Skip to content

This is why I use Linux.

For most people who use Linux as their main operating system, explaining to a Windows user why they use Linux generally involves reading from a laundry list of benefits. Open source is free, updates are easy, security is better, and so on. On another site today, I found a funny list that provided ten reasons why you need Linux on your laptop.

But I can’t find a better reason for abandoning Windows than what XP users are currently experiencing in the aftermath of installing Windows XP Service Pack 3:

Within hours of its release, Microsoft Service Pack 3 for Windows XP began drawing hundreds of complaints from users who claim the update is wreaking havoc on their PCs.

The problems with XP SP3, according to posters on Microsoft’s Windows XP message board, range from spontaneous reboots to outright system crashes…

…Another user said the service pack prevented him from starting his computer. “I downloaded and installed Windows XP Service Pack 3 Network Installation Package for IT Professionals,” wrote ‘Paul’. “Now I can’t get the computer to boot.”

Dozens of other posters reported similar problems.

Similar complaints have appeared on other Windows-related sites.

If you browse through some of the reader comments at the site link above, you’ll notice an accusation from some that by releasing a buggy service pack to XP users, Microsoft is surreptitiously forcing people to upgrade to Windows Vista, a move lots of Windows users have been trying to delay as long as possible. Microsoft recently announced that support for XP will phase out beginning next month.

So what makes Linux better in this regard? Let’s consider the major popular distributions. Each distribution has a specific method and timing for making updates and patches available to users. I’ll use the Ubuntu family as an example (since all flavors of the distribution work pretty much the same way).

Once an Ubuntu Linux is installed on your hardware and you have established a network connection to the Internet, the distribution’s site will be checked for any updates and changes to the installed files. This includes everything from the system kernel to any user applications you might install using a package manager (in the Ubuntus, Synaptic or Adept through the GUI, or using the apt-get tools from the command line). The system keeps a database of everything installed, and if something new appears on the remote software repositories, you receive a notification that updates are available.

Once you activate the package manager, you receive a list of all new items. The user has the choice of whether or not to install all, none or a selection of the packages. Most people would probably select all the recommendations, and the package manager downloads, extracts, installs and configures everything in the background, while the user works. The user rarely needs to reboot the system after an update, so the entire scheme is transparent.

So how is this different from a Windows update? First, Microsoft provides little or no application software with Windows, and most Windows updates they provide are security patches or system code fixes. Microsoft takes no responsibility for updating your applications or programs - they assume that you will keep up with patches for your programs via the company that created it. They also take no responsibility, apparently, for whether or not one of their updates breaks any of your applications. And now, based on the story, they can’t be too certain that service packs won’t bring down the entire system.

With most Linux distributions, even application and program software is distributed and maintained by the team managing the distribution. That team has already determined, before their distribution is even released, whether or not a specific program is going to work on their version of Linux. They likely compiled it and customized it specifically for their release of Linux. If the folks who created that program provide an update or a patch, the distribution management will apply that change to the application and thoroughly test it before pushing the patched version to their repository. This greatly reduced the chances of an error in the patch code bringing your system down or failing to work properly.

This scanario holds for application fixes, patches to the operating system tools and libraries, changes to the system kernel and to security updates.

The other big difference in how updates are handled in Windows is demonstrated by the concept of the “service pack.” Unless an update or patch fixes a critical security vulnerability, Microsoft doesn’t generally make patches and fixes available in piecemeal fashion. If Microsoft finds a problem, they generally gather the fixes up into a service pack and distribute many patches at one time. They might assist you with a one-time fix, but generally only for very critical issues, and usually only if you pay for the required support.

I’m pretty certain that the company tries to test their service packs on a variety of systems in varied situations prior to release. But let’s face it; considering the complexity of the Windows operating system, and the thousands of applications that run on it, and the millions of hardware configurations, it’s impossible to determine if a service pack will fix all things on all systems in all cases.

You can also attempt to remove a patch or service pack from Windows if it breaks something. However, doing so can be increasingly difficult if the service pack prevents you from booting your system. If you are able to boot and then try to regress back to a pre-service pack setup, there’s a good possibility that doing so will then really break the system. What ends up happening is that the frustrated user winds up reinstalling everything from scratch, wasting even more time and possibly losing data in the process (Come on, how many of you really paid attention to those warnings to back up your files before installing the service packs?).

Since Linux fixes are more granular in nature, and since the system is far more modular at its core than Windows, a broken application won’t bring the system to its knees. Even a system patch can usually be regressed or uninstalled with relative ease, with the previous code being returned to make the system fully operational again.

The Linux system is certainly not a panacea. As with Windows, not all system software is going to work with every combination of hardware all the time. People occasional struggle to get a basic Linux system installed simple because of some hardware incompatibility. Finding the driver code to get some gear to work with Linux used to be an adventure. These days, with the advancements in distributions like the Ubuntus, Fedora, OpenSuse and others, one can be far more confident that everything will work out of the box.

And when the time comes to update something, you can have that same confidence that everything will continue to work after the fact.

I can’t think of a better reason than that.

Petition the Release of Cuban Political Prisoners

I received an email from our friend Val Prieto, who runs the great pro-Cuba, anti-Castro blog Babalú. Val and his fellow contributors work the front lines in the battle to fight the lies and propaganda emanating from Castro-led Cuba for nearly fifty years. I’ll let Val do the talking on this:

Currently, Cuba has the most incarcerated journalists per capita in the world. A group of Human rights groups, organizations, and institutions have penned a short and concise petition calling for the release of all political prisoners in Cuba:

The Cuban Government is currently holding more than 220 political prisoners according to Amnesty International, the Cuban Committee for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders. These prisoners are illegally held in prison according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Cuba has signed and recognizes. Despite signing these documents, Cuba continues to suppress freedom of expression by outlawing peaceful advocacy for human rights and democratic reforms. In defiance of the universally-recognized rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, Cuban activists are systematically targeted for persecution.

Please take one minute of your day and add you name to this important petition and, should you be so inclined, send it along to as many people as you can and, again if so inclined, if you have a webpage or blog, please post a link and ask your readers for their help. Most of these men and women in Cuban prisons were arrested and incarcerated for what we all take for granted: sharing our thoughts and opinions.

Here’s where you can sign:
http://www.peticioncuba.org/sign.php?l=en

Consider this: human freedom is not something given to man, but it can be taken away by man. There is no greater example of this than what’s happened in our own backyard to the people of Cuba. Don’t let the recent news of “loosening restrictions” on the Cuban people by Raúl Castro fool you. The suffering people of that beautiful land are still far from enjoying the freedoms we often take for granted. As much as we are often divided politically in the United States, we have the God-given freedom to express our views, without fear of arrest, incarceration and torture. The same cannot be said for the political prisoners of Cuba.

Click the link and sign the petition. You will have to sacrifice a total of 30 seconds of your time. Over 2000 have done so already. Join up.

What’s scarier?

After yesterday’s primaries, I suppose the general assumption is that Barak Obama will be the Democrat nominee for President. I still believe Mrs. Rodham isn’t going down before she releases the dogs on Obama, and I expect more scandalous information about him to appear in the press and on the blogs any day now.

Then I read this item in the news this morning, and it got me thinking.

What would be more frightening? Barak Obama as President or believing what Bill Gates claims is going to be the “future of the Internet” ten years from now?

With the former, I believe that if he does get the nomination, he’s going to have a difficult time defeating John McCain. Once the general voting population looks a little closer at his background, his associates (not just Jeremiah Wright), and his barefaced radical socialist agenda, many are likely going to find it tough to let this guy into the White House. Conservatives can complain all they like about McCain’s past, but if you put these two guys side-by-side in a reasonable examination of their lives, McCain is the far more substantial candidate, both in congressional service and in his military experiences.

