the walkway to get as far away from the girl that was
younger than the Olsen Twins.
After that night, I determined that I had found my permanent lower threshold. Even when I am 40 and they are 33, I will not date someone 32. Period. They would be, you see,
younger than the Olsen Twins! It's analogous to most guys I know that will not date someone younger than their kid sister. Little alarms go off in their head, even if there is only three years of difference, if their sister is only two years. So I've built some of my disdain for this pair into my eternal philosophy.
So now comes the revelation (to me, anyway), that they are two frickin' geniouses. Not only that, but they actually have interests more intellectual than any of mine, such as in Nanotechnology, which they will be studying at a prestigious school.
My reaction is best summed up in this IM conversation with my friend John H:
RAW: Check this out.
RAW: We now live in the twilight zone
JH: Aaaah. Aaaah!
JH: What is that????
RAW: I... I... I don't think I can hate them anymore
RAW: Shit.
JH: I can. I can hate them twice.
RAW: This has serious psychological repercussions for me
RAW: Did you know that I have permanently set my basement for interest in a female at the age of the Olsen Twins? Like when I'm 30 and they're 23, I will not be able to date anyone 22...
JH: They want to study nanotech. They're twins. They're the fricking Olsen. Snap out of it!
RAW: They scored perfect on the SAT...
JH: And yes I said Olsen, not Olsens. They are a unit. And DO NOT make that the excuse for your interest.
JH: I'm sure that, put together, they managed at least a 1600, yes.
RAW: It's not interest... it's... respect. Good lord, I respect them now
JH: Respect is the first step on the path of infatuation.You know where that path leads, my friend. To twin hells!!!
RAW: I respect them... as people... as intelligent minds... make it stop, man!
JH: I'm sure they have aids.
JH: I mean, aides. Like Jared, on Subway commercials.
RAW: Yes, they must
RAW: They probably have a genious on their payroll for the sole purpose of taking tests for them.
JH: Maybe he'll take classes for them as well. Grrr!
RAW: Yes... stupid rich girls.
JH: Absolutely. Abso-friggin-lutely. Stupid, and rich, and about to be a laughing stock come this fall. God, that should be televised.
JH: "Flunk Out!" The ongoing adventures of the Olsen Twins in college.
RAW: Hell yeah!
JH: Gotta go. Either I get a ticket dismissed today, or I pay 90. Only the judge can tell me.
[Note: Yes, I'm aware that the article in question is a parody]
The Subject of Which I Date Not Speak
R. Alex Whitlock
While I'm not inclined to talk about it myself, two bloggers (Rob Lyman and Gary Farber) have done a good job articulating each side of my mixed mind. Excerps below, both worth reading the entire thing on.
Pro -
Gary Farber:
Those are all entirely valid, important, points, frequently, and necessarily made.
Yet, how do they not apply to "legacy" admissions (of largely "white") students specifically given an edge over more academically qualified students solely because of "what they are," not because of their own "hard work and personal achievement"?
Perhaps there are better means to achieve "diversity" than contemporary ad hoc laws and arrangements. Perhaps some or all such contemporary laws and arrangements promote more damage than good (a difficult case to prove, but an argument with at least some valid supporting points). Perhaps soon will come the time to cease to attempt to help people discriminated against on grounds of "race" by means of continuing "racial" categories (inevitably the goal calls for somesuch time to ultimately occur). Perhaps the time is now, as many now argue.
Anti -
Rob Lyman:
I've said before that I don't really care about statistics showing that such-and-such a racial group has such-and-such and average income, or does so well on the SAT, etc. My interest is, and remains, individual people. My opposition to AA and other racial remedies is based on the fact that I don't believe that present racism is a significant obstacle to success, in school, in homeownership, etc. etc.
Not that racism doesn't exist--it certainly does--but it isn't such a dominant factor that we should simply assume it was so crippling that we must give people preferences based on race. I'm open to having my mind changed on this point, but most of the people who try to change it make outrageous assumptions--for example, that if blacks are rejected for mortgages at higher rates than whites, it just proves that white bankers are anti-black bigots. (Asians have higher loan acceptance rates than whites--are white bankers anti-white and pro-Asian, too?)
Question of the Day: Transmissions vs. Transistors
R. Alex Whitlock
Why is it that knowledge with cars and whatnot is considered masculine and therefore attractive to the opposite sex and knowledge of computers is a neutral quality, at best, and usually considered nerdy?
Kiddies in Love
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex has a
touching story about the abrupt cancellation of his four year old daughter's intended wedding to a silly boy by the most excellent name of Alex. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't have any kids with cute little stories to tell. So I'll just self-indulge a bit and show you a picture of the girl I shoulda married. Something tells me she would have taken good care of me [nodnod]
Congratulations to Austin, Texas
R. Alex Whitlock
I usually nitpick MSN lists to death, but I can't argue with an list that places Austin as one of the
top six cities to live in.
1. Austin, Texas. On the Colorado River, in the heart of the Hill Country, Austin offers an affordable cost of living, low utility costs, clean water, and easy access to outdoor activities in the surrounding wooded, rolling hills. You'll find an extensive park system with many recreational opportunities, such as boating. Austin boasts a low unemployment rate, and average commute time is only 21.4 minutes. Through its willingness to support economic diversification, Austin's job rate has grown fast in recent years and promises to grow even faster in the future, especially in the high-tech fields. Experts predict an incredible job growth rate (33.19% to 2010).
Love music? You'll love "The Live Music Capital of the World." Austin has become a center for live music and hosts the South by Southwest Music Festival. Home to the University of Texas, Austin offers many opportunities to take part in educational and cultural activities: museums, symphonies, and theaters, not to mention many good restaurants. Any negatives here? You have to like hot summers: average high temp in July is 95.9 degrees F.
I've thought about moving to Austin, but the job situation there isn't as benign as the article suggests. There are a lot of recently graduated UT students looking for work that don't want to leave the city. Because of Compaq and Enron, the job situation in Houston is worse. Where's a good ole' boy to move to? Dallas? Yeepers.
Oh, and before I get too high on MSN lists, they list San Fransisco as #2...
-30-
Return of the Genderbots: The Slut/Prude Myth That Just Won't Die
R. Alex Whitlock
Can we please put the feminist whining about slut/prude to rest? Pretty, pretty please?
It's dead. It died some time ago.
