iPhone 5

by Bill Holmes

So, the iPhone 5 (actually 6 or is it really 3) is out and the reviews are all over the place.  Weed out the Apple flunkies and the Apple haters and most reviews seem to say it's what was rumored and expected.  An incremental upgrade but no real "WOW" feature or innovation.  I fully expect the iPhone 5 to be a roaring success.  I do wonder if Apple waits a full year to come out with the iPhone 6 (or 5S) will the buzz still be there?  By then Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG, Nokia and even RIM and others will have introduced dozens of new phones.  Not only that, there will be new OS's. Windows 8, a new RIM OS and probably at least an Android upgrade to 4.2 or maybe a full release to 5.0.  What new features will those phones and OS's bring us?

I'm not an Apple hater or a fan.  They make some good stuff and have brought change to our technology landscape for many years.  Not as much as they would like us to believe and often more marketing than technology but change nevertheless.  For that I an thankful.  I've used and implemented and integrated Macs into corporate environments.  Sometimes that wasn't easy.  At one point they were years ahead of Windows PC's in graphic capabilities.  I worked at a company that had many graphic artists and they loved their Macs.  I am opposed to their big brother approach to their products.  A closed, mostly proprietary, expensive approach to hardware and software.  How many non-Apple hardware products run OS X or iOS?  How many Apple hardware products run some thing other than OS X or iOS?  No fair if you have an Apple Lisa still running although that was an Apple OS also.  I am also diametrically opposed to the petty and ridiculous patent suits that Apple has spawned onto our courts.  Patent laws and the need to reform them is fodder for a separate blog.

Apple got a big head start with their iPhones and iPads.  I give them credit for kick-starting the smart phone, table and touchscreen markets.  I don't pretend to know whether it was brilliant marketing on Steve Jobs part or being in the right place with the right product at the right time.  Probably both.  Apple even came up with some of the technology that pushed the demand.  Timing is often everything, as I've mentioned before, we knew how to do touchscreen, voice recognition, GUI, WiFi and even mobile phones all the way back to the 60's and early 70's (that's 1960's).  We just didn't have the hardware and networks available to make it practical.  It's hard to think about a viable tablet computer when the only computers available filled a large environmentally controlled room.  Even the room sized computer had memory measured in kB and disk storage measured in MB (if it even had disks).   A fast network, point to point and all hard wired, was 1200 baud (kinda bps) not Mbps or even Gbps we have now.  Whatever device you are viewing this blog on has more computing power and memory than the first data centers I worked in.  Probably more storage too, positively if you use cloud storage.  Those physically huge but computing & storage challenged systems ran all the processing for big companies.  So you see even visionaries almost as smart as Steve Jobs couldn't have brought a viable iPhone or iPad to market much before the mid 2000 decade.  Some tablets were around prior to the iPad all had technical and/or price and/or marketing problems.  Apple gets credit for getting the category going. 

Here we are about five years after the first iPhone and almost three years after the first iPad.  Smartphones and tablets are now mainstream with a large user base.  That means competition.  The original iGadgets were on the front edge of the technology available to consumers and were new ideas about how to use that technology.  Now we have dozens of companies in the marketplace, each trying to grab a piece of a multi-billion dollar market.  There is no way that Apple can stay several furlongs ahead of all the competition in these categories of consumer electronics.  Sure, they can win a battle or two and even leap ahead for a few months.  They can even stave off the competition for awhile by suing them for using a rectangular container to package their product.  Remember when IBM PC's (made by IBM) were the standard, remember when Motorola and Nokia were the cellphone kings, remember when Blackberry (RIM) revolutionized the cellphone market, remember when...  