But what of Bill Gates’s predictions of marvelous changes to the Internet in the next ten years?

Gates…talked about the future of software and human interaction in the next decade.

“We can expect that the variety and quality of software will accelerate in the years ahead,” the Microsoft co-founder said.

Gates added that “natural interaction” between hardware and software was finally becoming possible, citing as an example speech commands to computers.

“The whole environment will be very, very different,” he said.

I find this kind of amusing in 2008 because Gates has made some significant blunders in his past prognostications regarding information technology. You would think a billionaire running one of the biggest software companies on the globe would be a bit more accurate in his predictions.

Then again, he did approve the release of Microsoft Bob. But, I digress.

In what had to be one of the biggest cases of bad timing ever, Gates co-wrote and published a book called The Road Ahead in late 1995. In the book (and the companion CD), Gates described what a wonderfully marvelous world lay ahead, thanks to computer technology. The only problem was that Gates assumed that Windows would be the portal to this wonderful world, and that Microsoft would own and manage the network. That’s right: your total on-line experience would take place over the Microsoft Network (MSN).

Gates gave little credit to the Internet as the vehicle for all the accurate predictions he made. He did foresee on-line commerce, although it’s doubtful his prediction was particularly unique. Use of the Web was increasing geometrically in 1995, and Microsoft was late to the party. In his 1995 Salon critique of Gates’ book, Scott Rosenberg details the areas that the mogul almost got completely correct (the emphasis on the word “will” is Mr. Rosenberg’s):

You will use “the highway” to “shop, order food, contact fellow hobbyists, or publish information for others to use.” You will select how, when and where you wish to receive your news and entertainment. You will benefit from lower prices and the elimination of middlemen that the network’s “friction-free” marketplace allows. Your wallet PC will identify you at airport gates and highway tollbooths. Your children will tap a torrent of homework helpers.

All right, then, let’s go down the list and see where Bill was correct in his predictions.

  • You will use “the highway” to “shop, order food, contact fellow hobbyists, or publish information for others to use.” — He’s pretty much on the mark here. We do all of these things, and the last item predicted the age of the blog with great accuracy.
  • You will select how, when and where you wish to receive your news and entertainment. — Scoreboard. That’s two-for-two. I’m sure the concept of things like RSS and Atom were mere ideas in someone’s head, but we have them now and they do exactly what Bill said they would. Combine this will numerous other news and information sources, and I’d say bullseye for Bill.
  • You will benefit from lower prices and the elimination of middlemen that the network’s “friction-free” marketplace allows. — Wow. That’s another one over the fence. With the exception of idiot politicians who want to apply sales tax laws to the entire Internet (unsuccessfully, so far), the commerce marketplace of the web is going strong. I remember personally being laughted at just ten years ago when I did nearly all my Christmas shopping on line. Now, for most people, it’s the first place we turn, even just to find prices and availability at brick-and-mortar stores. Everyone benefits. Bill’s beginning to look like an effin’ Nostradamus!
  • Your wallet PC will identify you at airport gates and highway tollbooths. — My what? My wallet PC? Well, he had to swing and miss eventually. The closest thing most of us have to a “wallet PC” is a smart phone (like my Palm Treo), and I can’t use that to identify myself to anyone. In fact, when I go to the airport, I have to stash the damn thing in my carry-on just to get through the scanner machine. And the laptop PC I do carry has to come out of the bag and ride in one of those plastic tubs. We do have modern conveniences like the new Clear card system for speeding through airports, and technologies like E-Z Pass to get us through the toll plazas a little faster. But those technologies would have been developed without Microsoft’s assistance anyway.
  • Your children will tap a torrent of homework helpers. — Well, he might have been partially right on this. Kids can find a lot of information on the Web, but some educators still question the accuracy of that information. Wikipedia, with it’s millions of encyclopedic pages of information, has frequently come under fire for inaccuracy. And I don’t think kids are downloading torrents of homework. Torrents of movies, TV shows and MP3 files, maybe, much to the chagrin of the MPAA and the RIAA. Gates’s use of the word “torrent” is mysteriously accurate. We’ll give him a base on balls for this one.

The big miss here was his prediction that his company, providing his software, would also manage your global access on his network. He was so wrong on this, he actually revised entire sections of the book before the trade paperback version was released in 1996, where he accounted for the rapid explosion of the Internet.

Based on what he said in South Korea this week, I have to wonder if he still believes that Windows will continue to be the dominant operating platform of the future. I realize that he and the rest of his crew in Redmond are doing all they can to either ignore or sabotage any headway Linux, OS X, OpenSolaris, the BSD systems and other alternatives are making into the desktop world. But they can’t. The continuing rise in popularity of alternate systems such as the Ubuntu Linux family and Apple’s Mac OS X have to be worrisome to Microsoft.

Another major issue with Microsoft’s push to dominate the Internet is the fact that, as many developers are beginning to discover, Windows is a difficult platform for developing new applications. In this multi-part series, developer Peter Bright lays out many of the reasons why he switched from Windows to the Mac for his development. (Warning: the article is filled with techno-geek-speak, so proceed with caution). Bright will likely be accused of being a flame baiter, but that doesn’t make his points invalid. I’m guessing that lots of developers have moved to Linux as a programming platform for many of the same reasons.

And in addition to the issues with Windows (especially the XP-to-Vista transition, which has upset a lot of loyal Windows users), Bill Gates can’t even get his history straight:

“We’re approaching the second decade of (the) digital age,” the software mogul and philanthropist told Lee at the start of their meeting at the presidential Blue House, according to a media pool report.

“The Internet has been operating now for 10 years,” Gates said. “The second 10 years will be very different.”

Hmmm…let’s see, I started using the Internet in…1987. No, it wasn’t the “world wide web” concept that everyone uses today, but the Internet as a network has been there for a very long time. The origin of the network goes back to the late 1960s. The first wide-spread malicious attack on the Internet, the Morris Worm, took the network to its knees in 1988, Bill. Some of us were using e-mail, IRC chat, FTP and Gopher (the precursor to the Web) long before you decided that the Internet was a valid networking concept. For heaven’s sake, Bill, you wrote about the Internet in your book (after you realized that you left it out) in 1996. I still find it incredulous that someone as allegedly smart and forward-thinking as Bill Gates would act as if the Internet didn’t exist for as long as he did.

To say the “second 10 years will be very different” is like saying the sun will rise and set today. People all over the globe have been developing concepts, ideas, toys and tools for the web, many without the assistance of Mr. Gates’s genius. The Internet isn’t going to wait for you, Bill. From the time it was first used to connect a couple of sites together, it’s always been a chaotic entity, just a bunch of machines tied together with a relatively primitive numbering system. The Internet is an entity that nearly defies logic. There’s still very little real control (no single entity owns the Internet), and amazingly enough, it’s managed to stay alive for nearly four decades with just the occasional bump in the “highway” knocking things around temporarily. This all occurred no thanks to Microsoft. Nice to have them aboard (well, sort of), but it would have happened even if Gates never made that DOS licensing deal with IBM.

So what of technology and politics?

Barak Obama spends an awful lot of time talking about how he’s going to “change” things. The fact that a black American is running a successful presidential campaign is a big change already. This would have happened eventually, despite what his wife thinks. But for a politician in modern America to believe that “change” is going to occur just because he’s talking about it demonstrates a real lack of understanding of how American politics works. If he should get elected, he’s going to discover very quickly that a lot of people in other branches of the government aren’t going to cooperate with his vision of “change,” and he’s going to wind up getting very little accomplished. He’s also going to discover that he’s going to have to support some of those ides which he finds unpleasant, like a continuing troop presence in Iraq and not raising everyone’s taxes. He isn’t going to stroll into the White House on January 20, pick up the phone and start making wholesale modifications to our security posture or the economy. And somewhere along the way, he’ll likely pull off some enormous blunder that will render him, like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush before him, a one-term president. He might not have hostages in Iran or a reversal on a tax promise, but he’ll do something like inviting that goof-ball Iranian clown president to the White House for “talks,” or we’ll discover that he’s in a lot deeper with his radical friends than we were led to believe.