I am referring to
this piece by Nigella Lawson, who writes a column for Guardian about a new study that shows, shocker of shockers, women are more inclined to have sex drunk than when they're sober. If Ms. Lawson had left her column at "duhhhhh" I would be nodding and laughing in agreement. But nooooooooooooo. She had to go on and rant that society is having a concerted effort to suppress women by not allowing them to accept their urges, such as sex.
She is upset about the "shock" people felt when they read the survey. She didn't provide any examples of this shock, she just said it was there and the shock is an example of how we seek to suppress womanly sexuality.
Suppress womanly sexuality? Men are trying to do this? Tell us who, please, and I'm certain that there are a number of men who would like to pay these people a visit. Most men do not have a problem with aggressive women, sexually or otherwise, anymore. Not some men or enlightened men or liberal men. Most men. Some men might prefer the silent woman, but, ahem, the "strong silent type" has been known to appeal to certain women, too, and I strongly doubt that's an attempt to supress masculinity.
Of course women, men too, tend to wild behaviour when drunk, but that must be the point. People drink for a number of reasons - I'm not talking about alcoholics here, which is a deeper issue - and one of them surely is to lose their inhibitions. And maybe that is why some consider even these tame findings alarming. Drunk women are looked upon more harshly than are drunk men because femininity - as a construct - relies on, is defined by, inhibition. What is natural - sexual appetite, anger, body hair - is deemed unfeminine. Being drunk is worse: it's a brazen refusal to be quiet, well-behaved and ladylike.
It's not surprising that many women, too, are ashamed of their behaviour when drunk, protesting that their actions are out of character, but people often need to have drink inside them in order to do what they want but wouldn't dare to do sober. This purportedly out of character behaviour might horrify them, but this hardly supports their claim. If they weren't so horrified, then maybe they could be more themselves when sober. While inhibitions aren't necessarily bad - civilisation in some parts rests on them - to go through life feeling that only certain behaviour is acceptable is almost guaranteed to lead to bouts of immoderation once restraints are loosened.
For women this is particularly difficult because we have been conditioned to believe that we are acceptable only when we are pleasing. Agreed, men who behave loutishly are scarcely nice to have around, but they are not rejected wholesale for bad behaviour. Indeed, a certain amount of forcefulness and loudness is thought to be masculine; boys will be boys. But what can girls be? Do we really have to sip from scant saucers of champagne giggling that the bubbles go up our nose?
Well cry me a fraggin' river. Some women have to get drunk before losing their inhibitions. But, as she says, "men too." At the Bleu Edmondson show on Saturday night, a girl in a green sweater caught my eye. I never pick up women in bars (though I've been picked up a couple times), but I'll tell you that just going up and talking to her seemed like a lot better idea at the end of the evening than it did at the beginning. Of course, I don't have gender repression to rely on as an excuse. Or, I guess, in a way I do. The way my mind works, and why I never pick up women in bars, is that I figure they get guys coming up to them looking to get some that I would seem like all the rest, even if my intentions were more pure (and being who I am, they are). So then do I get to whine about gender roles and how they screw up my social life because they inhibit me from just going up to every woman that catches my eye in a bar? No, because it's not gender roles, it's me. I could if I wanted to, but sans a whole lot of beer, I don't want to.
I'd be willing to bet that most women don't really care to just go up to a random man and take him home with her, either. Some want to, of course, and they probably do. If they don't, don't blame me (singularly or as a man). Let's just say a woman doing that is more likely to meet with success than a guy is. Unless of course she's looking for such with me, in which case she's going to be disappointed most likely. Oh wait, is that because she's aggressive and I don't like aggressive women because I'm hardwired not to and age-old gender oppression tells me not to? Or, more likely, is it because I'm just not interested in one night stands with random women? It's hard to tell, isn't it, since you don't know me or know what really goes through the mind of any man (only they individually know).
Which is why the way she frames the entire subject is a losing proposition. You can infer or dismiss anything by applying it sociologically to gender. If a woman picks up a man in a bar, has sex with him, and regrets it the next day, well it's naturally because she's oppressed, right? What happens when a man, as in Charlie Robison's "Life of the Party" song, wakes up and realizes that the woman she took home "gained herself two-hundred" pounds? Oh wait, that's probably because of the gender oppression of men's excessive weight of importance on weight (no pun intended). No matter what we say and do, it can be traced back to our role as the oppressor. No matter what women say and do, it can be traced back to their role as the oppressed (or, in this case, inhibited).
I don't think this is a game I really want to play.
Earnest Opposition to Iraq
R. Alex Whitlock
Despite my derogatory reference to the Idiot Mothers For Global Peace below, I do want to say that I don't consider those who oppose the war idiots. Just those ladies.
I think Bush did a good job on Iraq, though others will disagree. I think it all comes down to "job doing what?" People looking for new evidence obviously came up disappointed. I'm not sure what those looking for a "smoking gun" are looking for precisely. I don't think there will be one in regards to Iraq as whatever links exist are infirm. For those of you looking for a smoking gun in regards to his building up weapons with intent to use them, what precisely are you looking for? The weapons inspectors to find something? Hussein has become very skilled at making sure that doesn't happen. Do you honestly doubt that Hussein intends to build up his arsenal? If so, what for? Even if he's not capable of attacking us directly he can pull all the same tricks that the leader of North Korea presently is. Those who point to Korea as a reason why we shouldn't be so obsessed with Iraq are, it seems to me, missing a rather large point.
Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if our ability to move and operate throughout the world is hindered by nuclear threat because you don't think we should be acting aggressively anyway. Maybe not, but can you imagine how much tougher Afghanistan would have been if Hussein decided to pull a stunt and making threats about an agressive military campaign in his back yard? What about if he invades Kuwaitt again and threatens a nuclear response if we interfere?
For my part, there is no leader presently more isolated, ambitious, and dangerous than Saddam Hussein. North Korea may be isolated and dangerous, but they are not ambitious. China is dangerous, but neither isolated nor ambitious (despite what many right-wingers argue). Saudi Arabia is dangerous, but neither isolated or ambitious. The ambition is important because it helps explain what they will do with the power once they have it. Do they intend to use it defensively as China has? China is largely a protectionist government with no real ambitions outside what it already considers its own (Tibet and Taiwan). North Korea just wants food and a little respect. Hussein, on the other hand, wants power and as much of it as possible and as far reaching as possible. Since he's isolated, there are little diplomatic relationships with the US that he could harm. When his days are numbered, and they will be someday whether we attack now or not, he will have nothing to lose. Do we want to wait until he has the better weaponry before that loose cannon lines up to fire?