In my over 40 years of experience in the computer/technology industry every proprietary and closed hardware/software architecture has eventually failed.  Even with superior technology the companies get greedy and the costs of their products become non-competitive.  Sound familiar?  The other scenario is that the industry passes a company.  Some companies can't afford all the R&D and some skimp on it to wring out extra short-term profits.  Sometimes a punk college kid comes up with a better idea nobody at the big corporation thought of.  Sometimes it's just marketing blunders.  IBM ruled the roost for business computing for decades starting with punch cards and tabulating machines.  They had the best equipment, software and support for years but it was expensive and when bits & bites became kB's and MB's became GB's & TB's they lost their edge.  Computing became a commodity and companies were willing to buy cheaper non-proprietary equipment with less service and support built in.  There are many more examples.  IBM is still a vibrant company but it is nowhere near the same company it was 15 or 20 years ago.  It's now a service company that runs IT operations and networks.  It still sells systems but they are now UNIX, Linux and Windows servers.  Not much proprietary architecture.  Same stuff HP, Sun/Oracle, Dell and even Cisco sells.  Oh yea, HP & Sun sold proprietary systems for years too as did Univac, NCR, Burroughs and DEC. 

So my point is that Apple and their i-Universe is now sitting on top of the world raking in the profits with over-priced and over-hyped products.  Android phones and tablets have already caught and often surpassed i-Stuff.  Windows 8 and hardware hit the market in a month.  Even RIM and new Blackberry stuff is coming.  Remember too that some really geeky kids are sitting in dorm rooms and basements all around the world thinking up, building and programming new stuff 24/7.

The iPhone 5 will sell millions on hype and coolness (is that a word? cause I'm not).  Better and cheaper phones are out there.  To paraphrase a Texas saying the iPhone 5 is "All hat and very little cattle". 

How will that iPhone 6 do a year from now?  Who's the next big technology company?  IBM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Facebook and now Apple have all had their time at the top.  Stay tuned

wjh

Performance Enhancing Drugs and Athletes

by Bill Holmes

In the past few weeks there have been several headlines about performance enhancing drugs (PED) and athletes. A couple of Major League players have been suspended in baseball bringing the number this year to five. Also in baseball, Roger Clemens talks about a comeback in an independent minor league game and made rumblings about returning to the majors. The biggest story was that Lance Armstrong decided not to go to arbitration with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) over his alleged drug use.

Of course PEDs and athletes have been a topic for many years. As far as I remember the modern controversies started during the Cold War years when the East German athletes, particularly women, began to dominate some Olympic events and look a little masculine. There had been suspicions before that about body builders and athletes in strength events such as weight lifting and shot put. Nobody really cared much about body builders competition since it was a marginal “sport” and looked upon more like a male beauty pageant. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a very few others made a name and career from body building but even today it is a fringe sport. We were a little more concerned with the Olympic sports. All of a sudden a small poor Iron Curtain country like East Germany was beating the USA and winning gold medals. The USSR, mostly current Russia, began winning Olympic medals at a rate similar to the USA. Problem was there were either no or very limited tests for these drugs and there was no formal testing of athletes. The drugs were primitive too and many of those early users, many unaware or forced to use, are dead or have serious health problems.

Like all technology and science, drugs, legal and illegal, improved over time. They became more targeted and effective and less lethal. Testing also improved although never at the same pace as the drugs. The first testing I remember was the Olympics. They didn't catch many but it did start the cycle that is still going on. Drug developed, used by athletes, performance improved, test developed, athletes caught, new drug developed, … In addition to the actual performance enhancing drugs, the cheaters have discovered masking agents that hide the PED from the tests. Now we have to test for those too. It is a constant race between drug development and drug detection.

My prediction is this cycle will continue forever. The lure of a magic pill or shot or cream or supplement will always have allure for a win at all cost athlete. The same for the doctors and chemists who develop the drugs. If the brass ring of fame doesn't get them, the vast amounts of money will. Elite athletes can now make $20 million a year in salary and many times that in endorsements. Average athletes make $1 million or more a year. The minimum salary in the NBA and MLB is almost $500K. That's an awful lot of temptation to cheat.

