Rolling Doughnut

Reading the news reports of President Reagan’s funeral, I read something interesting in this article about the whole process. It seems to be a somber affair, as one would expect of a funeral. However, some are treating it “more like a parade” than a funeral. I don’t have a problem with this, for the most part. While standing on chairs to take pictures may be a little tacky, a state funeral is as much a celebration of America as it is the mourning of a president. I don’t think it’s a significant disrespect, so I don’t really care.

But then there is this:

After the building was opened to the public, some people left crying, but others got on their cell phones to ask if they had been seen on television.

I’m sure those people were respectful in the Rotunda, but why bother if you’re just an ass who wants to be on the TV. You’re delaying the people who want to express a genuine emotion. If getting on the TV is your only goal, Jerry Springer is looking for you. Save us the burden of being distracted by you, because you’re no different than the morons who sit behind home plate at every baseball game, talking on your cell phone, waving at the TV. Nobody likes you.

Instead, show some class. In case you need a lesson in how, here’s your example.

I can’t make it any clearer.

After my recent troubles with Verizon, I’m inclined to believe that phones companies are run by incompetent management. Of course, I know that it’s not something wrong with just phone companies, but an inherent risk generally realized in large companies. They’re big, inflexible, and stupid. They march forward, trampling over everything in their way, which usually includes customers, when they’re nice enough to believe that people are customers instead of imbeciles to be separated from their cash. Those companies are dinosaurs, waiting to be made extinct.

In New Zealand, one such company is Telecom Corp.. It recently eliminated its plan that gave customers unlimited text messaging for $6.29 per month. It now offers “only” 1,000 messages per month before extra charges kick in. That’s a good move, since text messaging is a dying phenomenon.

Before I went through my cell phone switch nightmare, I never used text messaging. When I returned to Sprint, I got the cool phone that makes web surfing and text messaging workable. So I started messaging. Certain people have been known to receive a dozen or more messages per day now that I’m used to messaging. It’s cool and stuff. But 1,000? Danielle has only 500 per month with her Verizon plan, but I’ll be amazed if she uses them all. So 1,000 seems to be plenty.

But still. Progress works like this: every year, a company changes its services to offer a lower price or more of the product. It happens with cars. It happens with computers. It happens with video games.

The common theme in my examples is technology. Anything that can technologically improve gets better or cheaper. It’s so unavoidable that it might as well be the 11th Commandment. But Telecom Corp. missed the memo.

Fraser Ray didn’t like that, so he protested by sending 80,012 text messages during May, the last month of the old plan. He makes me look like an amateur since I only sent Verizon twenty-six checks to pay my $56.09 bill. I have a new hero. But Mr. Ray was not alone because New Zealanders are awesome.

Telecom spokeswoman Helen Isbister said a handful of people had sent more than 100,000 text messages in May.

With an obvious protest, how does Telecom Corp. interpret this?

“I suppose it’s an indication of the kind of thing we wanted to discourage by putting a cap,” she said.

Phone companies are stupid.

There are two points of interest in yesterday’s White House press briefing. First, while there may be a liberal bias in the media, the reporter repeatedly referred to “Stern’s obscenities”, as if everyone should find Howard Stern obscene.

Second, we’re moving to a paternal state with the emphasis on a lone father figure as the standard, both moral and practical. This is bad.

Consider:

QUESTION: Thank you. Andrew Card impressively addressed this weekend’s annual gathering in New York of 250 talk radio hosts, where there was considerable debate over the possibility that if Howard Stern is driven off the air for his many obscenities by the FCC fines, all of us could be driven off the air by the government for our political opinions. And my question: Can the White House give us assurance that our expressed political opinions, liberal or conservative, will never be treated like Stern’s obscenities by any organization in the Bush administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I’m not going to try to speculate on something that’s so — so broad as what you’re bringing up. Obviously, the President believes that there are certain standards of decency that should be adhered to.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. McCLELLAN: And we all have a responsibility to adhere to those standards.

QUESTION: But he would never let the FCC —

MR. McCLELLAN: And that if people violate those standards, they should be held accountable. And there are measures in place to hold people accountable.

QUESTION: Of course. But he would never allow the FCC to take action against any of us in talk radio for our political opinions, would he?

