Land of Oz

Tourist killed during Fla. robbery

This is an interesting headline. It seems to somehow differentiate between the murder of a tourist and the murder of a non-tourist. Is it somehow better or worse that it was a tourist who was killed and not a local citizen or somebody visiting on business?

It's as if, it's a worse crime because it was a tourist who was shot - that it makes it special somehow. How many non-tourists do you suppose were killed in Florida around the same time. Is it so common that it doesn't really matter anymore when a local gets killed? It's like it's OK somehow to kill locals, but it's much worse to kill someone who isn't from the area. I don't get it. It's like "innocent because of insanity" - as if any murder is done by sane people? Or that for some reason a murder during a "hate crime" is any worse than a run-of-the-mill murder. A problem seems to be that murders are becoming so common, we need to come up with more ways to define them.

I suppose looking at it deeper, it is really worse because it's a tourist. Let's face it, there's places in almost every area where you shouldn't go unless you have a specific, and probably less than legal, reason for going there. Locals know that and tourists don't. Here in Saginaw, if you get just outside of "downtown" on the east side, you're putting your life into someone else's hands. You go downtown looking for the Castle Museum or Hoyt library and make a wrong turn or two and you're in the middle of gangland central Saginaw. Nothing like South Central LA, mind you, but bad enough. I went to visit Wayne State University in Detroit a few years ago and took an exit only one or maybe two stops too far south - I thought I entered the set for Omega Man. Talk about an urban wasteland. I even took an exit one block south of where I'd hoped to get off in Saginaw a couple of years ago. This was late at night - and this time it was as if I'd entered the set for some cheap zombie gang movie where a crowd came out of nowhere and started to approach my car. I'm not ashamed to say, I allegedly ran a couple of stop signs on my way north to calmer pastures. The unknown is always spookier.

Blackened

I decided to try to cook some blackened chicken following a recipe in a spicy cookbook. The end result was pretty good, but getting there was a bit of a mess. We also decided to have some Gujerati style green beans. Basically all this involves a lot of heat and a lot of spices. One of the steps of the green beans calls for heating some oil, dropping in black mustard seeds and waiting for them to pop - and boy do they pop - all over the kitchen.

The blackened chicken was the biggest "problem." I've had blackened chicken and fish in local restaurants (mid-Michigan) and they all left a lot to be desired. Blackened means just that - cooked in spices until blackened. Most of the places I've been to figure that coating the meat with enough spices is what blackened is all about. This time, I tried to get as close as I could to the original southern meaning of blackened.

The recipe I had involved mixing up some dry spices containing black and white pepper corns, cayenne, thyme, cumin, onion, garlic and more. You filet some chicken breasts to make them thinner, coat with a little melted butter and then sprinkle the spice on them. To cook, you toss on a HOT skillet and cook until "blackened" and then flip and cook some more. It only takes a few minutes and if done correctly you end up with a nicely cooked and moist piece of chicken (or fish).

Now while it wasn't mentioned in this recipe - I have read that cooking blackened anything isn't recommended for the home unless you have a serious cooking hood - which we don't. Needless to say, the other recipe was correct! In a matter of minutes all the smoke detectors were blaring and visibility in the kitchen was down to a few murky feet. The stove top was glowing red, mustard seeds were popping all over the place, smoke detectors were blaring and burnt cayenne and red pepper vapours filled the air. My wife had her mouth and nose covered with her apron and I was coughing and sneezing while flipping chicken filets on a scorching cast iron skillet.

But guess what? After all that, including opening all the doors and windows and turning on extra fans to replace the smoke and cayenne vapours with the hot and humid outside air, we sat down to some darn good tasting chicken.

Gas

As you go out and pay $3.40 a gallon for gas for your car, remember to show a little sympathy for Exxon. They were only able to make $1,318 a second last quarter. And they had to give its outgoing CEO Lee Raymond a retirement package worth about $350 million last year - which was a record profit quarter until this year. And this quarter is the highest profit ever recorded by a company - ever.

Murders

I just read where Seattle has a record setting murder rate lately. I've read that about other big cities and know it's happening in our town. In fact, the Chief of Police here said that crime hadn't changed much from last year - when in reality we've had more violent crimes the first half of this year than in all of last year. On a side note, you have to wonder what kind of job the Chief is doing if he can't get his stats any closer than this. Ah, for the days of Chief Jack Mannion and his COMSTATs.