Now on to the recent PED/ athlete stories. The four or five MLB players caught this year have admitted they used a banned substance although some say it was an accident. Maybe, but that makes them either liars or stupid. Alberto Contador, a multiple Tour de France winner, finally accepted a two year ban after months of negotiations although the two year ban wound up being about eight months with retroactive credit. He accidentally ate a tainted and imported steak. Cycling has been one of the most blemished and regulated sports. Now we have the Lance Armstrong case.

I have very mixed emotions about the situation. I'm totally against the use of PEDs to gain a competitive advantage but I'm also totally against Gestapo methods to catch the cheats. I sometimes have a problem with what is defined as a PED. Most pain killers are OK but an asthma medication may not be. Even insulin or psychiatric drugs can be questioned. They all enhance performance or at least allow the athlete to perform. This whole definition of PEDs is murky and gray.

In the last few years most major professional sports leagues and sanctioning bodies have instituted drug testing. Then the governments around the world got involved. There are also quasi-government agencies. We now have the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), USADA, the various leagues and associations and almost every government in the world regulating, testing and prosecuting drug use in sports. Here is where I get concerned. There are way too many entities checking this. Whenever you get multiple agencies or organizations trying to do the same thing you get conflict and competition. They all want to be the first or the best at catching the bad guys. Competition should be on the playing field, not with the anti-doping agencies.

The International Cycling Union (UCI), WADA, USADA and US Justice Dept., plus others had a hand in the recent prosecution of Lance Armstrong. Some of these organizations and agencies get to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. That's not my favorite separation of powers. Apparently USADA can force athletes into arbitration and cut deals although they have no subpoena power. They are funded by our tax dollars.

I'm tired of these cases of high profile athletes being prosecuted with our tax dollars. I have my personal opinions about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong. What I don't know is how the government or their funded agencies can justify spending millions of dollars on these cases. It's estimated that the Barry Bonds case cost anywhere from $6 million to $100 million. Result, a misdemeanor conviction. Roger Clemens trial cost $2 to $3 million. Not Guilty. I'm sure the Lance Armstrong case has cost millions. The Justice Department decided not to prosecute. The defendants have spent millions too in their defense. I'd much rather be rebuilding our infrastructure with those dollars.

This is typical behavior. Any time we perceive a problem we appoint a committee or pass a law or create an agency.  No way a current law, procedure or policy will do.  Absolutely no way common sense is to be used.   It almost never solves the problem or fixes the situation. What it does do is create another group of people that have to justify their existence, promote their continuation and gain power. The heads of these agencies are mostly egotistical men (very few women) who's main job is to consolidate power. By the way, hardly any of them were ever elite athletes.

I don't know if Barry or Roger or Lance cheated. Like I said earlier I have my opinions.

I was never a Barry or Roger fan so I didn't keep close track of their cases, although they were hard to ignore. Lance was and is still on my A-list. He excelled in biking, which I do, he survived a devastating cancer, which my Mom also did, and then dedicated a big part of his life to raising money and awareness for cancer research and treatment. To me LiveStrong and Lance Armstrong, bike guy, are separate.

Stay tuned, much more to come on this subject. No way you have no opinion on this subject.

wjh

100 Years Ago

by Bill Holmes

This year, 2012, marks the 100th anniversary of both my parents birth. Dad lived until 2006 and Mom lived until 2002. Full lives and mostly enjoyable at least until their very last few months. I think of each of them almost every day. Sometimes it's just a fleeting thought or memory. Sometimes it's a dream I remember all or part of when I wake up. Sometimes it's a long memory. Sometimes it's sad and sometimes it's happy. Sometimes I'm angry at them, either for something they did or didn't do while alive or because they died and left me. Sometimes I couldn't believe how stupid, naïve, or old fashion they were. Other times I couldn't believe how smart, insightful and up to date they were.

Often I have no idea how or why many of these memories pop into my mind. Other times I know exactly what triggered the memory. It can be a place, a song, a picture, a TV show, a food, a news story, a smell or any of a thousand other things. Sometime I catch myself using a phrase they used or making a gesture that they did. Like almost every child I would never do or say anything the way my parents did. Now, mostly it doesn't bother me and in fact I smile.

