I am not concerned with the camera, but I want the photos. I would be willing to accept just getting the memory card back with the photos on it.

This is a scan of the box that the camera came in:

Box for the Canon SD-500 we lost.

Based on pictures from a second camera, cell phone records, and gift store receipts, we know that this is the approximate schedule and location where we lost the camera:

4:00 PM – We finished touring the Early Space Exploration exhibit and walked back to the central plaza behind the Information Central building.
4:00 – 4:10 PM Our sons took a couple of photos of us in the central plaza with the NASA logo sign behind us.
4:10 PM – We went to the Guest Services desk inside the Information Central building, where they gave our sons two small bags of souvenirs, since it was our sons’ birthdays.
4:15 PM – We took photos with the Space Person across from the Guest Services desk inside the Information Central building.

We then walked to the Space Shop for 20-30 minutes of shopping, and from there back through Information Central to the exit.

On our way out, we went around the right (west) side of the flagpole. We walked to our rented silver Hyundai from Alamo, parked near the Wally Shirra (parking area 5) sign in the parking lot.

The photos in the central plaza and with the Space Person were the last photos we took with the Canon SD-550. It is most likely that we then lost the camera in either the Information Central building, the plaza between Information Central and the Gift Shop, on our way to the exit, or from the exit to the Wally Shirra parking area. We don’t recall using the restrooms, but if there were restrooms along that route, who knows?

I am sure Security at Kennedy Space Center could spot us on their tapes and track our movements, maybe even spotting the moment and place when we lost the camera. I was wearing a black bowling shirt and white shorts. My older son was wearing a yellow T-shirt and beige shorts. My younger son was wearing a blue polo-style shirt and denim shorts.

We did also stop at the Publix Super Market at Xentury City Center in Kissimmee, but we doubt that the camera was lost there. Still, we would appreciate anyone there looking for it, both in the store and in the parking lot.

We also called Alamo car rental at Walt Disney World. They assure us that they searched the car and did not find it — but, again, who know where it could have slipped down into and been overlooked?

If you visit or work at the Kennedy Space Center, the Publix in Kissimmee, or the Walt Disney World Alamo rental, please keep your eyes open for our camera. We are still holding out hope that it will, one day, be found and returned to us. If you find it, please use the contact form on this site to reach me.

The word is encompasses all of existence and everything we know. It is at the core of defining all other words:

• A banana is a fruit.
• Blue is a color.
• Swimming is a life skill or sport involving an animal moving through water.

Is can even be the source of arguments over what is and what is not. Everything from “Is Casey Anthony guilty?” to “Is there a God?” People can argue for or against those endlessly, trying to prove the answer to “Is?”

Because it is the most fundamental concept, it’s all the more astonishing that Bill Clinton could question what is is. He was astute enough to observe that is’s past-tense form, was, encompasses everything that we know to have happened — things that were once is, but are not now. That points to why is takes a back seat to another, equally tiny word. For all of its power, however, it has a finite definition. It is limited to only what exists now. You cannot use is to definitively talk about what might have existed or what may exist in the future. For that, you need another, more powerful word.

The word if is the most powerful two letter word. For that matter, it is probably the word with the most density of meaning in the shortest possible word.

If is timeless:

• If Moses did cross the Red Sea chased by Egyptians, then maybe we can find artifacts under the sediment.
• If we go to Mars, we may find life there.
• If you’re here, then who is watching the kids?

If can cover a broad range of possibilities. In the case of the last sentence above, the answer could be any of almost seven billion humans, no one at all, or the family pet.

If drives our imagination beyond what we know. It is at the core of asking questions that drive scientific investigation. “If I smash large enough particles together at fast enough speed, will I find a Higgs boson?”

I find it intriguing and frustrating that so many people confuse if and is, as if if means is:

• If I go to the doctor, I may need surgery.
• If I marry him, I may miss some other guy who is the real Mr. Right.
• If I just try a few more pulls, then I may win the jackpot!

People often act as if the conditional were the foregone conclusion. They worry about going to the doctor. They pass up the current opportunity for the chance that a better one will come along. Or they squander their efforts on low-probability opportunities.

Moreover, if can express or even introduce doubt that people feel as real or believe to be real:

• If I don’t make this deadline, will I lose my job?
• If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

They panic about their career. Or they let a questionable line of argument sway their decision about a man accused of murder.

The cynic in me questions the probability of if conditionals. Nevertheless, the idealist in me loves the word if for the optimism it expresses, the possibilities it opens up, and the testable choices and decisions it can lead to.

