Note To Mac Fans

Dear Mac People,

Steve Jobs is not Jesus. They are just computers. Macworld is a trade show.

That is all.

Let the 80s Die

They weren't as fun, funny, entertaining, or much of anything else as you remember. All those old TV shows that you used to watch weren't any good. The music you used to listen to: lousy. The styles: idiotic, and not in a good, ironic way (but if you're into irony, you need help, possibly more help than a blog can hope to provide).

I lived through them, and the 80s aren't worth rehashing over again. Let them die. That is all.

Can't Drive 65

80 m.p.h.

According to Ford, that's how fast teenagers should be allowed to drive. 80 freaking miles per hour.

Yes, Ford has introduced parental controls, the main thrust of which are that the car can't go faster than 80. Because there are a lot of times when you'd need to do 79, as a teenager. For instance, in the 79 m.p.h. zone in some residential areas. Oh, and in order to very slowly and safely pass a car which is only doing 75, which is the speed reserved for old people and drive-throughs.

Now there are tones which can be set to sound when the car goes over 45, 55, or 65, but 80 is the top limit, because Ford knows that young people need to be able to travel faster than the posted speed limit anywhere... for some reason. Oh, I know, if that teenager happens to be chased by a hitchhiker with a hook for a hand. Or if that teen went to Germany and was driving on the Autobahn.

Tell you what, you come up with a list of things which would give good cause for a teenager to drive 80 and mail them to Ford, so they can use them in advertisements.

I thought about it, and the only reason I can see for this policy is that 80 is too slow for drag racing. But kids who street race don't exactly buy cars with parental limits. So this will prevent bad drivers from being so monumentally unsafe that they are likely to kill themselves immediately. It won't prevent them from being unsafe, just keep them from being that unsafe.

Given the fact that the posted limit is rarely above 70, why the extra ten miles per hour? Also, even if the limit was 85, I wouldn't want a teenage driver going that fast.

It's knee-jerk. It's "safety" for looks. It's a crock. You want to get all Big Brother on teenagers' asses, you should work out some way for the car to sense what the speed limit is in that particular area, and cap the speed at that. Or you should move the driving age up (gasp, I know, what a shocker that is). Or you should mandate longer periods of driving with an adult in the car, or harder tests, or mandatory drivers' ed. Capping the speed at 80 and sounding alarms... hocus pocus.

It's Everyone's Fault

Here's the relevant data. It's about the mortgage/economy recession/meltdown/whatever-it-is.

Here's the relevant quote:

You can't blame the borrowers for obtaining mortgages they couldn't afford to handle. They were innocent lambs set up for a trip to the slaughter house by conscienceless mortgage lenders who allowed their greed to distort their judgment and make the riskiest of loans to the riskiest of borrowers.

To coin a phrase: "Yes we can." Perhaps not "blame," but certainly not condone.

The news is full of sob stories to the effect that poor little old people took out mortgages they could have afforded, only something bad happened and now they can't. How exactly is that the bank's fault?

See, the people who want you to believe that middle America doesn't share some blame in all this, those people want to have it both ways. They want you to believe that the big bad banks are responsible for this crisis. That's partially true. They want you to believe that it's the bank's responsibility to check and see whether or not someone is a liability in the loan department. It's not a responsibility, but it makes sense for the banks, because frankly, it's good business to loan money to people who are going to give it back.

But the "banks are bad" crowd also want you to believe that all the people losing their houses would have been able to keep them, were it not for unforeseen circumstances. So then how is that the bank's fault?

"[D]ecent, hard-working black lad[ies]" who buy houses which were within their means, but only if nothing went wrong, are either risky borrowers, or they aren't. The "banks are bad" crowd want you to believe that they're risky, until they aren't. See, they were risks, so the bank shouldn't have loaned them money. But they shouldn't be held responsible for trying to get a risky loan, because they weren't risky, until something went wrong, "which of course it did."

If things going wrong means you move from a stable, assured asset to a horrible, gaping liability, you're not terribly stable. I'm not saying that, worst-case scenario, everyone should still be able to afford everything they can now. I'm just saying that, come on, people who are losing their homes are not all losing them because little Jennifer fell down a well. They're losing them for lamentable reasons, at least the examples you hear, but those reasons are things which could happen to anyone, "which of course it did."