Life was different in 1912. My parents grew up in a world that was far more formal and polite than now but was certainly not politically correct. People got dressed up for social engagements and events. There were rules for courting. Pregnancies were either after marriage, forced a marriage or caused the women to be banished. Despite all those high moral standards, every religious, ethnic and racial group had a “nickname”, most of which are no longer acceptable. Mentally and physically challenged people were ignored, ridiculed or hidden. There were no Gays, just reprehensible sexual deviates. There were no African-Americans or Native Americans or Italian-Americans or Asian-Americans or Hispanics in their day. There were no hyphens in our ethnicity. Men were clearly in charge. Woman's suffrage wasn't the law of the land until 1920. Women's equality wasn't even an issue until the 1960's. My Mom had to quit work when she got married because married women weren't allowed to work at her company.

They also went through two World Wars and the Depression. Those events shaped their lives forever. Those were gut wrenching periods in our history. Over 100,000 thousand US troops died in WWI and over 400,000 died in WWII. More than that were wounded. With a drafted armed forces in a country with a smaller population, almost every family was touched by those wars. The US was not sure of victory in those wars. The Depression saw unemployment rates of 25% and lasted a decade. The poverty of the Depression was replaced by the rationing and sacrifices of WWII. Tough times.

There are many things to admire about the “good old days” but there are also many things we should be glad have changed. I'm not talking about the technology changes. Those are great and make life much easier. When I ride my bike I'm glad the streets are paved and not full of horse shit. Planes are faster than Conestoga wagons, computers are faster than pencil & paper. The changes I'm most thankful for are the social changes.

My parents were born before women were first class citizens or could vote. There were still more horses than cars. Blacks were openly oppressed and not just in the South. Even open-minded Northern women were taught to be afraid of Black men. It's hard to shed those lessons and norms of society.

I'm sure looking back on my life there have been many more technological changes than during my parents life but I don't know if there have been as many lifestyle and societal changes. I think it might be more traumatic to go from horses to cars and planes or pencils to computers or agri/city to suburban than what their children went through. We went from 1957 Chevy's to 2012 Volts, prop planes to jets, room size computers to handheld computers and near suburbs to farther out suburbs.

I've read, studied and thought about history since my youth. What I've most taken away from that is that we must look at the past and those that inhabited it in context. Times, customs, mores, circumstances and many other things were different. If you are fighting everyday just to survive your priorities don't leave much time for anything else. Hopefully we evolve for the better. It is unfair to judge our forefathers and ancestors by todays standards. Our founding fathers said “all men are created equal”. What they meant in context of the times was that all white male landowners were equal to the aristocracy. Slavery and denial of womens equality was acceptable. Pick any point in human history and you can find some behavior that will appall you. Many beliefs of 1750, 1850 or even 1950 now seem either stupid or barbaric. It is unrealistic and self righteous to believe that you would have been part of the 1% that was decades ahead of the norm in moving social change. What I'm sure of is that if you are lucky enough to live another 25 years you will look back at 2012 and wonder how could that have been or what were they, or you, thinking.

I don't know if I'll live 90+ years, nor am I sure I want to. If I do, I hope I adjust as well as my parents. One did better than the other but both did OK. I like change and new stuff, so maybe I have a chance. Life is never easy and getting old is not for sissies. It can be physically, mentally, financially, culturally and emotionally challenging.

One hundred years ago two special people were born. For selfish reasons I'm glad they were. If I'm lucky a couple of people will be glad I stopped by for a visit.

wjh

Curiosity and Mars

by Bill Holmes

I watched the landing of Curiosity on Mars last night.  For geeks, nerds or just the curious it was exciting.  It's another step in our quest to explore the universe.  The months and years ahead will determine how successful the mission is but you have to get to Mars before you can explore it. That was done on 8/6/12.

This is an amazing accomplishment.  NASA was able to land an SUV where they planned to on a planet millions of miles away.  Your mileage may vary from about 55 to 400 million kilometers.  Google maps turn by turn directions to Mars are only in beta so NASA couldn't use them.  They had to use slide rules and AAA maps to figure it out.