But we can avoid all that by electing the other guy. Some of you might not like it, but the alternative is too scary for me. Besides, as angry as I might become is he is elected, I decided a long time ago (thanks to Rush) that no matter who is elected President, my life, my goals and my accomplishments aren’t going to change. The new guy might want to tax me into poverty, but I can find a way around that as well.

The same can’t easily be said about Bill Gates and his future plans for the Internet. The entrenchment of Windows as the primary platform in the world has, to me, far more threatening implications than some socialist running for president. If Bill Gates has his way, the Internet would just become another proprietary platform that requires everyone to use something Microsoft has developed.

One can see this now: there are many popular websites that use technologies only available on the Windows platform to provide access to their content. The open source community has lots of smart and dedicated people working on ways to get around such issues, many of them grinding away for little or no pay. Considering that popular alternative web browsers like Firefox try to operate within web standards, why should the average user be forced to switch their operating system or browser to experience dynamic content at a site? Naturally, part of this is the fault of developers: many use the rapid development tools and environments provided by Microsoft, not caring if many Linux, Unix or Mac users find their sites unusable. I personally have complained to a number of sites about this, and most choose to ignore complaints or use the “we only have Microsoft developers” excuse. Then I vote with my feet (or my mouse, as it were). See ya. I’ll tell all my friends, too.

The specter of a Barak Obama presidency is something in which I find no comfort or hope. But the choice of the President is left up to the good people of this country, using a system that, despite some bruises in recent years, still works remarkably well. We have ways of ousting the presidents who do a bad job. We can un-elect them or impeach them. But they are not forever. We always hope that, no matter what side of the aisle on which we live, that the person in that office will do good things. Or at least the least amount of permanent damage possible. This is why FDR was the last (and only) more-than-two-term president. We’re still feeling the effects of some of his damage.

Things aren’t as simple in the IT world. if Bill Gates continues to push his way towards world domination (and that is the goal, despite what you might think), it’s going to be far more difficult to change. People will become “comfortable” with the Gates way of doing things, and change is always hard. Especially in IT. (And politics - Barak Obama, take note).

I want to decide how I use access technology, what tools I will use, where I want to go. Along with millions of others, I’m heading there now. I’m not going to wait to see what Bill gates has in store for me.

Celebrity eco-finger-pointing

I love being right, even if just in a small way.

Over the past few years, I’ve had lots of fun picking on “Dr.” Leo DiCaprio, thespian, resort entrepreneur and environmental expert. You can review my commentary here, here and here, as well as observations from Sheryl Crow and the one-piece-of-toilet-paper fiasco.

Celebrities have been all over in recent months, yammering on about how we need to stop global warming, and we need to reduce our “carbon footprint” and how we need to return to life in the Stone Age by giving up all the comforts of our modern, technological life. Of course, they want us to do it all, because they simply have no interest in doing so, except for the photo ops and positive spin it puts on their careers. They look concerned, don’t they? Sigh…

“Dr.” DiCaprio has been particularly excruciating because, as I detailed in the links above, he spends a lot of time lecturing his friends on their choice of vehicles, developing his island resort for the rich and producing chicken-little DVDs on the end of the world, the latter two activities at great impact to the environment he wants everyone else to save.

DiCaprio and Crow are not alone; every celebrity within view of a camera lens wants to be seen doing what they can to save our endangered Earth, but other then Ed Begley, none of them are putting the old money you-know-where. Laura Ingraham covered the gamut of holier-than-thou celebrities in this book, which is worth the read, so I won’t rehash that here.

So in an unintentionally humorous exposé in the London Daily Mail details some of the recent celebrities guilty of environmental bloviating and what they’re really doing to protect the ol’ planet. The good doctor gets a mention in here, though he’s not has harshly excoriated as Travolta, Madonna and our old pal Babs Streisand, who apparently are wreaking more havoc stomping about with their gigantic “carbon” feet than most small cities do in a year.

To be perfectly honest, I frankly don’t care that these people have private planes (or a fleet of them), or drive around in big SUVs or even run their dishwashers when they aren’t full. Most of us who do wait until the dishwasher is full do so out of common sense. We do it because it keeps the water and electric bills down a bit, not necessarily that we’re trying to reduce any stratospheric ozone holes. Rich people have the advantage of money, and if they want to spend it on exclusivity in travel, fine. The Mail hounds Brad Pitt because he flew to a movie location in his private jet to see his wife work on a film. So effin’ what? I work 700 miles from home, and I wish I could afford to fly commercial to see my wife whenever I wanted.

But the point of the story isn’t what they do, it’s what they say everyone else should do that makes them hypocritical. Frankly, in a short while, as more and more evidence of the global warming myth/scam is revealed, they’re all going to fell just a little silly, having climbed up on their soapboxes to preach to the non-celebrity unwashed, referencing bogus scientific information they heard from someone else.

That will be enough satisfaction for me.

Try inducing suicide next time.

I wish I could have felt a bit more outraged after reading the story of Yale senior Aliza Shvarts, a mentally-deranged “art” major who decided to impregnate herself, then induce miscarriages, all in the name of making some kind of “statement.”

The only “statement” I believe she successfully made is the one where she says “I’m a complete and unmitigated idiot who’s taking up valuable space at a great university, space that could have been used to educate someone who might actually contribute something good to society.”

The “artwork” Ms. Shvarts performed on herself (resulting in a bloody mess that she plans to put on display at the university) angered me for a more important reason.

Frankly, I don’t really care what this mental midget does to herself. I just pray that she’s paying for her own education. I couldn’t bear the thought of her parents forking over their hard-earned dough for this stupidity, or that some benefactor provided her with a scholarship. Frankly, I hope she graduates in hock up to her ass, because her “art” degree isn’t going to provide her with as much income as she’d make managing a Dunkin Donuts.

What truly disturbs me about this is the fact that my own wife suffered through two miscarriages when we first tried to have a child back in the early 1980s. The first one required that Kelly be hospitalized, and the trauma was heightened by the fact that I couldn’t be there when she needed me, as I was away at a Navy school in Texas. The second event happened quickly and far earlier in the pregnancy, and although she didn’t require any hospitalization, we both knew something was amiss. Young healthy women aren’t supposed to miscarry twice within one year. When we transferred to Jacksonville, Kelly was seen by an outstanding obstetrician who corrected the problem, enabling her to give birth to our wonderful daughter within the year.

The comments from this twit as to why she took donated sperm, inseminated herself, then induced intentional miscarriages after pregnancy don’t explain much:

Shvarts said she…believes it is the nature of her piece to “provoke inquiry.”

Her “piece”? You call self-mutilation and the destruction of a living creature growing inside you a “piece”? Well, you’re right about one thing, lady. You have provoked me into inquiring as to whether or not your mom dropped you on your head when you were young. Or whether or not you’ve been taking too many deep breaths near the paint fumes. Maybe it’s the curse of having a last name with only one vowel.

But I’m willing to wager that the thousands of women who suffer the loss of a child through miscarriage don’t see things in the same artistically enlightened fashion that you do. No, I’m certain many of them would like to have had the opportunity to actually bear those children you so callously eliminated in your bathtub.

I’m also willing to bet that a few of those women would like to have you alone in a room for a few hours, just the slap the shit out of you.

Now, that would would be a statement.

Update: Now the university is admitting that the whole thing was a hoax. The people involved are calling it “performance art.” Right. Nice performance. Very clever. She’s still an idiot.