Prior to 9/11, I opposed invading Iraq vigorously. I even supported lifting sanctions. If there's one thing that 9/11 taught me, it's that we can't wait around for things to keep getting worse before we act. I was more or less supportive of Clinton's lackadaisical approach to bin Laden, believing that there was more harm in going to war than he could possibly accomplish. Besides, he knows if he does that we will bring the wrath of god down upon him, doesn't he? Apparently he didn't. Who knows what's going through Hussein's head and who wants to gamble Hussein's virtue and capability against American lives?
These are questions I can't answer. Until I can, I support the invasion. There are others with other questions that I believe are answered, but at least they're asking the questions.
What gets my goat about Idiot Mothers For Global Peace is that to them there are no questions and there is no discussion. They oppose it because war kills children and other living things. There is no arguing with that and, quite frankly, that's not an even remotely sustainable position. The likes of ANSWER don't have a problem with war or bloodshed or dead children, just America, which is ten degrees worse. But I recognize that there are a lot of people with more brains than IMFGP and more heart than ANSWER. I don't understand their point of view all that well, but I do accept it as earnest.
Letters To People Who Do Not Read This Blog: SotU 2003
R. Alex Whitlock
Dear Dude Who Was On Channel 13 Denouncing The Idiot Mothers For Global Peace Women,
Next beer is on me. Next five beers are on me, dude.
Sincerely,
Author Of The Blog You Do Not Read
Blogging The State of the Union
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations. Comments Unavailable.]
I didn't agree with a lot of what Locke had to say, but I still maintain that he is a lot more impressive than any of the candidates I've seen step up to the presidential plate. He's probably waiting for 2008 or beyond and that's probably wise, but I'm not sure what a 2 term governor of a mid-to-large-sized state has to prove.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:30 PM
2 Observations
Locke complains that we shouldn't be drilling in Alaska because we should invest in technology to reduce need. Uhhhh Gary, Bush had a plan for that. AND IT'S NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION!!!!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:26 PM
Observate!
"That wouldn't save Medicare... that would privatize it." -Gov. Locke
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:24 PM
Observate!
So tax cuts + more spending = less debt... that's politician math for you.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:21 PM
5 Observations
"Prosperity is only a Democratic victory away!" -Locke, more or less.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:20 PM
Observate!
I'm watching Gary Locke now... Democrats have a "specific plan?"
Greg, can you tell me what the hell this specific plan is?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:19 PM
2 Observations
Response from Senator Kennedy: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:04 PM
Observate!
One of the camera angles they're using makes the auditorium look a lot like a small room like a VFW hall.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:59 PM
Observate!
Bush is talking about Iraq right now... and talking and talking. It's quite potent stuff and it's rather obvious that Bush feels very strongly about it. I haven't actually seen him talk about it before, just read clips of what he's had to say. It's much stronger delivered in person. The plain language (for the most part) is more penetrating than would be Clinton's more gusto speech. I think this style hurts him on the speeches on the domestic programs, it really, really helps here.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:57 PM
Observate!
Mark my words: John Kerry will never be President.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:50 PM
Observate!
Is it me or was Arlan Specter looking at his cell phone during the ovation?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:50 PM
Observate!
John McCain ain't lookin' so good...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:48 PM
2 Observations
"It's more than to follow a process, it's to achieve a result."... I like that line.
"Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others"... BEAUTIFUL!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:46 PM
Observate!
Bush's point about a single location for all terrorist threats to go is one of the reason I'm not as uncomfortable with the DHS as I otherwise would be. If there was one thing that I took from it, it's that we had all this information in all these different places, but no one could do a whole lot with it. It'll be big and bloated, sure, but it's necessary. Those who say "this war will be fought overseas" act as though it's an either/or. That's like saying "World War II will be fought in Japan" and leaving Europe aside. We can follow them across the globe, but as long as they can come here, the war will be brought home to us. God willing, the DHS will help us fight that war. The lack of Civil Service Protection hopefully means it will stay limber enough to be as big as necessary, but not become an aggregate interest in its own via the government workers unions and the like.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:45 PM
Observate!
"And look at it this way, they are no longer a threat to America and their allies." -GWB
Is it me, or did the Democrats take an unusually long time to stand up. Not intending innuendo, I think they were just caught off-guard. I was a bit.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:38 PM
2 Observations
Mark my words: John Kerry will never be President.
If he ever becomes such, God help us. Not because he would screw things up that badly (he would be bad, but not that bad), but because if the United States turns to him as the answer, I'd hate to know what the problem is. It would have the be the stuff of apocalyptic science fiction novels.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:36 PM
Observate!
The partial birth abortion issue is a winner for Republicans and those who have been suggesting that it's a sign of Republican overreach are out of touch with the public discomfort with abortion in general, particularly the more gruesome methods. Politically, abortion is a loser for Republicans... but that's the exception.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:32 PM
9 Observations
I actually appreciate Bush's plans to throw more money into research. It's one of the few things that the government really can compete with the private sector on, in part because it's usually done through contracts. If the University of Houston fails, University of North Texas might get the next contract. And, despite my political leanings, I am in favor of much greater gasoline efficiency, if it's carried out right. I'd feel more comfortable with General Motors at work on it, but if the government can help, then by all means. Republicans say that our dependence on foreign oil means that we should drill in Alaska and so forth, Democrats say it means that we should create more efficient cars. I think both are a good idea.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:27 PM
Observate!
That was beautiful! Bush is complaining about frivolous lawsuits and they show John Edwards! Beautiful!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:22 PM
4 Observations
"The choice for" stuck in front of a phrase can mean so much
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:21 PM
Observate!
George W. Bush For Hospital Cheif of Staff? Hurm... [tapping foot]
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:19 PM
Observate!
[This line of criticism of Bush was removed prior to actually posting it. Good work, W.]
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:19 PM
Observate!
Hell F'in yeah! He's finally getting to SS reform.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:17 PM
Observate!
"Spending discipline in Washington DC."
That's like "snow in Houston" or "St. John in Hell."
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:17 PM
Observate!
You tell'em, Dubya! End the Dividend tax now! That's not just a lower-taxes thing, I'd rather see regular rates higher without a dividend tax instead of lower rates with one.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:16 PM
Observate!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Tax credits. Dammit Bush you're a Republican. Throwing more credits and nonsense in the tax-code just makes it that much more complicated.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:15 PM
2 Observations
Hey, a Democrat just stood up for cutting taxes! Is that Zell Miller?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:13 PM
1 Observation
I strongly hope what he means when he says that we won't put the problems off a generation that he is serious about reforming Social Security.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:11 PM
Observate!
