Scent Of Understanding

SuperBiiz / Ewiz.com WHY DO YOU TORTURE ME SO?!

2010-03-01T16:09:00.004-06:00

I'm writing to stick up for the little guy and condemn the poor service provided by SuperBiiz.com. (I would provide a hyperlink, but I certainly do not mean to unintentionally direct anyone to their site.)

Let me explain the reason for my displeasure.

A few days ago, I decided to order a part for a new computer -- a motherboard. The motherboard is rather new so, understandably, it is not yet available at many retailers. I searched long and hard, comparing the part I finally chose to purchase with its upcoming competitors (also new products). I eventually chose this specific model because it wasn't clear when the competition would be available -- and, as such, I hadn't been able to find much specific comparison info.

Eventually, Google's Froogle shopping service led me to Ewiz.com. They had the best price on the motherboard and I was not willing to justify a price increase of about 10% to purchase from a widely-respected vendor such as NewEgg.com. Around the time I finally made the purchase decision, I returned to Ewiz.com only to find that the motherboard was no longer listed -- I assumed this meant it had sold out and was no longer in stock.

Much to my delight, two days later I found the same product at the same low price on Ewiz.com. It seemed it was again in-stock and I entered my purchase information hastily. This was on Friday evening -- I don't always expect weekend service from web retailers, but I thought there was a chance my order would be processed on Saturday.

The weekend came and went. On Monday around mid-day, I received an email saying my address had not been verified with my bank and they had not shipped my order. My first complaint is that Ewiz requires address verification of both the billing and shipping addresses. I have never purchased from another site with this requirement. One might wonder how and why it would even be possible to verify two unique addresses with a bank. What is the point of having a 'billing address' if not to serve as verification for a separate 'shipping address' with no direct ties to the bank account in question?

I called Ewiz immediately to figure out the issue. They said they were not able to verify my shipping address with my bank even though my name and billing address had checked out fine. Furthermore, they informed me that the item was now out of stock and once my address was verified, they would not be able to ship the item to me until March 15. *Keep in mind here that one of the reasons I chose this product is because I was under the impression it would be available sooner than a competitor's product -- if I have to wait until March 15, it is likely that more information on the competition will be available and I may well begin to question my purchase decision.

I told the Ewiz representative that I was in dismay as to how this could have happened. What is the value of placing an order if you are not, indeed, reserving the product you have ordered? The lady on the phone told me that their system 'doesn't work like that' and that I would simply have to wait until they have the item in stock once again. 'Ridiculous', I replied. She asked if I wanted to keep my order 'on hold'. I said I did, though I asked her to clarify that this would mean they would still ship me the item as soon as it is available. I considered cancelling my order, but instead decided to keep the order and gather my thoughts. I asked if she could do anything to sweeten the deal and she agreed to let me use a coupon code ('GO4GOLD' gives a $15 discount if you are daring enough to consider purchasing something there) and also upgrade me to 3-day shipping at no charge. The discount as compared with other web retailers had swelled to an impressive 20% -- at the cost of a horrible purchasing experience.

I hung up and called my bank to verify my address. I checked on Ewiz's site again to see if the discount code had been applied to my order. It had, though I noticed that the shipping upgrade had been added at an additional cost of $6. I was not even surprised to see this.

I called Ewiz again and spoke to a second representative. I explained what had happened. She told me the item would not be in stock until March 5th at the earliest and March 15th at the latest and that there was no way they would be able to ship me one before then. When I told her of the non-discounted free shipping upgrade, she told me she could not fix it and asked me to call back 45 minutes later when Joyce would be back from lunch. I declined and asked her to have Joyce give me a call when she could spare a moment.

To my surprise, Joyce did call me a short while later. She fixed the shipping cost and confirmed that the product might be in stock earlier than the date she had initially told me, but made no further offer to right the situation. She confirmed that my address was now verified -- this took less than 30 seconds and, had it been done initially, perhaps my motherboard would have already been on the road to my house instead of on the road to someone else's.

This is my first experience with Ewiz.com. I cannot recommend it to others, though if they somehow manage to exceed that which they have currently promised, I'll reconsider my stance.

Trailblazing with Ubuntu > Lucid Lynx

2010-01-26T20:40:00.006-06:00

Back in mid-2005, I had an unfortunate incident that resulted in the effective destruction of my ECS laptop (P4, 2.0Ghz). I hastily sought out a replacement, a Gateway GZ7324 I think (also a P4, but at 2.8Ghz) that came with Windows XP.

Fast forwarding a bit, I got wind of a new operating system, Windows Vista. I got the urge to download a pre-release version of Vista and used it on a daily basis for a year or two until I was forced to install a legitimate/registered copy of Windows.

Somewhere in this process, I tried to reinstall XP as I had compatibility issues with some programs in Vista. Unfortunately, the system restore discs Gateway provided were worthless and did nothing to help the situation. As such, I eventually purchased a full copy of Vista so I could have a stable, registered, and updatable OS to use.

Fast forward a bit more, after the shaky introduction of Vista, and I got the idea to install a pre-release version of Window's newest, 7. I used the second beta version and then the Release Candidate version for probably around a year-and-a-half.