This was not exciting TV in the normal sense, it was a control room that looked like the old NASA space missions.  Tiered rows  of people wearing headsets and looking at computer monitors.  Not even any human audio from space saying we've achieved orbit or we've landed or "Houston. we have a problem".  Just telemetry and eventually two B&W pictures.  But you could see the joy of the people in the room as Curiosity went through different milestones.  People responsible for different phases of the mission were able to breath a sigh of relief.  Once she landed the room went wild in celebration.  To make an analogy, this was like the Olympics for the people in that room and they just won a gold medal.  Of course there are differences.  Most of those scientists have worked much longer than our Olympic athletes.  The average age is probably a bit higher too.  You can't become a rocket scientist at 17 years old or with a couple of years of training.  Luckily NASA is better at science than producing must watch TV.  Being a geek and curious (see what I did there), I enjoyed watching history being made.  I also enjoyed most of the news conference after the landing.  I'll get back to the news conference.

The mission control center was a potpourri of our American population.  It was made up of young and old, male and female.  There were Anglos, East Asians, South Asians, Hispanics, immigrants, hippies, Gays and who knows what else.  There were earrings  even in some men and I suspect there was a tattoo or two.  Everybody was wearing blue golf shirts and casual pants or jeans.  This was not your Daddy's mission control from the Mercury launches.  Some of you will remember that everybody back then was white, male, clean cut and wearing a white shirt and tie.  The new mission control looked good to me.

Now, lets talk about the stuff that concerned me and/or made me angry.  Some of this may not be politically correct, but it's my blog and I get to say what I want.

I did not see a single African-American in a blue golf shirt in mission control.  The only black I saw was NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and he was wearing a suit.  Mr. Bolden is an outstanding American and former Marine and Astronaut, but he did not contribute to the science of the mission.  I don't think NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) discriminate against minorities.  Otherwise there would not be a Middle Eastern Lebanese immigrant, Charles Elachi, as Director of JPL.  Nor would there be all the other groups represented.  I think it's a cultural and scholastic discrimination much earlier in the lives of the Blacks.  Just as society and probably educators believe all Asians are good at math and science, they also believe Blacks are not good at those disciplines.  I think these stereotypes make a difference.  Blacks are encouraged to pursue social studies and sports.  Asians are encouraged to pursue math and science.  I guess Anglos are encouraged to pursue law, sales and finance.  Some stray from the expectations but I think those stereotypes have a profound effect on most children.  There is also the family and peer expectations.  Some cultures appreciate and emphasize the hard sciences and others emphasize less intense disciplines or none at all.  It's too bad that any child grows up with that stigma and expectation.  My guess is that there are brilliant African-American rocket scientists in the making.  We just need to encourage and cultivate them when they are young.

After the successful landing of Curiosity, there was a press conference.  Well, who do you think opened that press conference and made the opening remarks?  Was it someone who had worked for years on the Mars mission, even a JPL or department head whose team participated?  No, it was Charles Bolden who opened the press conference.  He read almost the entire opening since he probably didn't know what just happened or who was responsible.  The only time he strayed from his script was when he made a personal comment about his good friend, John Holdren, Obama's chief science guy, being nervous during the landing.  Holdren spoke second, from a script, and made several political BS statements.  Next Chuck took the podium again and excused himself and Johnny from the remaining proceedings.  Seems John had another engagement.  So, what in the government funded scientific world was more important than landing a $2.5 billion SUV on Mars?  Maybe a more public and less nerdy event.  Makes me sick.

Luckily after the politicians left the real guys took the stage.  Amazingly there was very little read.  Charles Elachi did have a few notes but that was all.  The whole mission control team paraded through the press room.  Then the six or seven bosses talked about the mission and answered questions.  They were excited, proud and of course knowledgeable.  

I get so sick of politicians and/or far removed bosses taking the credit and the podium.  I hold little hope that this will ever change but I still get to bitch about it.  I just wish that those that do got the credit, not those that talk.