... or, for that matter, "our union is patheticall weak. How the hell did that happen?!"
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:10 PM
4 Observations
Has a president ever said "We are now at a time when there isn't anything important happening whatsoever." ?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:08 PM
Observate!
Denny Hastert, please don't retire in 2004.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:08 PM
Observate!
Tom DeLay and Nanci Pelosi side by side. How appropriate...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:05 PM
Observate!
You hear that potential assassins? John Ashcroft is the designated survivor. They should do this year around so as to make sure that President Bush is safe...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:03 PM
Observate!
At the request of a friendly blogger, I will be blogging my thoughts throughout President Bush's State of the Union speech. No, no, hold the applause. It's the least I can do. Really. No, really, it's too much!
Anyway... on with the show.
-30-
There Goes Kevin Again, Always Having to Outdo Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I may have gotten to drive Mark David Manders to the airport, but Kevin got into a
political discussion with
Randy Rogers. Politics and country music. What's not to love?
Watching The Sun Set Down on You
R. Alex Whitlock
Kris Lofgren is on a roll. If's not easy to get a good jibe at France these days. Not because France isn't deserving, but because so many are doing it that few stand out. Well, Kris's stands out as someone who is not a warhawk and falls left of center, he says:
Why do the French think they have so much power? They have almost no military power, their economy, along with the rest of Europe, is struggling under the weight of a burdening social safety net that no longer provides security but rather retards their prosperity, yet they cling to the remnants of Cold War political power that no longer hold any worthwhile significance. They cling to these institutions, such as the U.N., because without them the U.S. could easily dominate the world agenda. They finagle the methods of change and action because with every day that passes, the façade of French influence is undermined by the will of the powerful.
During a punctuated moment in history in which power shifts become apparent and pretenses of authority are shown for what they are, nations that have seen their day in the sun and now must watch their slow decline become nothing more than obstructionists in the path of safety, security, and general prudence for what is acceptable and what is not.
This is what has happened with the French. They no longer have the influence that they once had, and that America once required of them. They have become politically insignificant. Their U.N. veto is now one of the few traditions of power with which they can still justify their worldly pretension. The French have been flying under the radar for far too long, and they have been doing it on our dime.
Start there and just keep reading down the page. Not a bad post among'em.
The Hammer Has Fallen: The Great Division
R. Alex Whitlock
When I first saw The Great Divide play, I hadn't seen a good show in several weeks. In fact, I was wondering if I was losing my taste for live music. Mike McClure and the gang changed all that. It was there first show at the Firehouse, so there weren't all that many people there, just the usual Oklahoma State contingent that makes an appearence at all the Ragweed and Boland shows, so it was a unique opportunity to see a truly awesome band without the crowds. I was only familiar with a handful of their songs, but it didn't matter. I usually don't like a band until my second or third outing with them, but they are one of the few exceptions. In the closing encore, they played the best version of Everclear's Santa Monica I've heard to date.
As readers of RAWbservations know, I've been fearing that they were on the road to breaking up. Today I learned lead guitarist (and vocalist) J.J. Lester has
confirmed my fears.
The time has come for me to let you know what is going on with the band. As of March 31st Mike McClure will no longer be a part of TGD. We (Scotte, Kelley, and myself) apologize for holding this as long as we have. I will elaborate more on the
reasons in the coming months but for now I will leave it at that. Please believe this has been a very difficult time and we are trying to make the right decisions for our fans, families, and future. Thank you for your prayers and support. GOD BLESS, TGD
They are doing another show at the Firehouse in February. I don't know whether to stay sober and appreciate every drop of it or get drunk and mourn their passing.
WWTOTD Redux
R. Alex Whitlock
I suppose in this case it's alright to put forth a WWTOTD scenario since Susanna doesn't actually suggest Republicans do what Democrats would regarding George Clooney's insensitive comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimers. I just thought
her scenario is almost Simpsons-worthy:
When someone like Clooney pops off like that, unless it's hammered into our faces most conservatives just shake their heads, say, "idiotarian extraordinaire" and go on with their lives. But in a similar situation, the professional victims segment of the left would immediately descend on Selleck (to continue using him as the example) en masse, and demand not only that he apologize, not only that he donate the proceeds of his last five films to their organizations for the victims of conservatives (no self-interest there), but also that the entire country wear mourning for three days and pass a tax hike to fund educational program throughout the country to teach our young people that Tom Selleck is a cancer on humanity.
Question of the Day: Erase What, Precisely?
R. Alex Whitlock
Why do makers of mechanical pencils seem to go so far out of their way (a) to make worthless erasers and (b) design their butts to make it impossible to put a cap eraser on them?
I'm One Degree Away From Singing With the Rolling Stones
R. Alex Whitlock
The Rolling Stones were in town on Saturday night. Two people of note (other than the band, of course) were there. Blogger
Heidi Rogers and Texas country singer
Mark David Manders.
It didn't even occur to me until Bleu Edmondson mentioned at his show how honored he felt that we all chose to see him instead of the Stones. Manders had mentioned at his previous show that one of his sponsors had given MDM's latest CD to Keith Richards, who loved it and invited him to see the show from the 15th row and get backstage passes. I briefly hoped MDM was having a blast before starting to move and groove to Bleu's next song.
I spent my Superbowl at the Firehouse, where lo and behold, hanging out amongst the commoners was Mr. Manders himself (as was Derryl Dodd, another local who used to play with Martina McBride, if I recall). I asked him how the show went and he just lit up. We talked about it as we watched the Bucs lay it on the Raiders. He booed and I cheered, he let me mooch off his crawfish and bought me a couple beers, and he went on and on about what will likely be the best musical night of his life.
Apparently, they'd reserved him a room at the Four Seasons where they all ended up after the show. Learning of Texas's no-beer-after-two law, Mark somehow ended up at his suite ("Bigger than my house! More TVs!" he exclaimed) where they hung out, smoked, and jammed. Mark mentioned previously that he'd kill for the Stones to do a version of his (stellar) song "Just Me" and the ones that were they sang backup for him as he sang it (the chorus is from "Sweet Chariot", so it wasn't hard for them). Around three or four with some damage done to the room, they kicked him out, adding the prestige of getting escorted out of the Four Seasons to the incredible evening. From his point of view, I cannot imagine how it could get any better.