The Anthony verdict and the juror’s squeamish sentiments immediately brought to mind a far different jury from a famous case from a century ago. The case of Chester Gillette standing trial for the murder of Grace Brown often has been referred to as the first “trial of the century” of the 20th century. It garnered international press coverage at a time long before radio and television. It also provided the basis for both Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy and the film A Place in the Sun.

On July 11, 1906, at Big Moose Lake in the Adirondacks, Chester Gillette rented a rowboat and set off for a day on the lake with Grace Brown. While they were unwed, Grace was pregnant with his child and lobbying him to marry her. Chester had a suitcase and tennis racket with him. The next day, when they had not returned, a search party found Grace’s body under the water, with the rowboat capsized nearby. Grace’s face had cuts on it. Two days later, investigators found Chester Gillette in a nearby town. Despite the two days, Gillette had not reported Grace’s death and was merely continuing with his holiday in the Adirondacks as if nothing had happened. At first, he said he knew nothing of her death. Then he tried to explain it as a boating accident. Then he tried to explain it as a suicide. With his story continually changing, authorities arrested Gillette.

There were no eyewitnesses to the actual murder in either the Gillette or Anthony cases. The evidence in both cases was circumstantial. Moreover, in the Chester Gillette case, forensic science was still in its infancy. It was only in 1906 that the New York City Police Department began regularly fingerprinting criminals, a first in the United States. Compared the Anthony case, with its hair banding and air samples, the Gillette case was tried more purely on the circumstances of Chester Gillette’s actions and behavior and Grace Brown’s resulting death and physical condition.

So why did the Gillette jury find him guilty, while the Anthony jury acquitted her? I believe it comes down to two things:

1. The Chester Gillette jurors clearly understood something that the Casey Anthony jurors had lost sight of:

In crime, people only lie for two reasons: to protect themselves or to protect someone else. Either way, lying makes them complicit in the crime.

In the Chester Gillette trial, jurors understood that he repeatedly lied to cover something up. The something in question was his involvement in the death of a woman. Therefore, he murdered her. They didn’t need DNA. They didn’t need computer searches. They didn’t need blood. They didn’t even need the suspected weapon, his tennis racket, which he had conveniently discarded. Did the defense raise doubts that it was an accident or suicide? Yes, but if it was an accident or suicide, why did he not report it and why did he lie when confronted? Those are not reasonable doubts given his lying. In addition to his changing explanations of what happened, he had also been registering himself at the hotels under false names, lying about his identity to cover his trail leading up to the murder. The more reasonable conclusion is that he was lying to cover up her murder.

The Anthony jury did not take that next logical step. Based on finding her guilty of lying to the investigators while her child was missing, Casey Anthony should have gotten at least a manslaughter conviction. If not to cover up her own involvement or knowledge of someone else’s involvement in the death of her daughter, then to what motive do the Anthony jurors ascribe to her lying?

Casey Anthony was unwilling to cooperate with investigators to tell them the truth by identifying what really happened and/or who really did it. Instead, she told them lies. Casey appears to have remained unwilling to cooperate by telling prosecutors the truth in exchange for a plea deal. Finally, Casey did not take the stand in her own defense, explain her lies, and provide any new truth to exculpate herself.

2. We have become so worried about the rights of the accused, that we would rather acquit a guilty person than convict an innocent one — but we have reached a point where we now seem to be doing the former far more often than the latter. It’s as if children just magically die and their bodies are found in the woods and no one did it.

CSI levels of evidence and mutually conflicting “expert witnesses” have us at the point where we treat any doubt, no matter how absurd, as “reasonable.” Who does the jury think searched for chloroform and why? How does the jury think the Pooh blanket and laundry bag got from the Anthony home to the woods where her body was found? How does the jury explain chloroform (which had been searched for online) in air samples from the trunk of Casey Anthony’s abandoned car?

Did Casey Anthony have the motive? While she seemed to be a loving mother by the photos, videos, and accounts of friends and family members, bear in mind that few people photograph or videotape the bad moments with their kids. Moreover, Casey has lied — the jurors even found her guilty of it. So why should we trust that she was such a good mother? There are just as many, if not more, photos of her cavorting about at parties and bars. She clearly wanted to live a freewheeling lifestyle. That’s hard to do when you have to be a responsible parent. It’s also hard to socially connect with other young twenty-somethings, especially attractive single men, when you have a toddler cramping your style. The jury didn’t buy that?