Congratulations to the Curiosity team for their outstanding accomplishment.  Boo to the politicians that tried to take credit for it.

Comments always welcome.

wjh

You Can't Do That! It's Illegal

By - Bill Holmes

A re-post from the original post on The View Point July 2012 - 

It seems like every time I turn on the news, read the paper (yes, I still read the paper) or check the Internet somebody is telling me what I shouldn't or can't do.  More alarming is that they want to make that activity illegal.  The official mantra 45 years ago was "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" from Network.  I think we need to revive that movement.

What I'm referring to is the constant barrage of politicians, clergy, experts, advocacy groups and just plain busy bodies who want to impose their beliefs and behavior on my life.  Not by persuasion or example but by law, maybe even a constitutional amendment.

I'm partial to the first amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are a few other amendments I like too.  In fact all 27 are fine except for the 18th.  Isn't that the one that told us what we can't do as opposed to the others that dealt with government or what we, as citizens, had a right to and could do.   How did that 18th amendment thing work out?

I am neither a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian nor Tea Bagger.  I am also not a Socialist, Communist or Fascist.  At one time or another I did identify with a political party, not always the same one, but no longer.  They once had ideals and ideas how to govern.  If they got 51% of their way it was a win.  Now it's 100% or nothing.  They have all become so entrenched with their  BS “talking point” platforms that I doubt they even listen to what they are saying.

Back to the point of this blog/rant.  We can no longer agree to disagree among ourselves.  We now must impose our views onto the rest of society by whatever means we can.  This is not a Democratic or Republican monopoly.  Both parties are equally guilty, they just have different hot buttons.

In no particular order, a political party or government body has proposed that we outlaw, heavily tax and/or restrict the following:

•  Cigarettes/Smoking
• Birth Control
• Large Soft Drinks
• Evolution
• Pornography
• Happy Meal
• Trans Fats
• Guns
• The Internet
• Sex in parked cars
• Same Sex Marriage
• Religion, but only if it's not ours
• Bicycle lanes

NYC has also allowed (encouraged) cops to frisk anyone they want.  Kinda like the TSA.

The latest war on large soft drinks is absurd.  Sure sugar is a problem in our overweight population but are the no calorie sweeteners any better?  Are they safe?  By the way, under NYC's proposed ban you can buy a very large diet drink to wash down your Twinkie and Hostess Cupcake. 

Be very careful what you, as the majority, wish for and push through the legislature. 

Say you're a Southern Baptist living in a small town that demands all businesses close on the Sabbath (Sunday).  Then your town majority becomes Jewish and now the Sabbath is mostly Saturday.  Then Tuesday's Children or Druids take control.  You get the picture.  So instead of mandating when businesses do business let each open or close when they want. 

If a man and woman want to use birth control it's not the government's concern.  I really don't care if Medicaid or government dictated insurance provides contraceptives although I think it's a good idea. Just say yes or no, but don't make it a moral issue.  Also, don't pay for stiffy pills but deny contraceptives.  Many private insurance programs don't cover eye glasses, dental, birth control, hearing aids or elective procedures.  We don't make political planks out of it.  We either live with it or find an insurance program that covers what we need.  

Neither major party has a monopoly on the repression.  The Democrats want to regulate what we drive, eat, drink or where we smoke.  The Republicans want to prohibit who we eat, what we smoke or who we marry.  The Libertarians and Tea Party have their pet peeves they want to outlaw too.

I'm not advocating eliminating all government regulations.  We need laws to protect citizens from each other and corporations who don't play fair.  Regulations to require Wall Street transparency or cars to get certain MPG are fine.  Just don't dictate that I must use E. F. Hutton or buy a Ford.  We need zoning laws so the nuclear recycling plant doesn't move next door to the elementary school.  Of course there are many other areas government has a place.  