While using Vista, I did have compatibility issues occasionally and did have trouble with one or two drivers (the sound, most notably), but had no major complains. My system was drastically underpowered for Microsoft's recommended minimums, but handled the task anyhow.

Windows 7 was distinctly better. It didn't fix the sound issue, but over the course of more than a year, it has frozen just twice -- once during the initial beta install, if that even counts. Sadly, I've recently gotten word that Windows must be registered or it shall stop working smoothly in a month or so (if nothing changes, it will shut down every two hours starting some time in March).

And so, I've decided to find a fourth operating system for my weathered Gateway. I've decided the computer is not valuable enough to merit purchasing an OS -- the battery no longer holds a charge, afterall. I do have a full copy of Vista I could install, and I do have an XP license and could find a disc -- but I'm not one for living in the past. Instead, I downloaded two copies of Ubuntu -- Karmic Koala (9.10) and Lucid Lynx (10.04). I had used Ubuntu briefly when Hardy Heron came out a while back. I was willing to consider other free operating systems, but it seems quite clear that Ubuntu is head and shoulders above the rest.

Today was the day, finally, to install the new OS. I was going to install Karmic Koala because it's a full, 'stable' release. To my chagrin, the install disc I burned for Karmic Koala had some issue and was not able to install correctly. For better or worse, this was enough temptation to satisfy my urge for extreme vanguardism and opt for Lucid Lynx instead.

The installation of Lucid Lynx was not troublesome. I decided to install Ubuntu on a separate partition from my Windows 7 install and was glad that the install program offers an option for keeping both OSes in the boot menu. It was not clear which partition this would install Ubuntu on, but it seems to have preserved the Windows 7 partition and divide the remaining space into a trio of partitions.

The good: Ubuntu readily recognized my internet (wired and wireless). Google Chrome is now available for Ubuntu, and seems to work well. I was finally able to resolve the sound issue that plagued me for years and once again have functioning speakers on my laptop. I was also glad to see that Ubuntu self-installed with NTFS partition recognition, so I didn't need to do anything special to access my music and documents from my Windows partition.

The bad: Ubuntu has frozen several times in the first day -- probably 5 or 6 times. I do not know the cause, though a minimal bit of research suggests Firefox may cause issues (I try not to use Firefox, so I'm not convinced).

In my opinion, Windows is clearly better than Ubuntu with one exception: price. I'll give the disclaimer that Windows Vista and 7 (probably even XP, for that matter) have substantially higher system requirements than Ubuntu/Linux. That said, I feel they offer a more complete and enjoyable computing experience.

Thoughts on Favre

2009-12-28T23:45:00.002-06:00

I'm an unapologetic Brett Favre fan -- even after his unpleasant departure from the Packers. While Favre certainly decided on his own to retire [multiple times], I, as a loyal Packer fan, feel the team should have done anything and everything possible to keep him in the green and gold. They didn't -- and I can't wait for Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy to get out of Green Bay.

More on that later, perhaps. While a stout Packers fan and hater of the Bears and Vikings, I am troubled. My loyalty to one of the game's greatest players allows me to wish him well even while he plays for one of my most despised teams, the Vikings. In short, I think Favre is good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl and I wish he were doing it with the Packers. Since that's no longer possible, I wish him well on his quest elsewhere.

I watched the Vikings vs. Bears game tonight and found the first half discouraging. The Vikings have certainly come into a rut the past few weeks. The second half, though...was quite another story. There were still moments of listlessness and struggle, but many more moments of brilliance and classic Favreness.

In the coming weeks, the Vikings will be hard to stop if they play like they did in the second half. And out of the playoffs ASAP if they play like they did in the first half.

As for the Packers, it's fortunate they are in the playoffs. I wish them best of luck, though it's bittersweet to think that making the playoffs (and any playoff wins) will only embolden McCarthy and extend his stay in Green Bay.

What's your browser when you get on the online?

2009-12-27T01:28:00.002-06:00

Some time ago there were two options for internet browsing: Internet Explorer, and Netscape Navigator. That's oversimplifying, of course -- there have been many browser options for a long time -- but it's worth noting that now, more than ever, there are several legitimate contenders to choose from.

After a particularly frustrating upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, I found myself unsatisfied and looked online for other options. Of course, the first place one might turn is probably to FireFox. FireFox users are a fervent bunch and I had met several who endlessly spread the FireFox gospel.

Instead, I decided to try Opera. Opera worked fine and was less troublesome than the pre-release (in fairness to Microsoft) version of IE7 I had been using. I did find a couple of websites that didn't support Opera for advanced functionality, but for the most part it was fine.

Eventually, I decided to move on to FireFox to see what all the commotion was about. FireFox was a lot like Opera, at least in terms of appearance. FireFox does seem to offer infinitely more customizations online from other users with no apparent limits. FireFox is also better supported than Opera -- surely due to its higher popularity. (It's recently been shown that FireFox is now more popular than any other browser version -- if you count all versions of FireFox as one. That is to say FireFox has something like 22 percent of the browser market, IE6, IE7, and IE8 each have somewhere around 20 percent, and Google Chrome and Safari pick up most of the rest.) I was satisfied that FireFox would be more stable than my sketchy IE7 install and better supported than Opera, but decided to seek more information.