Update Redux: Yale is demanding the student admit the “performance” is a hoax before they’ll “display” her work. While I think their challenge is wise, I believe their desire to even consider putting this thing out in public is a mistake. They should be running from her as far as they can.

Why today is important.

No, it’s not that it’s tax day. Everyone knew that was coming. Last-minute filing? Beating a dead cliché. Does everyone not know that Americans are overtaxed, that the tax code is evil, and that you’re really working for a nanny state that wants your money for solutions to problems that haven’t yet been discovered?

Right. Everyone knew all that.

So, no, the important event of this day is the release of the NFL schedule for the 2008 season. Some of you are thinking “eh, so what? I have to file and mail my return by midnight.” Sucks to be you (to be honest, I just completed mine yesterday).

But, if you live in a football town (I current live in two, sort of), and you have a vested interest in your home team (season ticket holder from the beginning), then today’s schedule release is a critical event. Many Americans will immediately begin making plans for the fall and winter months, based solely on when their team is playing at home.

I can personally attest to this. I’ve worked away from home during the past two seasons, and my quest each season is to make it to as many home games as humanly possible. In 2006, I missed both Monday night games in Jacksonville, and the Jaguars won both. Last season, I made the trip up for the only prime time game, a Monday night tilt against the Colts. Jacksonville got whipped, and David Garrard injured his ankle and was out for three weeks. But I also made it home from Key West for every home game last season. This year will be no different. I hope.

Also, I’m getting a little sick and tired of my fellow Jaguar fans complaining that our team “gets no respect” from the league or the sports media regarding prime time games. Frankly, I don’t give a shit if anyone respects us or not. Despite a sluggish opening day home loss and missing three mid-season games to injury, David Garrard finally scaled to the top of his own personal mountain as the team’s starter. The team finished a respectable 11-5, beat the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs (one of two incredible games against Pittsburgh last season), and held their own against the eventual AFC Champion Patriots in the divisional playoff game.

The league noticed, OK, everyone? We have a Monday night road game, a Sunday night prime time home game, and a Thursday night NFL Network game against the Colts in December — at home. If the prognosticators are right, we may be battling Indy for the AFC South title at that point. The entire nation gets to see it happen. This is how you get respect. Just win football games.

Respect or not, I’m already making plans, checking airline schedules and figuring out some time off in December.

When are the mini-camps, huh? I can’t wait.

Here’s a great reason TV news sucks.

i read an article on a website about TV this morning. The story was a list of the (allegedly) ten most powerful people in TV news. They mention Roger Ailes for his work on Fox News, and include a couple of the usual suspects, such as Tim Russert and Keith Olbermann.

I understand Russert, as he’s been in the news business for a long time. But Olbermann? This guy appears to not be able to make up his mind in which media sandbox he wishes to play. Am I a candy mint? Am I a breath mint? Should I do sports, or read the news, or get my own TV show and become America’s second most liberal blowhard (behind Chris Matthews)? I know: I’ll do the latter, then spend my career picking on Bush and Bill O’Reilly (who, by the way, is right behind Olbermann on the list at number 7).

No, the truly scary thing on this list is the group at number ten. The writer give the last spot on the list to a combination team of Amy Poehler, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. These are not “news” people. They are comedians (well, someone said they were, anyway). Ms. Poehler’s most recent well-known work is some movie with Tina Fey (who would be on this list instead of Poehler, were she still on Saturday Night Live). In the movie, she agrees to be Ms. Fey’s character’s surrogate mother. In a recent commercial, she is seen squatting over a sink, taking a pee, because she couldn’t undo the baby lock on the toilet. A regular riot.

Now, when Brian Williams or even Katie Couric agree to a nice piss-in-the-sink session, then I believe we can put our three comedian friends on the same list with big-time names in the new.

Not that any of this matters to me. I haven’t watched a news program on television in years. I did recently see the SNL Weekend Update segment while staying in a hotel in southern Virginia. I thought it was funny, and I actually laughed a loud at a couple of the jokes from Ms. Poehler. But that was the first time in over a decade that I watched it, and I think I’ll wait another ten years before the next attempt.

That is not the news. These are not “news people.” And if citizens in this country are relying on these folks to be their primary source of information (as I have read that Stewart is to many young people), it’s no wonder our knowledge of culture and world affairs is at an all-time nadir.

Way to go.

The poor poor, and the damned wealthy.

I’ve now been working in the Washington D.C. area for more than two months. My job, thankfully, is completely non-political, and most of the people with whom I work don’t seem all that interested in getting lathered up over the coming nominations or elections. Occasionally, discussions of a local hot issue pop up around the cubicles, including recent news like the D.C. gun ban and the crackdown in illegals in Prince William County.

I also avoid reading the newspapers or watching a lot of local news, not because i’m disinterested in this community, but because I’m feeling pretty good about life right now, and I don’t want the news to erode my optimism.

Unfortunately, I read something on the way to work yesterday that boiled my blood enough to come out of hiding. The article was in a free mini-newspaper distributed outside the Metro stations each morning. I usually grab one for the crossword puzzle, to limber up the old gray matter during the ride to the Pentagon. The train was pulling out of the Arlington Cemetery station, and I was idly paging through the paper when I found this article.

My first thought was to find out more about the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as I was convinced it was probably some left-wing socialist think tank that spends its days rearranging statistics to fit its anti-capitalist arguments, followed by a mass faxing of its latest “report” to every lazy news person on the Rolodex. I don’t get the sense that the people running CBPP are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics, since the C.V.s on some of their staff are pretty impressive.

Nevertheless, I don’t really have an argument with them personally, or even politically. My complaint about stories like this is that, once again, some self-important group of thinkers has decided to raise the guilt levels of a large percentage of the local, hard-working, productive segment of D.C. society. Naturally, the Examiner made sure to include the requisite photo of the poor, downtrodden “mostly homeless” woman, camped out in close proximity to the well-dressed woman walking along with her shopping bag. I’m a little surprised that the photo didn’t have a closer focus on the bag, to show that the non-homeless woman shops at some place the “mostly homeless” woman would never be able to enter.

The story is filled with a number of statistical anomalies that demonstrate that while it’s great to be “rich,” it really sucks to be poor. For example:

The households in the top 5 percent in the District have annual incomes that are more than 26 times that of the bottom 20 percent, the study showed. D.C. was not ranked against states in the report, but if it were, it would top the list of states with the largest income gap, followed by New York.

The article is a volley shot in the class wars, aimed right at the broadsides of the so-called “wealthy.” They don’t stop with just the District area. A few sentences later, they go after America as a unit. Please note the description of the less-fortunate in the second part of the quote below:

In the United States as a whole, the wealthiest have an average income more than seven times greater than the lowest-earning households.

“The top group has disproportionately been helped by the expansion of the economy while middle-class and working people have really just barely beaten inflation,” said Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute.

Please note the carefully-chosen terminology:

  • “the top group” — that’s you, if you make more than $100,000 per year…you’re considered, on average, one of the “richest” in the region;
  • “disproportionately been helped by the expansion of the economy” — what does that mean? That those of us who earn higher incomes just sat around, watching the economy “expand” and lighting cigars with the $100 bills that floated down from “expansion” heaven? Last time I looked, I was working pretty damned hard to make the money I do. Not to mention the 650-mile separation from my wife and my home, and the fact that I have to maintain a second residence of sorts to work where I do. I’m not complaining about my situation - I have to go where the jobs and the money are. But nothing I have earned was handed to me through some magical “expansion.”
  • “middle-class and working people” — I suppose that by today’s standards, based on my current household income, my wife and I are no longer considered “middle class” by some. But I can assure you of one thing: Kelly and I and every person we know intimately is as much of a working person as any of these alleged less-fortunates that this policy group is lamenting. Everyone I know busts their asses to make a buck, to make ends meet, to provide for their families. And, no, I don’t feel guilty about making more than other “working persons.”