Mostly what we don't need is a government that tries to protect adults from ourselves.  Maybe tax (not excessively) bad behavior or restrict (within reason) where or when it can be done but don't outlaw it.  The operative words are “not excessively” and “within reason”.  Complete elimination, zero tolerance or mandatory are the problem.  You've all heard a story or two about the honor roll, star athlete student who drove his Mom's car to school and there was a cake knife in the trunk, left there after the baby shower Mom attended yesterday.  The student was suspended from school, kicked off the team and lost a scholarship because the school had a zero tolerance policy about knives on campus.  No common sense or judgment involved.   These boneheaded rules and decisions are made by highly paid and highly educated school officials.  High pay and education should mean they can make an intelligent decision based on facts and circumstances. 

Bottom line, many of these bans, restrictions and laws sound good on first blush.  No thinking person will deny that tobacco, sugar, trans fats and bacon flavored sundaes are not particularly healthy.  In excess they kill and incapacitate.  Guns also kill and incapacitate.  Sex in a parked car may not be prudent or very comfortable.  Democratic Nanny Government proponents want to ban most of those. Abortions, contraceptives, same sex marriage, separation of church and state.  Republican Tea Party proponents want to ban those and don't even think about taking my gun. 

I don't want to ban any of them.  I just want a little tolerance and common sense injected into our political discourse.  I want back the days Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were political opponents but friends.  When 51% meant a win.  When it was possible to have a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat.  If that's not possible, how about just a little civility.

Champion and live by your beliefs, just don't force them on me.

Booze and the Alamo

   

Recently there has been a controversy about the General Land Office (GLO) allowing groups that rent Alamo Hall to serve alcohol. The historic keepers of the Alamo, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT), are opposed to this. Sour grapes or a true opposition to alcohol?

The state of Texas has owned the Alamo since the 1880's when they bought it from the Catholic Church.  Since 1905 the DRT have been caretaker of the Alamo and even almost bought it in the early 1900's.  That mostly autonomous caretaker role was modified by the 2011 Texas Legislature.  The General Land Office (GLO) is now in charge of Alamo operations.  The DRT still provide volunteers and maintain the DRT Library on the Alamo grounds but they no longer have final say on policy.

Alamo Hall is a former fire station that was built on Alamo grounds in the 1920's.  It is rented out for meetings and receptions.  The rental proceeds go into the fund to maintain and run the Alamo.  The controversy is that the GLO thinks allowing alcohol will increase the market for the space and therefore increase revenue.  The DRT thinks allowing alcohol will defile the hallowed grounds.

OK, let's look at this.  Alamo Hall was built in the 1920's not the 1830's.  It was not part of the hallowed grounds when they became hallowed.  The original mission and later Mexican and Republic of Texas garrison probably had a drop or two of alcohol spilled in it on occasion.  Conjecture is that Bowie, Crockett and most of their followers consumed adult beverages, often more than one.  The original mission had at minimum of wine consumed on its sacred ground.  Do you think those that died or worshiped at the Alamo would object to a group of folks, perhaps veterans, having a beer or two (maybe Shiners or Lone Star) at their gathering.  I don't think so.  If it were up to me I'd allow alcohol anywhere in the complex.

I think this is either the DRT trying to manufacture an issue since they don't have total control or trying to impose their 1905 morals on 2012 society's honoring of 1830 events and history.  This would not be an issue if the Knights of Columbus had become caretakers in 1905.  Of course in 1905 Texas the Catholics were about as accepted as Hispanics, Jews and Blacks.

Remember the Alamo!  But remember it as ordinary men doing extraordinary acts.  Maybe after a swig of some home brew.

wjh    

Olympic Hypocrisy

by Bill Holmes

The latest blast of hypocrisy blowing in from Washington DC concerns the vital issue of where the USA Olympic Team uniforms are manufactured.  Based on the uproar this is much more important than almost any other issue facing congress and our government.  Deficits and unemployment pale in comparison.

There's a reason this is vitally important to our elected representatives.  It is because it will get great attention on all the news programs, newspapers, magazines and every internet outlet.  It's also easy and at least at first blush seems like an obvious “well duh”.  Our elected officials can get on their soap boxes and profess their indignation and patriotism.