Just about that time, the Google Chrome browser became available. I downloaded it and have been using it ever since (probably 6 months or so now, I don't recall when I first got it). Is Chrome better than FireFox? Yes and no, in my opinion. I know there are many skins available for FireFox, so perhaps my first point is invalid -- but I really prefer the interface of Chrome over FireFox. There is no menu bar so the website tabs appear at the very top of the screen. Also, there is no favorites bar -- it's integrated into the address/search bar. Furthermore, there's no search box. I think IE, FireFox, and maybe Opera have integrated search capability into the address box, but I think Chrome does it better than the rest.

I think Chrome is the easiest to use and, in my experience, the most user-friendly. It remembers pages you have visited and searches you have performed and easily takes you back should you wish to return later.

While it is my favorite, Chrome isn't for everyone, of course. It is still not supported on some pages. It's also not pre-loaded on most machines -- many people are completely happy with IE (version 8 is better than 7) and it wouldn't make much sense for them to switch. On the other hand, Chrome doesn't offer the flexibility and customization that FireFox does. If you're an über l337 h4x0r...FireFox is probably still the browser for you (if you haven't made your own, that is).

I'm not going to comment on Safari for PCs... I've used iTunes and that was more than enough Apple for me.

Hybrid Bears

2009-12-27T00:58:00.003-06:00

Here's the story: a hunter goes hunting in Canada for polar bear. He shoots a very light bear with characteristics of both a polar bear (legal for his hunting permit) and a grizzly bear (not legal). Eventually, the bear was returned to the hunter, but he was thoroughly investigated and treated as a potential poacher.

While polar-grizzly hybrids had been seen before in captivity, the interesting thing about this case is that this was the first such animal found in the wild. It seems fair to me that the case be treated as a potential case of poaching, but I agree with the verdict eventually reached -- that the bear was a hybrid, and was thereby fair game.

I think animal hybrids are an interesting phenomenon. I have heard the term 'species' defined as a group of animals that can interbreed successfully -- which would suggest that grizzly bears and polar bears are, apparently, part of one single species -- though I think this definition may be rather strict, as it's certainly worth distinguishing (in my opinion) between the large brown and the large white creatures.

Though I don't think it would be ethical to artificially provoke inter-special hybridization, it would be interesting to know what other types of animal hybrids are feasible. Consider that hybrids also exist between tigers-lions (see: Napoleon Dynamite), zebras-donkeys, horses-donkeys, and many other animals. Also, it's worth mentioning the beefalo (what a great name).

Flight 331's Folly

2009-12-27T00:49:00.003-06:00

It seems there have been several major flight accidents over the past year or two.

The recent crash landing of AA flight 331 is just another, though perhaps one with the best possible outcome.

In case you haven't heard, the flight from DC to Miami to Jamaica suffered a rough landing amid heavy rain. The plane fractured in a couple of places and was damaged beyond repair. Fortunately, no one died -- though several of the passengers were injured.

It's hard to say without discrete details of the flight, but it sounds like the weather was poor, there were inoperative approach lights at the airport, and the plane may have landed too far down the runway.

I wonder if perhaps the pilot forced the plane down when he should have taken a go-around and given the approach another try. Perhaps he was not fully aware of the limited lighting and thought everything would be okay.

While the pilot is certainly the one who should be held responsible for the safe arrival and landing of the aircraft, it's difficult to pinpoint at this time the precise reasoning for the disaster.

The Would-Be Plane Bomber

2009-12-27T00:28:00.004-06:00

I have read a little bit lately about the Nigerian man who flew from Amsterdam to Detroit and attempted to detonate an explosive device shortly before arrival.

It seems almost shocking that this can still happen -- haven't we spent nearly a decade and countless dollars improving travel security? If you think about it, though, it actually doesn't seem so surprising that this could be possible.

The flight was international -- I don't, as an American, expect foreign airport security to be as tight as that within our borders. (*Note: this isn't because I think we are inherently 'better' at security, or more capable -- just more focused on it as of late.)

From what I have heard, the man also had chemicals attached to his legs below his clothing. Depending on what the substance was, I don't think this would have been detected even with normal security in US airports.

The most shocking part is that this guy's own father reported him to the US embassy and said he may be a potential threat. Wait, what? His own father told the US to watch out for him...and he still was allowed to fly here, with a valid, non-revoked passport.

While it's astounding that this occurred and the US did nothing, keep in mind that travelers don't arrive at Customs in the US until after deplaning. Even people without visas can board a plane abroad, arrive in the US, and attempt to pass through Customs.

This raises the question: how do we prevent known threats from getting onto flights and showing up over the US? Without cooperation from our foreign friends, this is not possible. With their cooperation...it's surely quite difficult, if possible at all.

Who's to blame? I certainly don't have all the details, but it sounds like Amsterdam airport security for letting him on the plane with dangerous articles. While there certainly will be calls for the US to upgrade security precautions and do whatever it takes, it is not within our jurisdiction to monitor security in foreign airports.