Anyway, why is violent crime going up in so many places? I have a somewhat off-the-wall theory about this. Based on no facts in particular, it goes like this: Over the past few years, it has become more and more common for violence to be condoned by the highest in the land as long as it's directed towards the "right" people. Nowadays, torture, invasions and imprisonment without due process is seen as the American way. After all, if it's good enough for the president it must be good enough for the rest of us - right?

So, I think that this constant bombardment (pun intended) of publicity that makes it OK for violence against the "right" people is getting its point across. The one, probably unintended, side effect of this is that more and more people are coming up with their own definition of "right." After all, if the president says it's OK to invade some country for some made-up reason, why shouldn't someone else say it's OK to rubout some guy who disrespects them? I mean, it's the same thing really, right? Country to country on the one hand and person to person on the other. Some country/guy does something I don't like so I'll take of it/them. Why not? Might makes right! After all, they don't have any rights as long as they're the "right" person.

Video

Take a dollar bill out of your wallet and fold it into thirds. It'll be roughly 2.5 inches by 2 inches. This is the size of the video ipod screen. Now as I understand it, and I'm probably wrong since I've never even held an ipod, you can buy a copy of a TV show for $1.99 and play it on your ipod - on that teeny itty-bitty screen.

First, this is a TV show you probably already paid to watch on your cable.(note: I'm probably the last person [or close to it] in North America who is still using rabbit ears to watch his TV.) And if you didn't watch it the first time, there's probably a rerun of it as we speak. From what I've heard, shows like CSI and Law And Order are replayed about 37 1/2 times a day. Assuming you didn't see it the first time and haven't caught it the second time, you can now spend an extra $1.99 to watch it on something the size of a matchbook cover. (By the way, how many crimes in movies do you think have been solved because the criminal left a matchbook behind?)

Can you imagine the closed captions on that? They're probably about 3 pixels high. And can you imagine trying to (or even wanting to) sneaking a peak down the cleavage of Teri Hatcher or Jennifer Anniston? Even Pam Anderson wouldn't cover more than a couple of pixels at a time. And sports? How about checking that goal line stand in the NFC championship game - or if number 22 stepped out of bounds on the forty? I can't even tell that on my 28" TV - which I at one time was feeling sorry for being so small compared to the 60 and 80 inch flatscreens and projection TVs.

It's rough to be getting old...

Dogs

I've ranted about this subject a few times in the past. Lately our neighborhood is becoming to look like a dog pound. One neighbor has two big black dogs who poop in the yard and bark and holler whenever I step outside. They in-turn bark at the dog in the house behind ours - which has finally learned not to bark too much at me after 3 years here. If you make a noise or shut a door, it will set him off. That dog and the two next door always charge towards their mutual corner of the yards and bark at each other like crazy.

Two doors down a family has gotten a small white dog which seems to spend most of its time chained outside the back door. Of course whenever there is someone home there, the dog does his high-pitched yippy bark that trails off into a whine. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play with it, which at the next door neighbor does with his two.

Across the street is a new family with two dogs kept on short chains outside the side door - at least most of the time. I think in late evenings, they let them loose and they run around from yard to yard barking at the other houses. Across the street from them yet another house has two dogs and they are often running around free. One of these days a car is going to drive by after dark and make short work of all those stupid canines running around.

And I can't forget to mention another house a couple of houses away. Up until last year their dogs were nice and peaceful penned up in their fenced in yard. And then some jerks moved next door to them. The marginally trained daughter of that family seems to delight in jumping up and down and acting like some hyperactive pre-human yelling and screaming at the dog - which not surprisingly barks and hollers and charges the fence back.

There was also one big black dog, which I haven't seen yet this year who came screaming through the neighbors fence last year in pursuit of a (one of many I might add) stray cat. That did not look like anything very friendly and I'm most happy that I haven't seen it.

And people wonder why I don't like dogs...

The Ends and the Means

BBC: Mr Bush summed up his opposition to the bill on ethical grounds. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others," he said.

NYTimes: BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 — Gunmen kidnapped as many as 20 employees of a government agency that oversees Sunni mosques on Tuesday and Wednesday, grabbing them on their way home from work at ad-hoc checkpoints north of Baghdad, an official said.