Later in the night, I gave him a ride to Hobby Airport for his trip back home to Dallas. In the tape player in the car was a mix-country tape. The first song that started was Jack Ingram's awesome single (and I'm not an Ingram fan) "Biloxi" in which we both preceeded to sing along with, followed by Charlie Robison's "Caviar and Cocaine"* for which we did the same. The next song was a somewhat obscure West 84 tune with a really soothing melody. A minute into it Mark fell asleep. I raced over to the airport to meet the 9:30 deadline. Took a lot of work getting him back awake, but I managed to. He stumbled out and I handed him his suitcase and got back into my car.
A minute later I noticed that he was so dazed that he was walking the wrong way so I drove up beside him and pointed him the right way and drove off.
I must have been in that parking lot all of ten minutes. It was pretty quickly in and out. Only I could manage to somehow lose my fraggin' parking ticket in ten daggum minutes! But I did. I searched the car up and down, no luck. I told the guy at the ticket-taking counter, who had me fill out a long form. I then had to wait for airport security to get there so they could make sure I was legit (for a missing parking ticket? Apparently). The charge for a missing ticket is $30, but I managed to convince them of... something... I don't know what exactly, and they only charged me $6. They photocopied my drivers license, took a picture of my license plate, and let me go on my way.
So what was the point of this story? Oh yeah, I sang with a guy who sang with the 'Stones! Go me!
Superbowl Commercials
R. Alex Whitlock
I laughed out loud at it. I don't do that often. Congratulations, FedEx!
Update: The upcoming Hulk movie looks to be quite good, but didn't they get the memo that Superbowl ads are supposed to be funny? I didn't laugh at that one at all...
Update II: As much as I'd like to give the play by play, I got some crawfish poundage calling to me right now...
That Was Soooooo Not a Fumble (and Madden's an Idiot)
R. Alex Whitlock
So I'm watching the Superbowl. That wasn't a fumble. It was quite obviously not a fumble, but the refs goofed. Now Tampa Bay loses one of their two challenges because the refs are blind. That's a pisser.
Oh, and Madden is an idiot. Michaels is trying to make a legitimate point as to why TB has the right to be pissed, and Madden just can't seem to get it through his thick skull. Yes, there was a wrong and it was righted. But now Tampa Bay has lost the right to challenge a future wrong.
I think that rule needs to be changed. Challenges that are accepted should not count against the wronged team.
So say'eth Alex (whom, in case you can't tell, wasn't entirely familiar with this rule and doesn't watch football all that often, though used to be an avid fan before the Oilers skipped town).
The Things I Do To Avoid Drinking and Driving
R. Alex Whitlock
One of the great things about where I live is that it's about a 20 minute walk from the Firehouse. I just thought I'd mention that the twenty minute walk is a LOT longer in 40 degree weather, winds, and rain.
Why We Watch Joe Millionaire
R. Alex Whitlock
Okay, well I don't actually watch it. I haven't watched a TV show regularly since the first season of West Wing. But if I was watching a show, that would be it.
Why? Ask
Richard Roeper:
'Joe Millionaire" is one of the most morally bankrupt shows in the history of television--and I wouldn't miss a minute of it. This is must-glee TV, an electronic elixir that makes me feel so smugly wonderful about myself, my family, my friends, my enemies, my favorite banjo players and the entire population of these United States that, when I watch it, I want to trampoline up and down on my sofa and sing, "We're all so much BETTER than these people!"
Because we are.
That explains about a lot of what's on television, doesn't it?
Speaking of Sitcoms...
R. Alex Whitlock
Take a look at this and tell me they didn't get the idea from watching the animal-driven machinery on the Flintstones:
It's powered entirely by hamsters.
Gilligan's Land Mass
R. Alex Whitlock
According to the EU, Britain is
not an island. I certainly hope that they go back and change the definitions in all the textbooks to reflect the changes.
Dictionary.com will also have some changes to make (in
italics for your convenience):
island
n 1: a land mass (smaller than a continent) that is surrounded by water, has more than 50 residents, doesn't have a whole lot of bridges and stuff, and doesn't have the capital of a state in the European Union. 2: a zone or area resembling an island, unless the EU deems otherwise.
They're also going to have to go back and correct a whole bunch of episodes of Gilligan's Land Mass Smaller Than a Continent And Surrounded Entirely By Water But Not Legally An Island:
Skipper: Ever since we've been trapped on this land mass surrounded entirely by water that is not legally an island due to the lack of fifty residents, I haven't had an ounce of steak!
[laugh track]
Gilligan: I don't know, Skipper, what I miss most about civilization is my endless collection of hats. Seems the one I have here on the land mass that is neither on a continent nor an island and therefore devoid of any geographic destination has lost all it's padding.
[Skipper hits Gillian on the head]
Gilligan: See?
[laugh track]
Whatever Floats Your Boat
R. Alex Whitlock
Maybe it's me and my historic fear of the terms "forever" and "always." But is this not just a little bit creepy?
Especially that bold "Forever." at
the end.
Letters To People That Probably Don't Read This Blog Anymore
R. Alex Whitlock
Lisa,
I'm sorry.
Best wishes,
Author Of The Blog You Probably Will Not Read Anymore
Honky Tonk With a Dress Code?
R. Alex Whitlock
I needed to get out of the house last night, and it just so happened that
Phil Pritchett was playing at Big Texas, a honky tonk down near my old neck of the woods in Webster. At least, I thought it was a honky tonk. I mean, the people there had on cowboy hats. There was a big dance floor. It was called Big Texas. The motif was certainly country/western. However, it must be the first "honky tonk" I've ever been to where they had a dress code that I didn't meet! It's ironic because I spent more time than usual figuring out what to wear, mostly because I didn't want to wear anything I'd want to wear later, and I'm running out of clothes before the next laundry day. I settled on a simple white t-shirt and jeans which, apparently, is against their dress code (and he said, specifically, "we don't ordinarily let people in a plain white shirt and jeans in, but I'll let it slide this time"). He let me in anyway because he could tell I hadn't been there before (I spent five minutes trying to find the door), but nonetheless, what's up with that?
Phil was great, as per usual. He even did the first Cross Canadian Ragweed cover that I've ever heard from a non-Oklahoma band.
I'm Tech Support, It's My Job To be Snotty
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex
clarifies and extends his comments regarding his reluctance to upgrade his computer and OS. Just a few points:
My point is not that I am so wedded to Win98 that I want to keep it even if I get a newer, faster computer. My point is that the computer I've got right now does what I need it to do while running Win98, so why should I want to upgrade my OS before I'm ready to upgrade my hardware? As a consumer I just think it's reasonable that Microsoft provide at least security upgrades for Win98 as long as it remains in wide use, however "wide use" is defined.