If this is problematic, I think there are two options: one is to work with Amsterdam/all foreign countries to make sure certain security protocols are followed -- according to our and their expectations for planes coming to the US. The second would be to separate all foreign commercial flights to a sort of 'gateway' airport before being allowed over US airspace. Option number one is the diplomatic solution; likely to be promised, unlikely to be fulfilled. Option number two doesn't seem real practical, but if incoming flights are out of our control what else can we do to ensure Americans on the ground aren't put in danger?

Avatar Movie

2009-12-20T14:40:00.003-06:00

I just got back from seeing Avatar in 3D.

Wow.

I don't know if I have ever been so amazed by a movie. I went into it very skeptical and almost declined to go because I thought it was going to suck -- it has been advertised so heavily, I was in doubt that the movie would actually be able to live up to its own hype. It was incredible, though. By far the best movie I have seen in a long time.

The storyline was futuristic and sci-fi -- and good. There was a ton of action and digital special effects (are digital special effects really 'special' or are they just 'digital effects'?...) -- but it wasn't just explosions and rushing flying scenes, but amazing color and three-dimensional imagery. The movie is the first I have seen that seamlessly integrates digital scenery and characters with live-action people.

There definitely seem to be political/environmental undertones in the plot, but even if one chooses to ignore them, the movie is highly entertaining and enthralling.

This was also the first really good 3D movie I have seen. There were many things that pop out at you throughout the entire movie.

If you like movies, you must see this movie. If you don't like movies (for some reason), this may be the movie that changes your mind.

Trouble in Tiger-town

2009-12-13T23:23:00.002-06:00

It seems Tiger Woods' house of cards has come crashing down. Rumors of infidelity seem genuine and endorsements are drying up faster than Pontiacs.

There's been a lot of talk and speculation, but it seems there isn't much to say. Tiger screwed up. He didn't screw up by being caught -- he screwed up by fooling around. Repeatedly.

While his infidelity is inexcusable, Tiger Woods remains the best golfer ever in the history of the world [in my opinion]. I haven't heard anyone suggest that he be suspended from golf or tournaments or the PGA, but if anyone did ask I would be against it. His wrongdoing has nothing to do with his golf game.

In case you've not seen it, you should watch the 'Racial Draft' featured on Chappelle's Show a few years ago. Stepping cautiously, I'll speculate that this sketch might have gone a bit differently had the latest revelations of Tiger's personal life been revealed at the time.

As for the endorsements, I find it interesting that a couple of endorsers have come out already announcing they do not plan to drop him. Gillette and Nike are two such companies. I found it very unsurprising, however, that Accenture would sever ties -- having already been involved with a major public scandal, it seems 'being a Tiger' perhaps isn't the right slogan anymore. Given that Tiger Woods shall forever remain a legend in the world of golf, I wonder if the now-cancelled Tiger Woods Gatorade will eventually become a collector item.

It's shocking to think that the value of endorsements that Tiger will lose is likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He certainly doesn't need the money (even if he loses a lot in a settlement with his wife), but it's astounding nonetheless.

The 'Private Option'

2009-12-13T21:54:00.003-06:00

If you've followed the health insurance reform debate, then you may be aware that some progress has been made recently towards passing a bill through the Senate.

There have been a few changes, I believe, but the one that has caught my attention is the admission by Pelosi and others that the creation of a 'public option' may be removed from the bill in favor of an alternate non-profit insurance plan managed by a private organization.

I'm torn. I was in favor of a public option since the beginning of the debate (after acknowledging that a single-payer system would not, could not pass in this political climate); however, I could certainly be convinced that the simple fact that it would be administered by a public organization is insignificant. Afterall, the point isn't that it would be public -- the point is that the plan would be operated as a non-profit [thereby allowing decreased cost] and would be intended to discourage wasteful medical procedures [via strict reporting/medical necessity checks -- already a common practice].

The private option should be non-profit; I definitely agree with that detail. The problem I see, however, is that a private organization, left to its means, may be more willing to allow cost increases than a private institution might -- especially in the area of employee and management compensation.

To be fair, it's not safe to suggest that a publicly-run insurance organization would work to keep wages and expenses as low as possible. The key difference, however, is that Congress, the Senate, or the President can institute cost-control measures that would legally require thriftiness. This would be more difficult when operated as a private entity.

Consider: the goal is to decrease cost. Both sides of the political aisle agree that the government should do something to make it so. There are a few ways this could be accomplished -- the current government seems to have decided that a new insurance plan is necessary. Fine, that is one of a few suitable options. How can we expect the government's plan to be carried out successfully if the government is not allowed to control the newly created insurance plan?

If you're one of the people who won't trust the government, or is afraid of death panels, or who is afraid of the socialist/Marxist program Obama is instituting...I'm sorry. YOU LOST. The majority of the country is not on your side. You are in the minority.

Maybe you have great insurance coverage [you probably don't like it, actually] -- the goal of health insurance reform is not to make your life better; it is to help foster an environment in which all Americans can get insurance. Certainly there are other methods to reach this goal -- I definitely feel so. However, the official government opposition (that's you, 40 Republican senators) have failed to provide a reasonable alternative. One might even question whether they've tried.