Let’s examine income level and inflation for a moment, since the CBPP believes this is a big issue in American income gaps. I was under the impression that, until very recently, the inflation rate in the U.S. was, for all intents, relatively flat. I know the recent rise in oil prices heats inflation up, but people who earn more feel the rise in overall costs just as much as those on the other end of the “gap.” But there’s one thing these analysts don’t seem to be considering.

I’m in the IT business. I could work literally anywhere in the world, as the need for my skill set is practically universal. When my federal job was eliminated in 2006, I was earning about $68,000 per year, after 20-plus years of federal service. If I wanted, I could have remained in Jacksonville and probably earned something close to that in a private-sector job. I also could have taken another federal job in another part of the country, at the same pay grade. But we would have had to move and my wife would have had to find a new job. We chose not to do that. To work somewhere else required that I find a position that would pay me enough to maintain my financial responsibilities at home, while earning enough to live on the remote economy. In summary, I needed to be able to afford to keep two homes.

One of the advantages I have, in addition to my IT skills and experience, is a high-level security clearance. This valuable attribute helps make someone like me attractive to companies in the D.C. Metro area — all those federal contractors providing services to nearly every agency you can imagine. Were my current employer looking to fill my position, they would have to foot the bill for a background investigation for a non-cleared candidate. That’s time-consuming and expensive — as much as $50,000 — and unless you’re working directly for the government, the contracting firm has to pay that expense. So when someone like me comes along with a current clearance in place, they’re often willing to wave a nice salary offer to get that person’s services.

The other issue is the cost of living. All one needs to do is look comparatively at the cost of housing in Northern Virginia (where I currently work) and Northeast Florida (where my home is located). My home in a Jacksonville suburb was appraised at $265,000 in April of 2007. I would imagine that the appraised value today might be 10-15% lower, based on the current market “crisis.” The same-sized home (four bedroom, two bath, 2100 square feet, garage, decent-sized fenced lot, in a cul-de-sac) would likely fetch $500,000 to $600,000 minimum in the NOVA or Maryland/D.C. areas. I read a recent article on the foreclosure rate in the local counties. There are pockets of foreclosures out in the western regions, many of them homes purchased by immigrants who came to the area for jobs and took advantage of ARMs and interest-only mortgages. But in the so-called “wealthier” counties, the home value news is far more positive:

In those areas (McLean, Great Falls, Vienna, Oakton, Fairfax Station and most postal areas of Northern Virginia,), prices have dipped slightly, remained stable or, in some cases, increased. Average sale prices in some Arlington County neighborhoods have risen 7 percent in the past year, and one McLean neighborhood’s average price has increased 13 percent.

Now all of this means that it’s ain’t cheap to live up here. I’m renting a place that I share with another person, and in May, I’m moving into a house that I will share with the owner and another person. Gas is expensive here, as it is nearly everywhere. The rise in fuel has increased the cost nearly everything in the stores, to some degree. Mass transit here makes traveling easier on people and the environment, but it’s not free. And the good people of Arlington, Fairfax, Loundon and Prince William Counties, as well as folks in the District and in the adjoining areas of Maryland, are taxed far higher than most other areas of America. Nothing here is free. Everything has a price, and it’s usually high.

People who live on the “upper end” of the CBPPs income gap understand it just as much and work just as hard to keep it at bay as those on the other end.

What I find particularly outrageous about the article is an assumption made by one CBPP staffer on just how the alleged super-wealthy folks of this area earned their money:

Elizabeth McNichol, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said families at the top of the earnings picture are excelling financially because of growth in the stock market. Meanwhile a surge in generally lower-paying, service-sector jobs are accounting for the swing on the other end.

Huh?

Let’s use some logic here. Assume that I’m a guy who has a job. I contribute to a retirement plan through my employer, who perhaps matches my contribution. The money is in a series of equity-based funds, and over time, the common stock indexes rise in value, which my funds mimic by also rising in value. Some years are good. Some are spectacular. I also experience the occasional setback. But over the long term, my investments grow, allowing me to experience a better life after retirement. I believe this is what I’m supposed to be doing with my money - saving and investing it for growth so I won’t be a burden on my daughter or society in my advanced years.

I can only do this if I have something with which to invest. Which means I have to have income, logically followed by the need for employment. The fact that I make a higher income than those on the other end of the economic scale is not the issue. I’m sacrificing the use of that higher income today so that I have something to live on years from now, after I decide to retire.

If you allow Ms. McNichol’s statement above to sway you, you believe that people with higher incomes just sit around watching their money grow in the stock market, while the “poor” have to work these lower-paying jobs. The implication is that the “stock market rich” aren’t working, just investing. How does she think those investments get there?

I don’t know about most of you, but I’ve been working very hard for a very long time, often at jobs I didn’t particularly like, just to get the point where I am today. If I want to invest some of what I make in instruments that increase in value, I’m not going to feel guilty about it. I’m sorry some people are poor. Had I magical powers, I’d wave my hand and we’d all have everything we needed financially. But I can’t. I’m one guy, working at one job, trying to make sure my family has what they need, now and in the future.

So what’s the solution to this income gap problem? I can think of a couple of solid ideas, but the CBPP analysts, naturally, come up with the usual worthless suspects:

Bergsman said the statistics point to a desperate need for the state to streamline and extend unemployment insurance as well as keep support programs in place even as officials struggle to balance the budget.

Translation: the government should fix it, and if we need to raise taxes, so be it.

Why do these people believe that extending unemployment is one way to solve the problem? Could any of you live in the D.C. metro area on unemployment benefits? Even in the poorest sections of this region, I can’t imagine someone keeping up a household (rent, food, gas, utilities, medical, etc.) on an unemployment check. Even if this was possible, how many people are going to even bother finding new employment as long as they’re milking from the government’s breast? I work in a high-tech industry, and I have to go to where the money is. What makes me any different from anyone else looking for work, no matter what it is?

Extending unemployment also places a burden on the working classes, wealthy or otherwise. The unemployed aren’t working, so they are no longer contributing to unemployment insurance plans as many working folks do. Someone is going to have to cough up the money to extend the unemployment payments to those people who aren’t working, and since the various governments don’t create any revenue, the burden eventually falls on the taxpayer. Ditto with keeping “support programs” in place. My uneducated guess is that the reason budgets are stretched is because of those “support programs” that have wiped out most of the resources. Again, when the money runs short and the municipalities inch towards the red, the only ones left holding the bag are the taxpayers.

So in a roundabout fashion, this report is pointing the finger at the achievers in this country. In spite of the fact that as recently as CY2003, the top 5% of wage earners paid nearly 55% of all income taxes, you are being made to feel that you’re not doing enough for the lower end of the economic scale, while you sit back and play idle rich and day-trade your way to the top. Note the word I used: feel. Those that make these kinds of arguments want this to tweak your feelings, while avoiding logic and reality. Guilt is the operative emotion here; you’re supposed to now feel bad that you’re doing so much better than those in lower economic situations. You don’t have any answers to these problems, but if this makes you feel bad, the report’s preparers succeed in their mission.

Well, don’t feel bad. Don’t feel guilty. Continue to do everything you can to make your lives better, economically. The fact that there are some people who manage to achieve greater things says as much about those who can’t or won’t than about those who will and do. I know there are situations in which people can do little or nothing about their economic conditions, but there are still far more avenues of opportunity in this country than anywhere else in the world. Even the man or woman who’s chosen work is to do nothing but invest their money for profit still have to work at it to succeed. Those people risk everything they have and spend countless hours doing research to find that profitable venture. Do such people deserved to be viewed in a negative light because they’re not working in a convenience store or cleaning offices for a living?