Well, to the extent that Lex is satisfied with Windows 98, he can keep using it. It's not going to up and die the day they decide to stop providing updates for it. They're just not going to spend much time and money on driver and security updates. For what Lex uses his computer for (and several of my coworkers around here, many of which I bumped down from Win2k to Win98 because their computers make Lex's seem like the latest and greatest model (for those of you wondering, Windows 2000 can run on a Pentium 166 with sixteen megs of RAM, though Win98 runs a lot better)), Win98 should work well for a while. It's only when he upgrades his computer that he'll upgrade his OS.
Of course, Lex states that he doesn't wish to upgrade OSes when he does upgrade his computer, in which case that's tough luck. Windows 98 is four years and four releases old and I don't believe MS is duty-bound to provide support indefinitely. Which is not to say that I can't relate to Lex's disgruntledness at Microsoft or over this issue. Heaven knows I spend enough time railing against the corporate giant and I don't believe they should have intentionally retired the text-interface shell, but to the extent I'm bound and determined to keep them I can just hold on to Windows 3.1 and 95 and buy hardware that'll go with it.
I back up as much as is possible, feasible and practical, which is what I've always done. But "get out of the Stone Age"? Dude, that's harsh, and it leads me to my original rant point, from which I somehow got temporarily sidetracked. As I pointed out in the comments, my wife and I have a number of financial commitments -- our kids' day care, the mortgage, her MBA program, pets -- that compete with computers for funding. Moreover, we're journalists. We don't work in tech support, which means we damn sure don't get paid like we work in tech support. And even if, as Alex pointed out in his comments, a decent upgrade were available for $300, most of the time I just don't have the $300 to spend.
The stone age comment wasn't meant seriously or as an insult (it was my impersonation of a techie Dr. Phil). For the most basic purposes, a Pentium 200 will get the job done. Half our fleet here are Pentium 166s and if it weren't for our constant use of Microsoft Access (and complex queries therein), they'd work, albeit slowly and sometimes reluctantly. My parents have a 200 machine that is used as a glorified typewriter and if it hadn't died on its own accord, it'd still be usable as such. That being said, I really would stress the tangible difference between a 200 and 400MHz machine. I'd state that it's more substantial than 400 to 800 or even to 1GHz. I feel like a dermotologist pointing out the importance kiwi facial lotion. My file server is a 350 and my parents have a 600 and for what they're used for, they work. To the extent that that Lex's computer is used for a typewriter/ledger/internet box, then a 200 is fine and should be perfectly fine without anymore help from Microsoft.
And we're relatively well off. There's a helluva lot of people out there in worse shape financially than we, and when some of them are at the public library surfing the Web because they can't afford a computer at any price and they read what some of these techies have to say, I imagine they get even more incensed than I do.
Which I'm pretty well aware of. My coworker still runs on a 486 that I helped her get working again. She just doesn't have the money to upgrade. I've offered to help her find the best deals and to build it for her, but the money just isn't there. I also spent a little time with an organization called "Technology 4 All" which takes refurbished computers and puts them in "computer gymnasiums" so that children without access to computers can learn how to use them and become familiar with them. To an extent, though, Lex is right and we are removed. Not so much by money (I'm sure many of us are surprised to learn that tech support pays "well"... I'm well paid for tech support, but that's because it's only one of many hats that I wear) but in large part by culture.
When I was in college, I determined that i needed a file server, but I didn't have any money for one. It was rather important, though, because I kept losing my data because whenever I had to format and restore a machine (it was a lot, I was a student), I kept accidentally deleting my data. Unfortunately, new computers costed around $1000 at the time and I just didn't have anywhere near that kind of money. But my then-roommate Adam (who posts and comments here), a fellow techie, had a spare motherboard and processor. My friend Brian had a spare case. Another friend had a spare CD ROM. I already had an extra network card. Bits and pieces, here and there I was able to build it for around $50. All being computer professionals (and we all are now, save one who is still getting his CS degree) we were just surrounded by the stuff. We'd help someone out and take payment in computer parts (which was where the case came from) or replace a part we thought was bad and find out that it was another part that had cratered, or replace a part that was okay, but not good enough for what it was being used for (the motherboard had a couple issues). You get the idea. Some of us have better computers than others (I'm pretty sure Adam is ahead of me, I'm ahead of Brian), but we all have something and when we help each other out, it invariably involves computers. Christmas a couple years back, we bought a friend a new machine because he couldn't afford it, and, well, what else are we gonna get him? So even the poorest among us are well stocked.
I've never thought about it, but apparently my friends and I are a bunch of damned communists!
There's also another cultural difference that I believe applies to this Alex/Lex brawl specifically. Lex says:
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about lacking the money. I chose this career with my eyes wide open on that point. I am, however, complaining about the tendency of techies -- not necessarily Alex, mind you, but a lot of techies, particularly younger, single, unattached ones who get a new scream machine every year at work because their employer needs them to have one to do what they do -- to presume that everyone ought to get a faster computer every year or two whether they need one or not and that the only reason I haven't laid out $300 for a faster computer is because I don't want to.
My initial response upon reading that was "Wait, you expect to buy a computer and that's it until you want to upgrade to another one?"
Lex seems to view purchasing a computer as though he is purchasing an appliance and that's probably the way most people see it. I (and I suspect most people like me) view purchasing a computer like purchasing a car. That's only the start. Parts break down and need to be replaced. Upgrades are required here and there, most free, some requiring money. Eventually the whole thing will need to be replaced. I don't know about most people, but I earmark money I get every month into my "computer fund" the same way my parents do for their "car fund." I don't go out and blow it every month, but it's there just in case I need it because, at some point, I will.
And yes, Lex, no argument that the cat is more important than the new computer :).
Cachetracker Update
R. Alex Whitlock
It's done, but I haven't told him yet.
Oh, and for those of you wondering, all posts related to this will be taken down on 1/31/3
D-Day Is Upon Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I was ordered to have the Cachetracker ready before I leave today. I will continue to post until the end of the month, though probably less.
What's The Precise Hispanic Bean Count at the University of Houston?
R. Alex Whitlock
That question is apparently important:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) ? President Bush will propose spending $371 million, a 5 percent increase, for grants to historically black colleges and those where at least 25 percent of the students are Hispanic, the White House said today.
The increase in the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 was announced on the eve of Martin Luther King's Birthday, and a White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel, said it was in keeping with Dr. King's calls for equal opportunity.