Did Casey Anthony have the means? The duct tape matched a brand at the Anthony household and the Pooh blanket came from the Anthony home, as did a laundry bag, both found with Caylee’s body. For some macabre reason, someone in that household searched for chloroform and neck breaking – and it was not Cindy Anthony. Casey was taking gasoline and borrowing shovels. In addition, if she didn’t want to use chloroform or duct tape, she could have just as readily taken Caylee out to the pool for a swim and drowned the poor girl there in a matter of minutes. While we cannot know the exact cause of death because of the degree of Caylee’s decomposition, these other items of evidence show a variety of means available to Casey.

Did Casey have the opportunity? If not on the last day that Caylee was seen alive, then certainly sometime during the 31 days before Cindy Anthony reported her missing, yes, Casey had plenty of time during that window to kill her daughter in a matter of minutes, bag up the body, and conceal it until depositing it in the woods.

Do I know exactly how Caylee Anthony died? No, I don’t. But I believe prosecutors presented enough evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that Casey lied because she either killed Caylee or she is covering up how Caylee died – and that makes her complicit in Caylee’s death, which is at least guilty of manslaughter. Moreover, nothing in the defense raised enough reasonable doubt in me to conclude otherwise.

Nevertheless, the Anthony jurors seem unwilling to accept the most probable explanation and the evidence that does support it as “reasonable” or “undoubtable.” Such is the New American Tragedy and A Place in the Sunshine State.

Resources:

I’ve found the Casey Anthony coverage at the Orlando Sentinel to be very comprehensive.

“The Murder Trial of Chester Gillette” at The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York

“The American Tragedy” by Douglas MacGowan at truTV

“Chester Gillette and Grace Brown” by Craig Brandon, author of Murder in the Adirondacks: An American Tragedy Revisited.

My first time walking through The House of Frankenstein was when I was 10-years-old, back during the summer of 1976. Every time that we would visit Lake George after that, I would ask to go through. I especially loved it when we would end our day there, going through it at night for that extra-creepy factor. Now, thirty-four years later, I still find myself nostalgic for the experience. This weekend, for the first time in a few years, I managed to find the time to go back through it.

The exterior is a vintage 1970s faux New England colonial facade, with fluted pillars and an imposing shingled tower. A large bay window under the tower has a wax figure of the Phantom of the Opera playing a pipe organ and speakers often broadcast the music out onto the sidewalk.

The front window features bobbing skulls that seem like some long dead singing group.

Best of all, Frankenstein’s monster often makes personal appearances out on the sidewalk to lure in visitors.

The lobby has changed dramatically since my youth. What is now the entrance, on the left, was originally the exit, which deposited the guest out into a gift shop. Where most of the gift shop was is now behind a wall and rented out to a T-shirt shop. Sadly, the House of Frankenstein no longer sells any souvenirs. The original entrance is now the exit on the right. So compared to my youth, the museum is now backwards. Originally, getting to see Frankenstein bring his monster to life was the next-to-last display. Now, it is the second display.

After climbing a stairwell decorated to look like a castle, you will wind you way through a maze of hallways, with windows on either side. Behind each window is a room with a macabre wax figure display. When I was a kid, the displays fell into two categories: either scenes of crime and torture, or scenes from classic horror movie monster from the 1930s or the horror renaissance of the 1950s matinees through the Hammer Films of the 60s and 70s. Today, that collection has swapped out some displays to include 80s slasher film characters and the alien from The Predator.

Each display has a little, backlit sign identifying it and providing some additional information or commentary. Some of the exhibits are static, such as the grave robbers. Others involve continuous animation, such as the Pit and the Pendulum. Still others offer an illuminated green button, so that the guest can start the show, as it were. Those offer the guest the opportunity to feel indirectly involved, for example, with bringing Frankenstein’s monster to life or subjecting a criminal to the electric chair.

The first display is the one I remember as the last. When I was a kid, it was an eerie spirit floating outside a typical suburban home door – something you might be afraid you would encounter when you got home. Now, it functions as a spirit that welcomes you to the exhibit.

The second display is the aforementioned Dr. Frankenstein bringing his monster to life. The Grave Robbers now followed this, seemingly unrelated. If you were to go in reverse, however, you would get the narrative that Dr. Frankenstein robbed graves to build his monster. From there, the displays work their way back through the pantheon of fictional monsters and into the realm of ghosts and the undead and then into murder and torture.One display includes a behind-the-scenes look at how the wax figures are made:

Both Dracula turning into a bat and Dr. Jekyll turning into Mr. Hyde use a variant of the famous Pepper’s Ghost technique with the reflective glass also acting as a theatrical scrim for a second scene when the lighting changes. When I saw it at age 10, I was astonished and spent several minutes contemplating it, trying to figure it out. Even now, when I fully understand the theater technology, I still find it a magical effect.