This are the same arguments that groups like the CBPP have made for years. Yet none of the ideas they propose ever seems to pull some people out of the economic mire. They just lay on the guilt, decade after decade, and never find a solution to this problem.

I’m not buying the guilt argument. Neither should you.

What a pal.

Since I broached the subject of the presidential elections in my last post, let me just say one thing about that.

Past visitors to this blog know I make no secret of which side of the political landscape I inhabit. The chances of me voting for either Democratic candidate (well, in all honestly, pretty much any Democratic candidate) are about as good as me becoming a Red Sox fan. And, no, I’m not particularly crazy about the Republican candidate this year, but I’ll stick with him only because the alternative frightens me beyond measurement.

Bashing Hillary Clinton Mrs. Rodham at this stage wouldn’t be productive. She’s done a fabulous job of destroying her own political career, and that she’s steadfastly hanging in there gives me hope that she and Obama will continue to beat each other senseless. Unfortunately, I sense that many Americans have finally figured out the Clintons’ act and are rapidly tiring of their ubiquitous presence on the political scene. Yes, I know, we had 12 years of the Bush family in the White House (20 if you count Dad’s time as Veep). But, I don’t see a continuing line of Bush relatives making a play for future occupancy on Pennsylvania Avenue. In spite of the fact that I’d vote for Jeb in a minute (much more conservative and traditional than his brother), and either one of the Bush twins would be easy on the eyes, I believe that small dynasty has likely come to an end.

Jeez, even the Kennedy clan has been less of a pain in the ass than the Clintons.

That leaves Senator Obama. I actually have heard some alleged conservative people claim that they would vote for him, even over John McCain, because they believed he was the stronger candidate.

I sincerely hope that any Republican or conservative entertaining such thoughts, no matter what the reason, takes the time to read Andrew McCarthy’s NRO piece on Obama’s close pals. By the way, I hope some of my Democrat readers, especially you more moderate ones, also take the time. This is your country, too.

Everyone knows about Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s half-hearted attempts to disassociate himself from his pastor’s obvious racism. But he’s closely related to some other leftist nutcases, including William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, two radical crackpot retreads from the Sixties who today — you guessed it — are respected members of academia. You see, this is what the “progressives” of the Sixties did — they protested, got stoned, screwed everyone they could in every position possible, spit on American soldiers returning from Vietnam, and occasionally blew things up.

Now, they’re all college professors.

Nice to see how they changed society…their violence and stupidity didn’t really change much, so they wrapped themselves in the warm cocoon of a college professorship somewhere, instead of joining the world with a real job. Ayers and Dohrn tossed explosives that the targets of their anger, not to “hurt people” but to hopefully “destroy” the targets they considered their enemies. By the way, one of those targets was the building in which I now work every day.

I won’t rant about this anymore, but I urge you to read McCarthy’s piece and decide for yourself if this man is who you want representing this nation in any conceivable fashion. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to attack Obama for his associations or leftist ideas, as she’s pretty damn close to him regarding the latter. And Senator McCain is smartly laying low, holding off on direct attacks, since no one is sure who his opponent is going to be yet. No doubt all this will come out once the campaign hits full stride.

But you shouldn’t wait. You should know. Now.

Why No Endless Tissues?

I always get this sinking feeling when I pull the last tissue out of a box, especially those square-shaped high ones. When a tissue sticks out of the top of the box, waiting for you to come along and pull it out for that sudden urge to blow or sneeze, you never really know or expect that this one will be the last one. When you take it out, and a new one fails to appear, doesn’t a wave of disappointment rush over you body and mind, and you think, just for a second, that the box wasn’t supposed to ever be empty?

My first thought is “Shit, that’s not supposed to happen. Now what do I do? I’m out of tissues…” Then I realize what a pain in the ass it’s going to be to have to run to the store to get more, especially when I have a cold and I really don’t feel like going out.

Life can tease and torment you like that sometimes.

I wish I was James Brown’s guitarist.

Then I could have played along on Say It Loud (I’m Black And I’m Proud), and it wouldn’t seem stupid if I sang the chorus while I played. And James could tell people “Sure, he can sing along. I don’t care if he’s a white man. He’s the guitarist, goddammit! What’s he supposed to do, just stand there?”

I thought of this on the way to work this morning on the Metro. I really wanted to sing along with the song as it rocked in my head from the mp3 player, but that would have been really disturbing to the other passengers.

Then again, I’m no Jimmy Nolen.

I’m going to be labeled a callous, heartless cretin for this.

I can’t begin to imagine what horrors were experienced by the victims and witnesses of yesterday’s shootings on the campus of Northern Illinois University. Once again, we watched the failure of both the mental health industry (the killer apparently went off his meds and no one did anything about it) and the useless no-gun-zone laws in place on college campuses, the lack of which might have prevented another campus shooting.

I’m now working just up the road from the site of last spring’s massacre at Virginia Tech, another institution of higher learning that thought prohibiting law-abiding citizens from arming themselves was the way to protect the student body. Ask the families of that killer’s 32 victims, or the families of yesterday’s six deceased if those rules still make any sense.

But that isn’t what has me riled up. I need to know the answer to a question, and just by asking this, I’m going to be seen as cold, heartless, callous and unfeeling. Here goes:

Why is it, almost immediately after the sun goes down at the location of one of these horrible events, do people gather around in groups and hold candlelight vigils? These are college students, right? What do these kids do, keep a supply of candles in their dorm rooms, always at the ready in case some tragedy takes place? Do they run to the local mall and stock up on these things, so they can stand around in the cold, allegedly doing something “meaningful”?

I have a child who attends a large university. Trust me, if something like this ever occurred on her campus, I’d be on the phone with her in a second, demanding that she lock herself up in her residence, preferably with a baseball bat within arm’s reach. I would then be outside her door as quickly as I could get there, likely armed to the teeth and ready to confront any manic depressive who attempts to cross my path. This may sound a like vigilantism, but if the universities keep disarming the good guys, then do nothing to protect students from the nuts who don’t pay attention to the rules, I won’t hesitate to take matters into my own hands.

And enough with the news photos of the vigils. Standing around with a candle, weeping and linking arms and singing Kumbiya isn’t going to bring your friends back. If I’m a family member of those victims, I wouldn’t want to see that crap. I want to see someone at that school explain to me why my child can’t protect him or herself, while some schizo plans and carries out another one-sided gun battle.

Linux to Windows is now easier.

I’m always looking for unique ways to prop Linux as an alternative to Windows (especially the horrible Vista). Since there’s already tons of transition information out there, people should be able to easily find out this stuff on their own if they’re looking to make the switch, or at least experiment.

Something occasionally comes along that strikes me as particularly innovative and deserving of attention (even if it has been around a while and I’m only discovering it for the first time). This is one of those times.

Geza Kovacs is a high school student in California. He’s also, apparently, one pretty clever guy. He’s built a number of tools that make installing Linux easier and more convenient for Windows or other non-Linux users.

The tool I particularly like is UNetbootin, which enables the new Linux user to install one of a variety of distributions onto a system through Windows or an existing Linux system. As the description states, if you have a laptop or older system without a CD reader or writer, you can download install the UNetbootin package to Windows or Linux and run the installation right from the system. The installer will download the distribution of your choice, create the actual partitions (provided you have the available space on your drive, around 3 GB), install the Linux distribution and set up the boot manager. This allows the Windows user to keep their existing Windows setup, while having an easy way to add Linux to their system.