Throughout the country, at least 49 people were killed or found dead on Wednesday, including an Interior Ministry official who was shot in his car at 8 a.m.

Here again is a reason I'll never be a politician. I can't begin to figure out the morality of issues when it's going to cost a life. I can see that our government doesn't want to take innocent lives for any medical benefits that would help people, but it doesn't mind taking innocent lives for stuff like whatever we're killing folks for in Iraq this week.

I think we're now killing folks over there for democracy. Very much like the democracy that got Hezbollah into office in Lebanon where the Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians, and Irans, among others are killing people because they may or may not want democracy. I think they'd rather be under a theocracy where people have to abide by the power's to be's beliefs. In which case, they'd no longer have the choice of believing what they want to believe. Which would mean those leaders could tell their own people, that the taking of innocent life (as defined by some theocratic decree) would be forbidden especially if that would help find medical benefits. Hmmmm.

Crime and Stupidity

Here's a couple more observations about stupid stuff and crime. A couple of days ago there was a news item about a woman found shot dead in her basement. The reporter stated, "authorities says it's suspicious." Well, duh. I'm trying to think of some circumstances when a shot-up body wouldn't be suspicious. A bullet in the head isn't exactly my idea of a natural death - although in some parts of many cities, it probably is a natural cause of death.

On another news report about three bodies found stabbed to death in a nearby town they interviewed several neighbors about the killings - as the news usually does. They interviewed one lady, who didn't appear to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, who complained about the fact that she was worried because she was at home all alone most of the night and her husband wouldn't be around until late. Well, duh. How about putting a sign around your neck saying, "I'm a victim - get me!" Assuming the woman wasn't bright enough to realize what she was saying, at least the news reporter should have taken the responsibility not to broadcast her stupid comments. Maybe the reporter was hoping for a follow-up story about another killing the same neighborhood.

World Cup

I'm not a soccer/football fanatic, but I do enjoy watching games. I even spent several years as the web master for a local (and very good) USL PDL team, the then Mid-Michigan Bucks. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of soccer on network TV - come to think of it, not a lot of sports at all. Occasionally ABC will have a game, and they did have a few World Cup games that I managed to watch. I also happened to be able to watch the final game between Italy and France.

Have spent a year in Italy, I was rooting for them. And honestly, until that game, I'd never heard of Zidane before. From what most say, he's a legendary player in soccer, one of the best. Unfortunately all I saw of him was yet another professional sports player throwing away his team's success for his own personal revenge. From what I understand, Materazzi isn't exactly what you would call a good sport either, but he seems to have quite a talented mouth. Supposedly he called Zindane's mother or sister something or another - the phrase "your mother wears combat boots" from childhood comes to mind. And then Zidane retaliated by assaulting the Italian. (Try convincing me that a head butt by someone capable of hitting a soccer ball with it accurately and powerfully isn't assault.)

The way I see it, Materazzi didn't really win the game for Italy as much as Zidane lost it for France. Zidane lost the game for France by letting a motor mouth get the best of him. It should have been obvious to everyone that PKs would decide the game and Zidane already made one. (In fact, I think that thought is what kept France's coach from subbing Zidane after his injury) If he really wanted to take revenge for his mother being insulted wouldn't it have been so much better to win the game, then pop Materazzi in a pub someplace later? Winning the game and being a hero to your nation and your team would seem to be so much sweeter revenge than getting thrown out for a stupid move and probably losing the game.

Volkswagen Rabbits

Cool. VW did it again. Have you seen the new Rabbit commercial? This has a bunch of cool imagery and music. I haven't enjoyed an auto commercial so much since the VW Synchronicity street scene. If you haven't seen it, a black Rabbit chases a white Rabbit and finally corners it down a tunnel (rabbit hole of course) and tada, a few minutes later, there's Rabbits pouring out of the tunnel and spreading everywhere. Black ones, white ones, gray ones and even the errant black and white sheep bringing up the rear.

And in case you haven't figured it out (which many haven't) while the Rabbits are in the tunnel, there's a hummingbird in the foreground - and a little later a honey bee is doing his thing. And of course, soon there's Rabbits hopping all over the place, not to mention a traffic jam with Rabbits making - what else - jack rabbit starts. Naturally, there's Rabbits hopping in and out of holes and even a rampaging group of dastardly dogs after our helpless little Rabbits.