So either they were risky loans, or they weren't. If they were risky, it was poor business sense that led the banks to give out those loans (or maybe not, since now the banks will be bailed out). But you have to ask, were these people too stupid to understand the concept of living within your means? It's patronizing to assume that everyone who got a bad mortgage was too dumb. So we must assume that most of them, "decent, hard-working black lad[ies]" and all, were greedy too. They wanted something they couldn't afford, or that they could barely afford.

I could purchase a lot of things. I could spend all my money on beer and pornography. I could afford to do that. Then, when I starved to death, I could claim that I had been a victim of the horrible beer and porn companies, who should have known better than to sell me things I couldn't really afford, because I didn't leave any money for food (well, I couldn't claim that, because I'd be dead, but my survivors could sue).

I don't buy things I can't afford. Having enough money to do something doesn't mean you can afford it. Living on a razor's edge, where as long as nothing bad happens, you'll be okay, is no way to live. These people were not all too stupid to realize that. They were greedy.

That being said, the current crisis is not just about people losing their homes. It's about debt-peddling, which maybe I'll get to in another installment. Suffice to say, however, that while some blame must be parceled out to people who were greedy home-buyers, more of it should probably go to banks which traded in risky debt. Once again, it's everyone's fault.

All the Wrong Reasons

Here is a phrase I don't ever want to hear again, especially not after November 4th. I'm not really quoting from anywhere in particular, just in general.

I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton if she had been the nominee, but when McCain picked Palin, I decided to vote for her instead."

Okay then. Where to start? For one, you have my permission to regard anyone who says this seriously as an utter moron. Why? Let's examine.

1. Sarah Palin is not running for President. I don't know how many people think they're voting for her in the election, but they aren't. They're voting for McCain. An old, white man. Not a woman. Sorry idiots. McCain could pick another Vice President if he wanted. Think it won't happen? Talk to Spiro Agnew. So unlike the President, the Veep is just an unelected position, much like the cabinet. How many people, during the election of 2004, thought they were voting for Norman Minetta? Is he still Secretary of Transportation? Do you want a re-vote? That's a minor, a gimme, but people do seem to believe this.
2. You are a moron. You're voting for a woman (or for a man who picked a woman) because she's a woman. How can I tell? Let's examine. Either you supported Hillary Clinton because she was a woman, or you're supporting Sarah Palin because she's a woman. Either you thought Hillary Clinton would be good for the country, or you think Sarah Palin would be. The two women are so far apart politically that it's not hard to see that you're a moron. If you come right out and say, "Well, I'm voting for McCain because I want a woman Veep," then you're an honest moron. But still, voting for someone solely based on their gender (or race, or religion, or other intrinsic value they happen to possess rather than their stance on the issues) makes you a moron. I've said it.

You think I'm being harsh. I would be just as harsh to someone who said they were voting for Barrack Obama solely based on his blackness. That's a dumb reason.

Now what I mean by "voting for... solely based on..." is that, all things being completely unequal, you make your decision based only on that quality. If the two candidates are polar oposites, you would support a candidate with whom you had no points of agreement based solely on that quality. Obviously, that's an ideal case. The differences between Barrack Obama and John McCain are not so cut and dried that I can say that they are diametrically opposite points. But frankly, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are pretty far from each other, polarity-wise.

So you're caught in a trap. If you agreed with one of the women enough to vote for them based on policy, then why have you endorsed the other, whose policies would be opposed to your views? Or maybe you only support either of them because of their gender, in which case, you're a huge moron. Or maybe you agree with some of one and some of the other, in which case... I don't know how you live in today's political climate. You shouldn't be endorsing a candidate based on your tepid approval of some of his or her policies.

So people, you're not voting for the Vice President. You're voting for the President. And if you're so gung-ho to get a woman into the highest office in the land, remember: Veep is basically a glorified First Lady. How sexist is it that John McCain needs a pretty woman on his arm to win your vote?