MR. McCLELLAN: In a general sense, no. But, again, you phrase that in a context of some standards that apparently violated some of the — our standards of decency.

I don’t have the warm fuzzies from this.

Explaining why the American judicial system is forcing renegade agendas upon America, Cal Thomas states his theory:

Cultural tsunamis, like those that begin under oceans, are caused by something deep within. When high water hits the shore, it is the result of a subterranean earthquake. When the state of Massachusetts last Monday (May 17) began offering marriage to people of the same sex, this “wave” was preceded by a seismic shift in the moral tectonic plates.

I doubt there’s anyone who will disagree with that. A “seismic shift in the moral tectonic plates” is a straight-forward observation free of any judgment as to what those moral tectonic plates should be. His explanation is more interesting.

The shift from personal responsibility, accountability, putting the greater good before personal pleasure, affluence and “feelings,” and what once was known as “the fear of God” began following World War II. Consumption and pleasure replaced self-control and acting on behalf of the general welfare.

How is denying same-sex marriage an issue of “putting the greater good before personal pleasure”? That statement from Mr. Thomas sounds like socialist propaganda. Because my neighbor doesn’t like it, I shouldn’t do something that will make me happy, something that does no harm? I know he’s not making such a broad argument, but that’s the way he’s framed it. That’s not democratic.

Equating Americans putting the greater good before personal pleasure is the same as “the fear of God”? America may be a “God-fearing” nation, but it can’t be governed by “the fear of God”. Civil law and religious law may cross paths, but it can’t be by design. Some religious principles are stricter than any democratic society can demand.

America must adopt civil equality where necessary, but that doesn’t mean everyone must partake of the new, renegade rights. As Mr. Thomas concludes, sometimes self-reflection is more appropriate than enforcing personal limitations on others.

“Pro family” groups have given it their best shot, but this debate is over. They would do better to spend their energy and resources building up their side of the cultural divide and demonstrating how their own precepts are supposed to work. Divorce remains a great threat to family stability, and there are far more heterosexuals divorcing and cohabiting than homosexuals wishing to “marry.” If conservative religious people wish to exert maximum influence on culture, they will redirect their attention to repairing their own cracked foundation. An improved heterosexual family structure will do more for those families and the greater good than attempts to halt the inevitable. A topical solution does not cure a skin disease whose source is far deeper.

While I don’t understand Mr. Thomas’s use of quotations for the word “marry”, since the same-sex marriages occurring in Massachusetts are as legal as heterosexual marriages, his desire for focusing on family stability rather than stopping what is going to continue happening is correct.

The beauty of America is that we can experiment with new public policy ideas. Some will fail, some will succeed, but the imperative and ability to improve is what makes our nation unique. Self-examination never hurt that endeavor.

This just in from the presidential campaign:

John Kerry is considering delaying his acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination at the party’s July convention so that he can keep spending the millions of dollars that he raised during the primaries…

When I read the headline, I figured that Kerry’s campaign is setting itself up to be hammered by the media. After reading the facts, I still think his campaign will get hammered, but the facts reflect an election situation much different.

The Democratic Convention to nominate Kerry is scheduled for late July, with the Republican Convention occurring five weeks later. The implication is simple. President Bush can spend private funds for an extra five weeks. His $75 million in matching funds would only have to last for slightly more than two months. Kerry would need to make his $75 million last for three-and-a-half months. Delaying his official acceptance is reasonable. Consider:

“We are looking at this and many other options very seriously because we won’t fight with one hand behind our back,” Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Friday.

Cutter said other options being considered include having the Democratic National Committee or local and state Democratic parties raise money to support Kerry’s candidacy. However, Kerry would not have control of much of the money raised by the party. By law, the DNC cannot coordinate more than roughly $16 million of spending with Kerry’s campaign in the general election.

Time can change the money factor in this election, but less money could also lead to creative thinking for the Kerry campaign. Either way, it’s an interesting development in this election.

I like the idea of being obvious in this decision. Play it correctly and it can lead the national debate into the influence of money in elections. Trying to hide the fact will lead to mistakes and negative public perceptions. Make the right decision, then explain it. That should make it into a non-issue.

Given what we expect from Senator Kerry, he’ll make no decision until the end, then try to pretend like he didn’t make a decision. This is going to be fucked up in some way. Thus, I link you to this: johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com.