Now this certainly isn’t the first implementation of this kind of installation package; network installs of Linux and other systems have been available for years. But this is the first time I’ve seen something aimed at the non-techie Windows user, a tool that will allow that user to experience Linux as an installed, working system (versus a LiveCD audition) without having to transform into a major geek to get it done. You’d be surprised how many people have issues burning a Linux distribution ISO file to a bootable CD or DVD properly, something frequently required for a optical-based install. And some people simply don’t want the hassles of having to learn anything about how and why the Linux installer works the way it does. Like Windows, installing Linux has become easier in recent years. UNetbootin is a further step in that direction.

UNetbootin works with a number of the most popular Linux distributions in their current and recent versions, including Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and even Slackware, to name just a few.

If you’re still keeping Linux at arm’s length because you think the preparation and installation will be too complicated or you wish to preserve Windows and don’t want the hassles, have a look at UNetbootin, along with some of Geza’s other tools.

Underdogs

My Jaguars wound up, as expected, beaten by New England and back home for the season on Saturday night. As disappointed as I was in the loss, I realized (far too late, of course) that I should have broken my “I-never-bet-on-my-favorite-team-no-matter-what” rule, since the Jaguars covered the thirteen-and-a-half point spread. Man, that would have made the loss a little easier to take.

After this round of the playoffs was finished on Sunday night, I noticed that had you taken the favorites and laid the points in the four games, you lost three of those bets. A parlay on all four games would have ended after the Jaguars-Patriots game, since Green Bay won and Jacksonville lost by eleven. But making four individual bets taking the underdog and the points, you would have hit three.

Even more interesting is how wide the spread were on all the games. In addition to the thirteen-and-a-half spread in Pats-Jags, the Giants were a seven-point dog against Dallas, and the Colts were favored over the Chargers by ten-and-a-half. All three of those the favorites lost against the spread. The Packers easily covered the nine points they were favored over the Seahawks.

If you’re thinking of getting some action on this weekend’s conference championships, be aware of an interesting trend.

The Patriots are currently favored to beat San Diego by fourteen-and-a-half on Sunday afternoon. In their past ten games, going back to October 28 and including the divisional playoff game last week, the Patriots are a pitiful 3-7 against the spread. In their last four, they were favored by 13.5, 13, 22 and 20.5 points. In those games, they won by 11, 3, 21 and 10 points, respectfully. In the November 25 prime time game against the Eagles, where backup QB A.J. Feeley played in place of an injured Donovan McNabb, New England was established as a 24-point favorite, a wide spread not frequently seen on a pro game. The Eagles barely lost the game by three points.

I think what the Patriots have done this season is pretty amazing, especially in this day of free agency and parity. Whether or not Tom Brady is one of the greatest quarterbacks ever might be arguable, especially from many old school NFL fans. But those arguments don’t denigrate what Brady has done, and after watching him dismantle the Jacksonville defense last Saturday, I’m convinced he’s the best of the modern era, at least.

I am also certain that the Patriots probably don’t pay much attention to odds or point spreads, preferring to concentrate on winning, something at which they’ve been pretty successful this season. And I don’t know how well the Chargers can play against them this Sunday, although many believe the two teams match up well. But that spread means only one of two things: the oddsmakers really believe the Pats are that much better than the Bolts, or they want to keep the incoming money balanced (which is more likely the case).

Since I’m not a big gambling man, I don’t really care much about the outcome. But, boy, that fourteen-and-a-half sure looks tempting.

Swift-boated.

So I see that John Fitzgerald Kerry has endorsed Barak Obama for president.

Well, that should eventually end Obama’s run for the White House.

Well, maybe it’s not over for him yet. All we need now is for the Clinton dirt machine to dump whatever load it has on the man to the media. You know they have something, and they’re just waiting for the right moment to spill it.

But that Kerry thing…I’d be saying “Gee, thanks, but no thanks, loser.”

But that’s just me.

Jaguars vs Steelers: One of those Memorable Moments

A lot has already been written and spoken about the thrilling Jaguars’ victory over the Steelers last Saturday night. I’m still working down in the Keys, and I had just returned to work last week after the long drive back on New Year’s Day. But I added a new HDTV to my family room this holiday, and I’d be damned if I was going to sit in a rented mobile home on Big Coppit Key and watch my team’s opening round playoff game on a 20″ TV with cable. So back home I came on Friday night.

Please note that this wasn’t a completely hedonistic weekend of football and relaxation. I did manage to replace the toilet in my daughter’s bathroom.

Despite the time taken to play Mr. Fix-It, I’m certainly happy I made the trip. I believe Saturday night’s game, and the late-in-the-game do-or-die quarterback scramble by David Garrard, will be one of those games, and one of those moments, that defines the Jaguars for years to come.

All one needs to do is reexamine how last season ended and how this one began. Garrard replaced Byron Leftwich for the second half of the 2006 season due to the starter’s nagging ankle injuries. Down the stretch, injuries and poor quarterback play ended Jacksonville’s shot at the post-season and, in the opinion of many fans, the end of David Garrard as the Jaguars’ starting quarterback. In February, after purging much of his offensive staff and bringing former Arizona State head coach Dirk Koetter in as offensive coordinator and former Alabama head coach Mike Shula in as quarterbacks coach, Del Rio announced at the college combine that Leftwich would return as the starter in 2007. At the time, I agreed with the decision. I supported Leftwich pretty strongly through his tenure, and always believed he didn’t get a fair shake from fans and the media because of his frequent ankle injuries.

The Leftwich haters were pretty upset at the announcement, and things didn’t improve when Jacksonville passed up on the chance to take Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn in the April draft, after Quinn slipped down the first-round board. (Jacksonville chose safety Reggie Nelson from Florida, which now looks like a great pick for a position of need). In the background, things were happening in the Jaguars’ locker room. I’ve heard a variety of rumors about what really occurred, but Koetter and Shula apparently saw some things in Garrard’s mechanics that they wanted adjusted, specifically regarding his footwork. And as the spring OTAs and summer training camp wore on, it became apparent to Del Rio and his staff that Garrard was making faster positive progress, while Leftwich regressed. In spite of positive talk about Leftwich during training camp and workouts, he demonstrated little improvement in offensive management during the pre-season, while Garrard continued to shine.

With nine days remaining before the season opener, Del Rio announced a decision that could potentially end his term as the Jaguars’ head coach: Garrard would now be the starter, and Leftwich would be traded or released.

In hindsight, the decision now looks like a stroke of genius. In spite of a sluggish defensive performance in the opening day home loss to the Titans, Garrard went on to steer the team to an 11-5 record, going 9-3 in his twelve starts. Backup Quinn Gray split four games, but won two of three road starts while Garrard was nursing an ankle injury that occurred in the home game against the Colts in October.

Much has been said and written about Garrard’s statistical accomplishments, his ability to protect the football while leading long drives and his lack of interceptions. People tossed the words “caretaker quarterback” around early in the season, since few expected Garrard to put up any big numbers (and many expected him to only keep the job long enough for the Jaguars to find or draft a new guy). But as the season rolled along, the Jaguars demonstrated that they could just as easily be an offensive powerhouse. With the exception of the loss to the Colts in October, Jacksonville began piling numbers up, routinely scoring 20 or more points per game, even in the ones they lost. The two-headed rushing monster of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew was a big key to this, but Garrard was also beginning to chuck the ball all over the field as Dirk Koetter opened up the offense more and more each week. Garrard also changed another habit he had in recent years: concentrating on just his first receiver. In nearly every game, he spread the ball around to all the receivers and tight ends, and continued to find Jones-Drew a great target out of the backfield.

As he galvanized the city and the team’s fans, long suffering to return to the playoffs, the sports media began to take notice as well. In spite of a fall off in defensive domination, which had always been Jacksonville’s strength, the team suddenly began getting a lot of press. By the last weeks of the season, as the Jaguars solidified their seeding in the playoffs, they were crowned at the Team No One Wants To Play In The Post-Season. The hyperbole got a little ridiculous, especially after the Steelers drove 80 yards on their opening drive for a score to start last Saturday’s playoff game. Jacksonville responded as they had in the earlier game by piling up the points. But Pittsburgh wasn’t ready to roll over, and as they had in the previous game three weeks earlier, they ate away at the big Jaguars’ lead and appeared to have the game in hand late in the fourth quarter.