Ready To Serve

It's on obligation of all candidates for office, whether they be running for president or class clown, to say that they are, "ready to serve," whenever the opportunity presents itself. I mean that "whenever the opportunity presents itself" mostly because they'll say it anywhere, any time. But in some cases, as in the Vice President, "the opportunity presenting itself" not only refers to an apropos time to say one is ready to serve, but also the fact that a Vice President isn't called on to serve, really, unless an opportunity presents itself.

Who, as the saying, goes, is kidding whom? I don't think I'd vote for a candidate who said, in answer to an interviewer's question, "Well Bob, I'm not ready to be President. If the President died and I was next in line, I'd freak the hell out and run around screaming. I shouldn't be one heartbeat away from the Presidency." But let's face it, a lot of Vice Presidential candidates would probably have done just that, if called upon to do anything other than go to funerals and break infrequent ties in the Senate.

I guess I'm asking whether or not we want a Vice President who's so gung-ho about being prepared. That's like saying, "I'm prepared for the worst to happen," with a big smile on your face. Sure, we want a Vice President who wouldn't make a lousy President, but historically, that's not what Vice Presidents are. They aren't backup, really. They have a very hard time being elected President in their own rights, even after they become President when the worst does happen.

Preparedness is a virtue. Being prepared for the worst doesn't make you expect the worst, but it makes you better off if or when the worst happens. But maybe readiness to serve, or lead, or whatever they're ready for, isn't as important as how they would lead, or serve, or whatever. Would you vote for someone whose sole qualification was preparedness? I wouldn't. That's reactive. I want active leaders.

Not that I'm saying that being ready to serve is a bad thing. It's just not the only thing. And that goes for Presidents, Vice Presidents, and class clowns.

Bad Ideas

1. Invading Iran. Come on, everyone has got to believe this. Anyone who doesn't is a total irredeemable moron. People who support attacking Iran while believing it's a bad idea are just evil.
2. Israel abducting Ahmadinejad. Because that's what Iran needs to pull together against Israel. Right now, all Ahmadinejad does is spout off at the mouth about Israel. If Israel abducted him, even if Iran didn't immediately attack Israel, it would certainly solidify resolve against them. I mean, think what would happen if Iran abducted Ehud Olmert.
3. Not teaching sex education. "Kids today should learn it the same way I learned it," is not an acceptable teaching philosophy if "the same way I learned it" can be read as "on the street," "from my youth minister who taught me that it was evil and wrong," or "in fits and starts as I accidentally became an unwed teen parent."
4. Teaching abstinence only. I don't care if you say that abstinence is the way to go, period. You should also teach other things. For instance, in driver's ed, they teach you how to avoid a skid. Now really, the best way to avoid a skid is not to drive at unsafe speeds in improper conditions, but they don't simply say, "Don't speed, don't be unsafe, don't do anything other than drive 15 mph everywhere you go." They teach you how to avoid situations that, while you probably shouldn't be in them in the first place, do occur whether you'd like them or not.
5. Owning a gun for "personal safety." You should probably look up how many times more likely you are to shoot either yourself or someone you don't want to injure than you are to successfully protect yourself from whatever it is from which you need protection.
6. Owning a gun to "defeat terrorism." I can't believe that anyone actually believes this is true. Oh, if only those people on those planes had had handguns... wait a minute. Oh, if only those people in the World Trade Center had fired wildly at the plane as it was about to collide with their building... wait, no, still wrong. Oh, if only those military people in the Pentagon had had an arsenal of... wait, nope. Oh, if only those soldiers in Iraq who keep being blown up by "terrorists" had guns with which to protect... no, still wrong. Oh, if only terrorists were planning on invading the Midwest and setting up a new Taliban somewhere in America's heartland... yeah, that's the ticket. So basically, we need to convince terrorists to start fighting in ways where we can defeat them with guns. And then give out guns to every God-fearing American citizen. And while we're at it, maybe we could just convince the terrorists to blow themselves up somewhere else, because that would probably be easier. Hooray for guns.
7. Owning an assault rifle for much of any reason. You don't need it for duck-hunting.
8. Arguing with me about these points. I'm not listening.