Hittin' The Slopes

2009-12-13T21:41:00.003-06:00

I went out to a nearby ski/snowboard hill today for a few hours of downhill enjoyment. I think I snowboarded once last year and maybe once the winter before -- I haven't skied in probably about 8 years.

It's interesting to think about the shift in popularity between skiing and snowboarding. I wasn't into it when snowboards first graced the hills, but I did start snowboard in the mid-to-late-90s, so pretty early in the game.

Back then, I think snowboarders really had a unique way of dressing compared with their skiing counterparts. The attire popular with boarders has definitely thrived and expanded, and based on what I saw today has made the transition back to the skiing youth. Without their equipment visible, I think one would actually have a difficult time distinguishing between many of the young skiers and snowboarders I saw today.

I don't mean to imply that it matters. The difference in appearance used to be used to criticize snowboarders, so perhaps it's an indication of social progress that that which was previously stigmatized is now popularized.

It's also telling that the section of the ski hill that used to be a sort of 'bunny hill' for beginners is now a snowboard park with many rails and jumps.

Fortunately, the temperature was rather agreeable today. It was a bit cloudy and hovered around freezing for most of the day. It could have been better, but certainly could have been worse.

Winter is officially here...

2009-12-05T01:40:00.013-06:00

So, snow is on the ground at last. I'm happy for the snow, but not pleased by the bitter cold that has quickly taken hold.

I had to scrape snow and ice off of my car today for the first time this season :(

To Wade, or Not To Wade

2009-12-03T14:38:00.003-06:00

There was a time when I would have been incapable of writing a sincere, non-critical word about the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys are a team a Packers fan loves to hate -- on a similar plane as the Bears or the Vikings. Things, however, have changed.

The Cowboys of today are not viewed as the powerhouse they were in the mid- to late-90s. Back then, it was the Cowboys that stood in the way of the Green Bay Packers' Super Bowl hopes. The Packers eventually overcame, but the Cowboys acquired newfound prominence in the mid-2000s. They seemed unstoppable, even, although they did not manage to make it to the Super Bowl.

Most recently, I've felt pity for the Cowboys not for their international popularity or historical success, but rather for the man they call 'Coach', Wade Phillips. Well...two reasons, actually -- they also haven't won a playoff game since 1996, which is only partially Wade's fault.

To be fair, I don't know much about Wade Phillips. I'm surprised to read that he was four times previously a head coach. That said, he seems to be a dead man walking if you will. The Cowboys, though very successful in the regular season of his first year, have failed to produce. Rings. For most teams, rings are not the expectation. Jerry Jones doesn't own just any team, though.

Phillips, it seems, flounders. As far as what a coach should do, I imagine he does those things. He's been called out in the media as someone who may be fired any day for a couple of years. I suspect it will happen soon. I'm reminded of Charlie Weis. Both were brought into storied organizations to help restore some of the good of the past. Both are kind of chubby (this may/may not be relevant). Both have, thus far, failed to achieve clear-cut success.

The Irish reached relatively high rankings this season, but, alas, fell from glory as the season progressed [and Weis was canned].

I thought the Cowboys were doing similarly poorly, but upon further inspection I find that my hunch was misled. The Cowboys currently have an 8-3 record -- pretty good, actually. And so, the controversy and question remains: will Wade be fired during/after this season?

It seems the answer is anyone's guess. I surmise that it depends entirely on the Cowboys' success through the rest of the season and the postseason. Here's how I see it:

If the Cowboys don't make the playoffs (their current record suggests they probably will), Wade is gone.

If the Cowboys make the playoffs and lose in the first game, Wade is gone. (Tony Romo should probably watch his back too...)

If the Cowboys make the playoffs and win 1 or 2 games but don't make it to the Super Bowl...then it gets tricky. After all, how could J.J. fire the coach of a playoff contender?

If the Cowboys make it to the Super Bowl, then I think Wade's job is pretty much secured for another season.

I don't like the Cowboys and probably never will -- I just wanted to show a little compassion.

Illegal Immigration Isn't Immoral

2009-12-02T14:08:00.003-06:00

Most of the people who know me know that I know and am friends with many foreigners living in the United States. I'm also good friends with several people in other countries.

As such, I'm well aware of the large illegal immigrant population. Though others are not, I am sympathetic to them. Most people in the US illegally, I believe, are here seeking to improve their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The economic downturn has lessened the disparity, but average salaries in the US are significantly higher than many other countries, including Latin America.

The main criticism of illegal immigrants is that they take 'our' jobs. (If you haven't seen it, I strongly encourage all readers to watch the South Park episode 'Goobacks').

While it is true that immigrants have come to offer their labor in a variety of job fields, the argument ignores one noteworthy component: increased population (legal or other) results in increased sales for a wide variety of goods and services. An estimated 20 million illegal immigrants reside in the US (as of 2008 or so) -- that's roughly 6.5% of the total population.