This is one of those commercials that will make you tap your fingers and smile.

Here's the youtube.com link if you can't figure it out.

America's Got Talent

At least some do. OK - in general, I hate reality shows. I don't watch Survivor, Treasure Hunters, American Idol, or anything of the like. However, I caught AGT tonight. (Don't you hate it when people take TV show titles and make them into acronyms?) Anyway, this was pretty cool. Actually, it's basically nothing more than an upbeat Gong Show with a little less gongs than the gong show.

Obviously there's some pretty crappy acts on this show. The guy with the inflatable doll and more than a couple of singers really reeked. While I think singers have enough shows on, there were a couple that really rocked. A little eleven year-old (they should give her a cuteness handicap though) and a slightly older yodeler (who learned from a book and tape!) were great. There was an old-fashioned burlesque stripper who the female judge really hated. However, the sexiest was a contortionist archer - wow! I never-ever imagined shooting a bow with your feet could be so sexy. A rhythm dace group "Player's Club" had potential, but I have to agree with the bloke - they were missing something. There was a fantastic martial arts group that had more energy that I'd seen in quite some time and a couple of bowling ball jugglers were pretty cool.

However, what really blew me away was one of the last acts - a quick-change artiste. When I first saw him walk on, I thought, what a nerd -- this is going to suck. And then, WOW!. I think I watched the entire performance with my jaw resting on my chest. His partner, a woman, changed clothes in a dramatic fashion in seconds. He made one change, but she was absolutely amazing. I think she must have done a dozen changes in a minute or so. I enjoyed several of the other acts, some quite a bit, but nothing like this one. OK, so maybe the contortionist archer was close - real close.

Paying and paying...

I just got a notice from ATT, my Internet provider, that my fees will be increased. Because I've been a loyal customer for a year, they will increase the fees they charge. (The uselessness of loyalty in today's corporate world is another story.)

Ever since 1901 when Gillette started his razor company, the world has been moving towards buy a little, then keep buying for a long time. This really came into being within the past several years. Think about what you pay for every month now that you used to be able to pay for once. Cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, cell phones (yes, phones have always been a pay as you go, but nothing like today), internet, car leases, video rentals, memberships and more. And the costs are pretty steep.

My $100 printer uses $25 ink cartridges. If you have a cell phone you will pay extra for text messages, local and long distance calls, games, Internet access and more. They will even charge you for the phone ring! If some brain-damaged nitwit calls me by mistake and I answer, I have to pay. That really sucks and pisses me off.

I work in a telecom company so most people there are fairly knowledgable and like to follow the trends. They'll talk to me assuming I have cable TV and are pretty surprised when they find out I don't. I haven't looked lately, but it seems like most cable bills are approaching $100 a month these days. You can get sports packages, movie packages, TiVo recording and more - as long as you pay for it. And after paying all that, you can pay even more for pay-on-demand events. It's not enough you pay $100 a month for cable and all it's extras, they also expect you to pay $30-50 for a couple-hour long sports event.

Axis and Allies?

Guess what? It's been ten years (June 25, 1996) since Khobar Towers was bombed in Saudi Arabia and 19 airmen died and 372 other GIs wounded. The Saudi government wouldn't allow barricades to be moved farther away from the buildings. 14 men were finally indicted for the attack, most of whom were Saudi citizens. By the way, four years prior to that I was living in a building almost next door to the one that was attacked. It always bothered me that I could look out the window and across the street (about 20 - 30 feet) was a civilian parking lot. Oh, and don't get the idea that I was doing anything heroic over there. I basically sat in an office for that time waiting for something to happen (which I'm thankful never did).

Five years after Khobar, another tower was attacked, this time in New York. This time there was considerably more deaths and damage. However, again this time, most of the perpetrators were Saudi citizens. And guess what? Osama bin Ladin is Saudi born.

So after all this we invade Iraq which had nothing to do with any of that. They did invade Kuwait after the USofA told Saddam we could care less what happened over there. A few years later we didn't find any nukes (you know the same nukes Iraq and North Korea and Pakistan and India claim) and we didn't find bugs & gas. It's nice to know we know who are enemies are.