At that moment, David Garrard did exactly what he, his coach, his teammates and Jaguars fans all over the city needed him to do: he took the burden on his own shoulders of making the decisive play that would win the game. On the final Jacksonville drive, with 1:32 left in the game and the Jaguars staring down at a fourth-and-two on the Steelers’ 43-yard line, Garrard set up for the play in the shotgun, drew the defense toward him as though he would pass, and instead scrambled through the rush and rumbled for 32 yards, placing Jacksonville firmly in Josh Scobee’s range for the winning field goal.

The moment was looped endlessly over the weekend and through the week. Dodging one final tackler before being pulled down at the 11-yard line, Garrard did what every football fan prays their quarterback can do at crunch time. He made a play. Two yards would have been plenty for a first down to keep the drive going. By scrambling for thirty more, he made certain the outcome would be inevitable. David Garrard didn’t just make a play. He made the play, creating a moment in time that will be forever burned on the minds of both teams, both the victors and the defeated. The run was a moment that will be talked about through the years, as fans watch the Jaguars, talk about the great games with their kids, and the tradition continues to build.

I don’t want to take anything way from one other Jacksonville player, Derek Landri, the rookie defensive tackle from Notre Dame. Pressed into service after John Henderson strained his hamstring, he came up with an unexpected interception just before halftime, and on the Steelers’ final drive, with about 30 seconds remaining, after defensive end Bobby McCray sacked Ben Roethlisberger (the sixth on in the game against the quarterback) and forced a fumble, Landri recovered the loose ball, sealing up the victory for certain.

Landri’s heroics, the Jones-Drew touchdowns, even the less-than-stellar defensive play by the Jaguars in the fourth quarter, all were prelude to the climactic moment, a quarterback scramble that was the deciding play in the game. A scramble provided by a guy who people were ready to run out of town at the end of last season. A scramble executed by a guy who proved himself to his coach so well, the coach risked his own job to give him the baton. A scramble performed by a guy who proved over and over this season that the Jaguars had the right guy all along.

No matter what happens in Gillette Stadium this Saturday night, we Jaguar fans will have that moment to take through the off-season.

And next season won’t get here fast enough.

The Wedding Pictures Are Not Here

This is a note to anyone in my family or The Beautiful Spouse’s family who wandered in here (or, as in the case of The Beautiful Spouse, was instructed to come here) seeking any photographs I took at the wedding of The Beautiful Spouse’s baby sister this weekend.

They are not here.

Hell, my hosting company would have a major fit if I tried to upload all those images here, and I’d be paying big time for the bandwidth used by people downloading them.

So, I will be placing them on a super-secret location in the next few days, and will pass along to everyone the link and a super-secret password to get at them.

That is all.

I have a good reason for my absence. Really.

I haven’t been contributing much to this blog in recent months, other than the occasional pop-in to spout on something irresistible.

But I really have a good reason for my scarcity. Now.

I’m on strike.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Strike.

Comment spamming pigs.

Hey…you…comment spammer…

Yeah, asshole, you, the clown in Germany or Yugoslavia or Russia or whatever shithole country you’re from…I see you poking into the entries and leaving your comments filled with links for whatever shit you’re trying to peddle. And, guess what? You have yet to make it through, right? Do you even come back to see if your link-filled shitstains left a mark on the wall? No, they haven’t, because I have a couple of simple tools that prevent crap like yours from ever getting here.

And as an added plus, I’m shutting off the comments on the old posts, just a few at a time. When you attempt to leave your scam shit on my site, I’m going to just close down that post’s commenting for good. Than’s for pointing out the targets of your scripts.

However, I have a question, one I really wish one of you professional spammers would grow the balls to answer directly for me…

Just what is the purpose or meaning of what you do when you shotgun your link-filled, indecipherable junk on blogs and other sites? Don’t you know, at this stage of the reach of the Internet, that 99% of the people who see this stuff will just ignore or delete it? And why do you choose to spam blog entries that are three, four and five years old? The chances of people reading those entries now is pretty slim, unless some keyword in the article pops up in a Google search.

I’m really trying to understand the business model here. Yes, I understand that even if just a fraction of spam recipients or readers respond and click on a link, the spammer makes money. I suppose it’s like boiler room sales (something I did a really long time ago, when I was desperate for a job) — it’s a numbers game, and the higher the level of numbers, the more profit potential exists. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture here. But I really have to wonder if it’s worth all the work it takes, scripted or not, when I’m just going to turn around and immediately delete your shit.

(By the way, another one appeared in the queue as I wrote this. Gone).

Assholes.

Rosie: closet race baiter?

Look, I despise Rosie O’Donnell. At one time, I actually thought that she was funny in A League Of Their Own and as Betty Rubble in The Flintstones. Unfortunately, as I’ve found her more and more disgusting over the years, I also find that I can’t watch those two movies when I see them on the box, lest I go into fits of retching when she appears on the screen.

But now I have to wonder about some of the other garbage rattling around in that Stewie Griffin-shaped head of hers. That’s she believes 9/11 was an “inside job” is well documented, and we have all heard the stories and seen the videos of her going after Elisabeth Hasselbeck on that horrible TV show which they co-hosted. (Question: why does Mrs. Hasselbeck, who seems to be a level-headed conservative woman, continue to put up with the rest of that cadre of left-wing blowhards with whom she co-hosts that show? Can we not get this woman her own gig?)

Rosie’s out on a book tour now, promoting some tome about how dysfunctional her life is, which doesn’t make sense to most people who don’t have her money and celebrity. Last week, she made a book-signing stop at a Long Island bookstore, and was met there by a crew from The O’Reilly Factor. Bill wasn’t there, but the camera crew and producer made certain to barrage her with questions on her whacked-out views on 9/11, among other things. The event was covered in the New York Post today, but the part of the story I found most interesting appears near the end of the piece. In fact, I wanted to make certain it was correct, so like a good pseudo-reporter, I swallowed hard and visited her website, and found the following “comment” about the O’Reilly crew’s visit:

BO asswipes
showed up at my book signing
camera in hand
cocky young white men

O’Donnell doesn’t write comments the way most bloggers do…she writes stream-of-consciousness gobbledygook that is apparently supposed to represent poetry. Reading through this crap is difficult enough, let alone having to wade through her incessant photos and advertisements for herself.

But I want to know what she means by that last line? Cocky young white men? What does the skin color of the O’Reilly crew have to do with what occurred in that bookstore? Is she implying that white people who challenge her ideas are bad people? Is “white people” hidden code for “conservative”? O’Reilly loudly insists he’s not conservative (or that he supports any specific political or social agenda), so I’m afraid Rosie misses the mark, if that’s what she’s implying.

There’s a more important question here: would O’Donnell feet any differently about her challengers in that bookstore if they were black? Or Latino? What if they were angry gay men? Would they become cocky young black men or cocky young gay men? I want to know, Rosie — what does their skin color have to do with anything?

Let’s examine this from a different perspective. Suppose that was a book signing by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or even Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and some similar confrontation occurred. Let’s also supposed that the confronters happened to be people of color or gay. If one of the above placed a note on their web site that they were asswipes who were cocky young black/Hispanic/gay men or whatever racial/cultural/sexual descriptive fit the occasion, what do you think the results would be? How quickly do you think some angry Democratic congressperson would be dragging that conservative celebrity in front of an investigative committee, searching for what was really going on in their mind?

So, Rosie, what’s the deal? You a racist? Huh? Come on, write me a poem.