Let's delve a little deeper.  First of all, the US Olympic Team is not the US Government Olympic Team.  It is the corporate and public Olympic Team representing the USA.  All funds for the entire Olympic program come from private sources.  That may be a corporate sponsor, sales and licensing of USA Olympic products or individual donations.  The United States government does not contribute any funds to our Olympic program.  Every other team that participates in the Olympics gets government funding.  Truth be told, I have contributed more to our Olympic effort than Congress since I've bought some licensed/logo stuff and also sent them a few extra dollars.  Most of the merchandise the US Olympic Committee (USOC) sells is made outside this country and I'm fine with that.  If they can buy a hat from China or a shirt from Honduras for $5, sell it for $20 and use the $15 profit to send athletes to London that's better than buying the items in the USA for $10 and only having $10 profit.  Now if the Committee can find the merchandise domestically for $5 or even $5.25 they should buy it.  The USOC is not buying the team uniforms from the Ralph Lauren Company, Ralph is an Olympic sponsor and is providing the uniforms as is Nike.  As such, they get to decide where they are made.  Granted it's probably not a great public relations move but it is also not a national crisis.

The sponsors of USOC is a who's who of international companies.  Coke, GE, McDonalds, Nike, P&G, Ralph Lauren... All fine American companies.  Oh wait, Panasonic, Samsung, BMW, Omega... are also sponsors of the USA team. I don't think they're USA corporations.  So, it appears that in our global economy we may have some cross-pollination among countries and corporations.  Wanna make a bet?  I think Nike, a US company, may be providing uniforms for some foreign teams.  I know McDonalds is providing nutritious burgers and fries washed down by a Coke to all the countries in the Olympic Village.

Next, let's look at those making the public statements about this situation.  Harry Reid, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have led the pack as they usually do when hypocrisy and indignation are called for.  Those three are the poster children for what is wrong with Congress.  How many of Nancy's designer shoes are made in the USA?  Does Harry have any suits or ties in his closet made in the USA?  Does John only use USA made golf equipment when he plays with Obama and Biden?  It's possible that the botox Nancy likes so much may be manufactured in China.  This is an issue that gets tremendous knee jerk response.  It is the bread and butter fodder for politicians, talk radio, cable news and comedians.  This kind of story makes Rush Limbaugh's job easy.  He can rant for a few days.  Letterman and Leno have a few easy jokes for the monologue.  For the politicians it diverts attention from the terrible job they're doing on the real issues.

Letterman and Leno certainly have the right to make jokes about this.  Rush can rant all he wants.  That's freedom of speech.  The real news outlets (are there any left?) should be delving a little deeper to provide the full story.  Unless and until Congress and the US government provide funding for the USOC they don't get to have a say about the uniforms or anything else.  The Olympics have been used as a pawn for politicians for years.  They stick their noses into USOC business, criticize when they make a mistake yet wave the flags and brag when the US team wins medals.  They use the athletes they don't fund for political purposes.  Remember when Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow because of the Russian invasion of --- wait for it --- Afghanistan.  He deprived our athletes the chance to compete, for probably their only time, in the Olympics.  Four or more years of preparation down the drain for the athletes because Russia invaded a country we would invade 20 years later.  I don't know of any of those US athletes who contributed to the Russian invasion.  The US government didn't fund that 1980 team either.

When I started this blog I intended to write about congressional hypocrisy and false indignation in general.  The USOC uniform dustup was only suppose to be one example.  I got a little sidetracked as often happens.  I've been pissed at our government's involvement, but lack of funding, in our Olympic teams for years.  The Olympics should be for the athletes and free of politics.  I know that's idealistic but I will never forgive Jimmy Carter for that 1980 boycott.  Now that we've been in Afghanistan for a decade it only reinforces my feelings even more.

I'll write about the other hypocrisy soon either here or at The Viewpoint.

Comments and discussion always welcomed and encouraged.

wjh