Another argument made is that the presence of illegal labor results in lower wages for all. The principles of basic economics suggest this to be true, though I have never read of a study confirming the effect. The general notion is that where there are illegal immigrants willing to work, wages for all unskilled laborers is reduced to minimum wage. While this surely has occurred in some cases, many illegal immigrants work at industry average wages and fill jobs that employers have been otherwise unable to fill.

Another concern raised is that illegal immigrants take advantage of public services without paying the taxes that fund such services. This makes two assumptions: illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and illegal immigrants use public services. Certainly there are cases in which both of these assumptions are true. Likewise, there are many legal citizens who do not pay taxes and use public services to a higher extent than society planned.

Truth be told, some illegal workers do pay taxes -- as a matter of fact, the IRS has prepared a system for them to file taxes without a social security number. I suspect that of those who file taxes, a much lower percentage file their tax returns to collect the amount overpaid.

As for public services, I've heard this used in the context of healthcare. To be clear, Medicare and Medicaid are not legally available to illegal immigrants. It would almost certainly be possible for someone to steal someone else's identity and apply for Medicaid, but I have never heard of a documented case of this happening. The same would probably be possible for Medicare as well, though an illegal immigrant cannot simply apply and receive such insurance benefits. Certainly many healthcare organizations grant charity discounts and care to indigent patients. However, this is not a legal requirement.

My point is that most illegal immigrants do not take advantage of what we imply the US has to offer. Consider: aside from higher salary for equal work, what else does the US give illegal immigrants? We don't allow them to vote or participate in government, we don't give them discounts on housing (often they even pay more than a citizen would), we don't give them special treatment (they are frequently discriminated against, actually).

I contend that illegal immigration and habitation is more of a situation and less of a 'problem'. Certainly, I believe the laws in place should be enforced or changed. As long as immigration without permission is illegal, those who do it should be deported immediately (why is that such a complex process, by the way?).

I think the US is too restrictive in allowing foreign workers and granting citizenship to new people. It can take years and hundreds/thousands of dollars to apply for residency, the right to work, and/or citizenship. I think we should be more welcoming to those who wish to participate in our country (with selective criteria, of course). As such, if it were up to me I would allow illegal immigrants living in the US the right to apply and legitimately be considered for legal status (whether that be a visa, work permit, and/or citizenship).

Consider this: what if you lost your job or have a full-time job but don't earn enough to pay the bills. You've got family and expenses but have trouble keeping up with it all. Suppose you could do the same work you currently do, but earn 3-4 times as much by going to Canada illegally. Would you go? It's hard to imagine without actually finding yourself in that position, but I think a surprisingly high number of us would do it as well.

Tomatoes Are Overrated

2009-11-29T15:31:00.003-06:00

That's right, I said it -- tomatoes are overrated.

I know a lot of people may disagree and/or not understand why I would have such an opinion.

Think about it, though. Big Tomato has managed to weasel their product into many varied types of cuisine: pizza, hamburgers, french fries, salad, pasta. Some people even eat tomatoes alone -- preposterous!

I don't eat ketchup. I have been on a personal ketchup embargo for upwards of 15 years and have no regrets about it and no desire whatsoever to return to the tomato-vinegary sauce. Why would I want it? Why should I want it?!

Pizza sauce is made with tomatoes, and it's fine -- but some people have the audacity to put tomato chunks on top of the pizza as well. What's the point of that, I ask?

You know what's a good vegetable that doesn't get its due? Broccoli. It's often served steamed, but is also excellent sauteed. You should give it a try.

NWA Flight 188

2009-11-29T00:21:00.003-06:00

A Northwest flight recently overflew its destination by 150 miles on its way from San Diego to Minneapolis.

Not all of the details are public yet, but it seems the two pilots simply dozed off or otherwise stopped paying attention to their destination and navigation. The plane recovered and landed safely, so no harm, no foul, right?

This was a case of gross negligence. The two pilots were immediately suspended and may have been terminated by Delta/Northwest.

The event will also be reviewed by the FAA. I suspect the pilots will have their licenses revoked and may be able to eventually undergo additional training/review to reattain their licenses.

I suspect the two involved will have a difficult time finding work as pilots in the future.

I do not believe they should be punished or fined -- that is without knowing all the details, perhaps they've done something worse in the meantime...

To a pilot, the loss of his or her career and blacklisting from the industry is a major setback. It would be to anyone in his/her respective career. The pilots did cost the FAA and the NTSB and many traffic controllers additional work and time in trying to figure out what happened, but in the end these parties exist just for such situations. They have created a great deal of negative publicity for Delta/Northwest, but that is a risk the airline willingly took when they were hired (unless there is a damage clause in their contracts that states otherwise).

I don't doubt the two pilots are capable and well-trained. They made a mistake. If anything, their commercial pilot certifications could be revoked -- I think they should eventually be allowed to fly again, though perhaps not allowed to carry commercial passengers.

Wolves in the Wilderness

2009-11-28T23:38:00.003-06:00

I'm back from a brief foray into the Northwoods -- it was my return to deer hunting after several years off.

There is a topic that is very important to many Wisconsinites that has come up in recent years: wolves. I don't know all the details of wolf preservation/restoration in Wisconsin, but I'll try to offer my take.