We'll just have to make sure not to ask Jesse Jackson. For those who recall the UH-TSU funding flap, UH is a "white" school. News to the minorities who made up a majority of my classmates, I'm sure.
WWTOTD: They Started It!
R. Alex Whitlock
WWTOTD would be short for What Would The Other Team Do. I can't help but get the feeling that's the gist of the debate going on in this Kuff
post and its comments. It can be more or lessed summed up in Charles's addendum:
UPDATE Max has a pretty clear conscience, too. Patrick, in my comments, thinks I'm bending too far backwards to be fair, and that I'd get no such consideration in return. He's very likely right.
My take is this: Allying with ANSWER is either right or wrong, regardless of what Republicans and conservatives say. Republicans can try to draw links between ANSWER and Trent Lott and Democrats can point out the distinctions all day long, but at the end of the day it's right or wrong independent of Trent Lott. ANSWER is pretty obviously a crummy organization and I'd say that few bloggers (that I would read with any regularity) would dispute that. So does that make marching with them against a war you oppose wrong? Personally, I wouldn't do it. Then again, I am the type to write 10,000 words in front of a keyboard about it rather than march, so it's easy for me to say. As noted in the post below, I see a key distinction between ANSWER taking part in the march and organizing it.
To look at it another way, politics is merely a series of coalitions. Readers of RAWbservations know that I have recently posted on the major ideologies of the Republican Party and plan to on the Democratic ideologies soon, as well. Those are the broad strokes. Look closely enough at the painting, and there are plenty of things not to like about both parties. Members of the KKK are more likely to vote GOP than Democratic. Communists are more likely to vote Democrat. So does that mean that the GOP has to spend all its time rooting out those sympathetic KKK and Democrats rooting out those sympathetic to Communists? That's merely a parlor trick played by members of one side to put the other on the permanent defensive. I can talk all day about how racism is wrong and the KKK are a bunch of idiots, but at the end of the day they agree with me on enough policies that we stake our tent in the same political party. Ditto for Democrats and Communists. It's depressing, but there is little we can do about it in a free country.
To pull it away from the strawmen of the KKK and Communists, let's talk about racists and race-baiters. Confederate-Americans make up part of the GOP coalition. These people are, if not outright racists, guilty of serious racial and historical ignorance. Personally, I'd rather they go away. I'd rather they not be a member of my party. However, if we were to lose all of them and the Democrats did not stop catering to the likes of Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters, we'd be at an inherent disadvantage. Similarly, if the Democrats were to clean there house and the Republicans didn't, they'd be the ones to start losing. It would be nice if all the reasonable people of the country could get together and boot out the malcontents and undesirables, but the rules of Game Theory suggest that when two people are supposed to (a) do something against their interest and (b) rely on someone else to do something against their interest for mutual benefit, it's unlikely to happen. Particularly when so much is at stake.
But with that in mind, there has to be limits. We have to have parameters if we're going to have a civil discourse. When someone on our own side does something clearly wrong and makes no apologies, action must be taken. When Trent Lott pondered how good things would be if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, that was so clearly wrong that many Republicans jumped on board quite quickly in denouncing him. These are times that you speak out because you know that they're wrong and not because of some face-saving distancing. I hope those of you who read my comments at the time believe that they were, if nothing else, heartfelt. What we cannot do is always think of things in terms of WWTOTD, What Would The Other Team Do. Neither side ever believes that the other side plays fair so it becomes carte blanche to do whatever you choose.
During the Lott affair, some
Republicans suggested that those of us who spoke out were merely being tools for the Democratic Party, Sid Blumenthal and James Carville. Others (Novac and Coulter) suggested that we should circle our wagons because that's WTOTWD. To a degree, many Democrats were demonstrating that this was just a partisan ploy. One thing that struck me about the incident was that the many of the Democrats who raised a ruckus quickly would denounce what Lott was said and then quickly tuck it in to terms of Republican hypocrisy. Joe Klein said something to the effect of "Republicans would be raising hell if a Democrat had said this about Henry Wallace and they're silent now, damn hypocrites." Before most of us were even given a chance to respond, we were deemed hypocrites. This is similar to the tactic used by Tacitus, which was posed less as a "Do you agree with ANSWER and if so how do you justify marching with them?" and more a "Denounce them now or you prove yourself to be the authoritarian-loving American-haters you claim not to be."
This is obviously not the stuff any real dialogue is made of. Nor was it apparently meant to be. But the Republicans can say "You did it with Trent Lott" and it's true, many of them did do it with Trent Lott, and when they finished with him they found an obscure congressman from South Carolina and a senator from Montana. They decided that the speckles here and there constituted an entire painting and then put the ball in our court to prove that our party wasn't racist. So then Republicans can then do what Tacitus did and claim that they are only returning the favor, because Democrats did that before. Next time Democrats can say Republicans (or conservatives or anti-Democrats or whatever Tacitus is) did it, so they can do. Slowly, we start taking on the most embittered, partisan faces of our parties.
Charles bent over backwards to be fair and told that he shouldn't cause the other side wouldn't show the same courtesy. That's true insofar as many on the right would not show the same courtesy. If the situation were reversed, many on the left wouldn't, either. But many on the right have (see my post below), and of course many (Tacitus) haven't. The question is, which type of person would you rather be?
HPD's Esteemed Former (and Future) Cheif of Police
R. Alex Whitlock
"I categorically deny what you cannot prove and do not recall what you can" -Clarence O. Bradford,
more or less.
I Always Wondered If There Was a Character Cap on Domain Registrations
R. Alex Whitlock
Authoritarian Opportunists Who Cozy Up To Genocidal Dictators - for Peace (dot org) apparently prove that there isn't. By now, just about everyone knows about ANSWER's dirty connections, but I give these guys points for demonstrating it with style.
Frustrated Anti-war-in-Iraqer
Sean Church ponders:
Nice work there. It associates the management of the bulk of public anti-war protests with the Workers World Party. Communists? Communist sympathizers? What!?!
To date, I've been convinced that the people putting on the anti-war demonstrations are comprised of this crusty layer of either:
a) a bunch of looser tot commie pinko European-wannabe whiner tots.
b) Ashcroft's tools, or the forces of the OSI, or some unamed but well directed set of groups taking directions from 1600 PEnsylvania Ave.