As I understand it, wolves used to roam in plenty over most of what is now Wisconsin (as did other beasts such as black bears, buffalo, elk, and whitetail deer). Over the years, residents and farmers have seen wolves as a pest -- they have been known to prey on livestock when given the opportunity and there is concern they may attack humans. As a result, wolves were hunted and killed and eventually were near-vanquished from the state. The gray wolf is currently protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The complaint I have heard is that deer are harder to find and livestock are needlessly killed due to the WI DNR's plan to protect and allow wolves to repopulate* Wisconsin. [*Note: I say 'allow wolves to repopulate' because it's not clear whether wolves have been actively reintroduced/relocated into Wisconsin. I have been told the DNR has denied planting any new wolves in the state and has allowed them to naturally relocate.]

The DNR goes so far as to provide compensation for pets and livestock that is verifiably killed by wolves.

My take is that wolves are a former natural inhabitant of Wisconsin and many other states. While nature is in some respects counter to the interests of humans, I generally prefer that nature be allowed to flourish as it may. As such, I support reasonable measures to preserve a wolf population.

There is a risk that wolves may 'take over', killing deer, livestock, pets and whatsoever they may decide. If the population takes off, I would be in support of a wolf management program that would involve public or DNR hunting to maintain a scientifically-determined population.

I am against providing compensation for livestock and pet deaths caused by wolves. Statistics reported on Wikipedia show wolf predation is much lower in the US than in other continents where there are wolves. It's certainly an unfortunate consequence of allowing wolves in the wild and I sympathize with farmers who have lost animals to wolves, but I don't believe taxpayers should be held responsible for predatory acts of nature. Interestingly, if your livestock were killed by a bear or a mountain lion, I don't believe you would be granted any compensation.

As for the difficulty in finding deer, I sympathize with hunters. It's not fun to go hunting and not see any deer. The deer population, as measured and reported by the DNR, has long been way over a sustainable, healthy level. Deer have been wildly successful in procreating and this weakens the herd and leaves them more susceptible to disease and starvation -- not to mention increased crop damage, invasion of urban areas, and increased car-deer accidents. The DNR has tried 'Earn-a-Buck' hunting in certain areas to bring down the deer population -- hunters hate it and complain about it, but it seems to help. Perhaps a larger wolf population will help to reduce the deer herd.

I don't want to say this is right or wrong. This is not a clear-cut issue. I'm concerned it is contested very emotionally and with little respect for the few facts that are available. I say I support nature and wolves, but it could equally be argued that whatever actions and consequences of humanity are natural.

For full disclosure, I am not a farmer and do not live in the north where wolves are most prevalent. I would not be opposed to seeing wolves in the rural areas around where I live. I am more leery of mountain lions and bears, though I think they also deserve a spot in our habitats -- I consider that they naturally have always had a smaller population than wolves.

Palin: Obama a 4

2009-11-18T01:44:00.002-06:00

In her interview with Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin was asked for her overall ranking of President Obama. Her response? He's a '4'.

I don't mind her assessment. Whether or not you view Obama as a modern savior or the anti-Christ, it's fair to say that he has accomplished a few things many people disagree with and that he has also failed thus far to accomplish a few things many people are in favor of. In other words, it's not surprising.

I'd be interested to know how Palin would rate the previous presidents: Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

College Football

2009-11-15T21:54:00.004-06:00

I have long preferred watching NFL football over college football, but over the past five years or so I have steadily gained interest in the college game as well.

College Football Rankings

There are two topics in college football I find particularly offensive: 1) the presumed ranking of some conferences over others, and 2) the post-season/BCS contest thing.

On the first of these, yes, I'm referring to the SEC. Many people state that the SEC is the best and a team from the SEC will beat teams from the other major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, etc.) without really considering the measurable strength of either team. I'll acknowledge that the SEC is the conference from which several of the best teams of recent history have sprung and that 3 of the current top-10 teams are from the SEC.

My point is that the SEC has not made these teams (Florida, Alabama, and LSU) as strong as they are. Those who proclaim the greatness of the SEC fail to acknowledge the utter horridness of its less noted members -- what about Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State? I'm not going to claim that the other major conferences don't have their bottomfeeders -- they most certainly do -- but that's exactly the point: each conference has its strong teams and its weak teams.

As for the postseason structure...I don't know how it got to be like this. Football is perhaps a more physically demanding sport than basketball. I can understand the argument against a large-scale tournament like NCAA basketball has as it would be very straining on the players if they were to play more often than once weekly and would take forever if they only played once per week.

I am in favor of a smaller tournament, maybe 16 teams -- I could even agree with 32, though this might force the season to run through late January. While I do not feel it's fair to rely on a subjective ranking system to decide which teams get into the tournament, it would at least allow some level of actual competition to let the underdogs get a chance. In my opinion, way too many teams are invited to bowl games -- isn't the postseason supposed to be special?

$11,964,805,992,485

2009-11-13T01:00:00.003-06:00

If you watch the political news, every now and then you'll hear about the national debt. It just so happens there is a counter displayed in New York showing the national debt and, as of November 4, 2009, it's $11,964,805,992,485 (estimated at $101,327 per family). That's almost 12 trillion dollars.

Some people worry that our foreign friends (China being the biggest of them all) may decide to stop lending us money one day or, heaven forbid, request that we pay back all or some of the money we owe them.

As much as this could very legally occur, I'm not worried. The national debt will never be fully repaid -- and I'm okay with that. I think it is utterly shameful and disingenuous for us to have accrued so much debt over many, many years; however, I think the countries who have loaned us so much must be aware that we could never hope to repay it all.

Even if one of our creditors did decide to recall their loans, what's the worst that could happen? UN sanctions? Please.

Una Mentira Guantanamera (aka Give Up Gitmo)

2009-11-10T23:12:00.003-06:00

There is a detention center at the US base in Guantánamo Bay. The President has declared his intent to see that this facility is no longer used for holding detainees.

Here's how I see it:

First - why does the US hold any land on Cuba? The Cubans did not willingly give us the land on which the base is located for use as a naval base. I would like the US government to relinquish all military presence in Cuba. I mean beyond the detention center -- the entire operation.

Second - why do we need to hold 'suspected terrorists' at Gitmo? Some people argue that we need to hold them there so that we can use 'enhanced interrogation' techniques to figure out what they are really up to. 'Enhanced interrogation' is another term for 'torture'. In the US, torture is not acceptable. The premise here is that Guantánamo Bay is not part of the US and, therefore, the detainees are not granted a writ of habeas corpus. This notion that we can ignore a moral principle because the land on which our government-run installation is founded does not belong to us is ridiculous. Morality and torture do not care where the detainees are held. If it is so important that we (our military/government) be allowed to torture detainees, then they should certainly be able to do so within the undisputed United States borders.

The lie is that we have greater authority in Cuba than we do in the US. From a legal standpoint, we do not.

Video Game Violence

2009-11-10T23:03:00.002-06:00

There have been studies and much speculation on the impact of violent video games (and other media) on the minds of youth and those who partake in them. Undoubtedly, there are many, many games that depict heinous and reprehensible acts of senseless violence. The Grand Theft Auto series comes to mind.

It could be opined that video games that reward the player for killing (or otherwise maligning) others encourage the player to commit these acts in real life.

While there certainly are some people with developmental issues who have difficulty distinguishing between acceptable video game behavior and acceptable real life behavior, the issue is not that games portray such despicable acts but rather that some people may have difficulty determining how to act outside of their virtual entertainment. I suspect this difficulty may be caused by a few causes -- including natural neurological limitation, societal upbringing, or other psychological factors that may cause someone to intentionally do something most people would not.

Some people suggest that video games should be censored. Others suggest more strict limitations on who can purchase certain games. I'm against the first option, and not opposed to the second. The ideal scenario, however, would be some way of monitoring one's children/friends in an attempt to perceive whether they have difficulty differentiating between right and wrong or how to act in a socially accepted manner. While very difficult to do (perhaps impossible), this might allow a targeted treatment rather than far-reaching controls that impact people who are not likely to cause trouble.

Government-run Healthcare

2009-11-09T12:17:00.004-06:00

There is a lot of discussion about healthcare reform, healthcare insurance reform, socialism, and government-run healthcare.

It's frustrating that those opposed to it can get away with calling it one thing while those in favor call it another.

The most commonly proposed (and most likely to pass) legislation is not "government-run healthcare". I am strictly opposed to government-run healthcare, though I am in favor of healthcare insurance reform.

I think many people have difficulty separating their healthcare provider from their insurance provider, and for good reason. Many healthcare organizations indeed also serve as insurers. That said, they operate in a dichotomous situation -- the duty of insurers is to pay for a portion of the services a patient needs. The duty of the healthcare providers is to provide the services a patient needs. The difficulty is in determining what services a patient actually needs.

The popular notion is that patients currently are able to make this determination [and are fearful of losing this right]. This couldn't be further from the truth. In the current world, some healthcare providers provide more care/tests/medicine than a patient actually needs. The costs of excessive precaution do not go unpaid -- laws prevent the healthcare providers from billing these services to the patients if insurers deem them medically unnecessary, but then the healthcare organizations have no option but to swallow the extra cost. Is that fair? Absolutely.

Due to such tendencies, it is in the interest of the healthcare industry (and patients -- if you agree that insurance rates paid by patients are not likely to decline unless actual healthcare costs decline) to discourage excessive treatment.

I was inspired to write this by an ad posted by Google AdSense on this very blog. The ad says you should sign a petition to stop government-run healthcare. While I am very much opposed to government-run healthcare, I do not recommend signing this petition. The petition, in spite of its agreeable proclamation, will be used instead in an attempt to stymie healthcare insurance reform.

Write for right

2009-11-08T00:34:00.002-06:00

On the recently passed healthcare reform bill (HR 3962): as much as some similar bill will eventually become law, the great optimism espoused by some liberal/progressives is, I expect, premature.

There still is, as I understand it, a fair bit of time for changes to be made in the Senate before any resulting legislation arrives on the President's desk for final approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act