I'm not inclined to judge the anti-war effort by its worst elements. God knows every view has its share. There is a problem insofar as the effort is spearheaded by these types. It's analogous to the difference between the GOP's problem with having a racist legislator from South Carolina and a racist legislator who is Senate Majority Leader. There really should have been more of a debate than there was, but the reason there hasn't been isn't because of George W. Bush's secret police as it has been by the ineptitude of the opposition. They are either spineless itchy-backs like Daschle and Hillary Clinton or creeps like ANSWER.
[AOWCUTGDFP link via
Frankenstein]
AOL To Users: Upgrade or Be Bugged To Death
R. Alex Whitlock
I am a big fan of WinAmp, save for one thing: The constant hit-ups to upgrade. I intentionally install version 2.64 because that is by far the best version available. It was before they had those damn ID3 File Tags that screw up every fourth song on my playlist. It was before they added a series of pointless and stupid features that bog the system down. It was before they ran out of things to do and paid programmers to just "come up with something."
While the old versions always worked, I always got that darn "upgrade to 2.8!" message every time I opened it. I'd ask my friends if I could get rid of it, but they all told me to upgrade. It'd be worth it, they said. It is better, they said. Poppycock. MP3s loaded slower, the damn ID3 tags screwed things up, I'd always have to go to the trouble of uninstalling the newer version and reinstalling the old. Then I would install Netscape and have to start all over (Netscape automatically installs the latest WinAmp, the bastards).
I experienced the same thing with ICQ a couple years back. Every version of the internet chat program was bigger (ICQ 2001! With Calendar!) and better (ICQ 2002! With satellite image integration!!) than the last. They got so good that my brother and I just stopped using the program because it took up way too many resources (My old 512MB RAM machine couldn't handle WinAmp and ICQ at the same time!). Only with the advent of Trillian do I actually talk to my ICQ friends these days.
Then something strange happened. I was needing WinAmp and didn't have access to the file server. I groaned and downloaded WinAmp 3.0 from their webpage... and it's good! It's not quite as flexible as 2.8 or 2.64, but it's got a much better interface.
I hope to the heavens they never come out with WinAmp 3.1...
The Types of Democrats Out There, Warliberal's Take
R. Alex Whitlock
I meant to post this a while back, but
Mac Thomason was kind enough to respond in email to the question I posed on how the Democratic Party divides up. I'm about to post mine, but before I do, read Mac's uninterrupted analysis:
UNIONISTS are an obvious group, if declining. The labor unions are the fiscal core of the Democratic Party still. They tend to be socially/culturally more conservative than the rest of the party base, more likely to favor government intervention in the economy while opposing foreign trade -- though I think that's less of a problem than it once was. However, they have little problem with military intervention. Unlike Labourites in some other countries nationalism trumps class among American union members.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS are a core Democratic group but not an ideological one. It's my opinion that this is motivated less by agreement with the Democratic agenda (outside preservation of some form of affirmative action) than by the (to my mind justified) mistrust of the Republican Party on racial issues. Still trend economically to the left for pocketbook reasons. LATINOS are a growing element in the party for similar reasons.
ECODEMOCRATS are strong on the West Coast but not a major factor elsewhere. Concerned heavily with environmental issues. More likely than the above groups to oppose foreign military adventures or "unilateralism". Socially liberal or libertarian in many areas but concerned about "the children"; fervently pro-gun control. Pro-choice and generally feminist. Related to
NANNYCRATS who are less concerned with environmental issues but still think they're important. The Lieberman wing of the party, socially fairly conservative and moralist. Pro-gun control -- a core issue. Wilsonian foreign policy that favors American intervention for humanitarian reasons.
BOLL WEEVILS are a dying breed as the South turns Republican and what Democrats remain tend to be African-American or Latino. The last survivors of the New Deal coalition. Economically pro-business but also pro-government intervention. Favor low income taxes but would prefer relief focus on poor/lower middle class. Culturally conservative but with a Libertarian streak of wanting the government to stay out of personal matters. Hawkish, against gun control, fervently local. Richard Shelby, my Senator, went from Democrat to Republican in '94 while not changing any major views. Could be thought of as "Legacy Democrats"; they do differ from the GOP in some areas but the similiarities are greater.
FEMOCRATS are concerned with women's issues, primarily but not limited to abortion; also include economic issues (equality of pay, child support, etc.) and political representation for women. Tend to be as fervently gun control as the Nannycrats, and concerned with portrayal of women in the media. Environmentalist, though that's a secondary issue. Generally liberal on economic issues with no explicit feminist component, but it's not a core concern. Tend to be non-interventionist on foreign policy.
I think there's a broad concensus in the party on certain issues... Tax policy is the biggie; no matter what they think of government spending most Democrats would prefer a more graduated income tax with lower rates on people in the lower percentiles. (Some, not all, would want a much heavier tax on the wealthy; most would agree that if taxes must be raised the wealthy should go first. If you get the distinction.) Social Security/Medicare preservation is a big Democratic issue, but what form that would take varies.
Now, most take on different parts. Bill Clinton, for instance, had elements of all of these, though he was exceptional. Al Gore is an Ecodemocrat basically but also a Nannycrat. Both were fervent free traders; all members of the coalition are more in favor of free trade than they were even a decade ago.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong, and I'm sure I've left some out.
Coming up: Ted Barlow's (when he writes it), links to those who have responded, and my own take on it.
Micro$oft To Users: Upgrade or Die!
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex Alexander
laments Microsoft's decision to cease support for Windows 98. I think both he and ABC News, the host of the article he sites, are overstating matters. Most people who are still using Windows 98 are quite obviously not too concerned about being up-to-date and Microsoft's support for Windows 98 has never been too great. In fact, the only way I see this being a problem for 98 users is when it comes time to upgrade their computers. New hardware will undoubtedly not be registered with 98 and drivers will not be available. For the most part, though, those that are looking for hardware upgrades are going to need to look for a new computer, anyway. As SDRAM gets phased out, they're going to need motherboards that can hold DDR RAM. PCI video cards are also getting harder to find so upgrading video (on older computers or any stock machine) isn't fun, either. Many of their faster processors are going to need better cases to supply sufficient power and cooling. Half of the office I administer runs Windows 98 and most of them will require complete replacement when the time comes. If individual part breaks, parts compatible with Windows 98 will still be available for some time, I suspect, though increasingly hard to find (even know it isn't easy with some parts).
Dr. R. Alex's diagnosis is to get out of the stone-age (200MHz Lex? [shakes head]) and upgrade. Quite honestly, I wouldn't feel safe working on a machine that old. At least be sure to back up all your information if you are.
Windows 2000 is a substantive improvement over 98. It's not one I could have appr