The Wolfman, however, looks more like Chewbacca, which is surprising considering the museum predates Star Wars.

King Kong is gone. I remember that he was originally holding a Barbie doll, with a GI Joe doll nearby trying to rescue her. Given that Kong himself was only slight larger than the average adult man, he came off as more of a scale model than any of the other, human-sized exhibits. While I am disappointed at the loss of Kong, I guess I can understand it.

After the classic literary and movie monsters comes a section that covers the occult. The Attic Ghost looks like a front-yard decoration that has found its way into the museum. It is internally lit, with a plastic facemask, and hangs on a pivoting arm. If ever a display would benefit from a good implementation of Pepper’s Ghost, the Attic Ghost is it.

The séance room has always had a sound bite taken directly from the Walt Disney Haunted Mansion Soundtrack album, where Madame Leota is reciting an incantation to make spirits appear.

That is not the only reference to that iconic Disney album. There is a scene from a crypt that emulates artwork from the back pages of the album:

For me, the Amazing Room of Rats always had a disturbing real-life connection. An elderly man who lived in my hometown had died at home alone. When the police found him, rats and other vermin had begun scavenging meals from his decomposing body.

The Predator is concealed in a blackened corner alcove that lights up when triggered by a motion detector. Freddie Kruger and Jason Voorhis are depicted merely standing in a room together. They don’t move. I have since learned that, if you wait long enough, there is something that happens, but we apparently didn’t give it enough time. It would be nice if they could find some way to get you to linger there a bit longer – some small bit of action or reading to keep you there for the surprise.

The Hall of Mirrors used to be a zigzag maze of mirrored walls, lit by strobe light. I remember it being genuinely confusing to navigate and having to find my way through it by placing one finger on a wall and dragging it along to feel my way around. Today, it has a black metal railing preventing any real disorientation. Given our litigious society, I suspect that was an insurance decision.

One section illustrates motives for or types of murder:

• The Druids, performing a ritual sacrifice
• Jack the Ripper
• A wife chopping up husband in tub
• A wife serving husband the head of the housemaid with whom he had an affair

I didn’t mention yet that my wife went with me last night. So seeing the two wives committing murder made me acutely phobic of bathtubs, housemaids, and wives. (Just kidding, dear.)
Another stretch of the museum provides examples of just about every method of capital punishment:

• The Guillotine, with real chopping action
• The Garrote
• The Hangman
• The Electric Chair

The electric chair, by the by, is depicted with intense convulsions, screaming, and smoke. I’ve found a video of The Electric Chair.

There is a scene where a witch first faces her trial and then is burned at the stake. In the first half, the witch is a regular store mannequin, not a wax figure. In the second half, the witch is made from wax, which appears to have distorted from heat. Red Christmas tree lights provide the “fire” effect.

The medieval torture section comprises displays in several divided cages. Many of these were part of one large caged room, as shown in a postcard I bought on eBay. I remember it arranged like this, but much darker.

I took a few photos of the current display for comparison, showing some of the same figures in their new arrangement. It now reminds me of an exhibit I saw at an Atlantic City casino called Torture Through the Ages. It is like a smaller, less political version.

As the Web site says, “Parents should use good judgment as to whether the museum is appropriate for young children. No Refunds.” My advice is that I would not take a child under age 10 through it – and even at 10 or above, consider the child’s sensitivity. When in doubt, take the tour yourself. Your family may have to wait during your half-hour journey and you will have to buy a ticket, but at least you won’t be taking your child through without knowing what they – and you – will encounter.

Speaking of the Web site, I am disappointed that the Gallery section is empty – and has been for a few years. However, I was also impressed that I was able to use their Contact form and get an e-mail response within a few hours. It would be nice to see a page about the history of the attraction or about some of the souvenirs that might be available out there in the hands of collectors. With over fifty exhibits in the museum, each inspiring multiple stories, it would also make a natural place to have a blog that covers classic and current horror literature and movies, as well as crime and punishment. It might also be fun to use the security cameras to capture video of visitors being scared and allow them to post those videos either to the site or to their social networking accounts, to share with friends.

The experience now ends with The Black Hole, a nausea inducing illusion where you walk through a star-filled tunnel. While it is cool and probably gives a more dramatic end to the show, I find it to be a bit out-of-context. It feels like it belongs at the end of some space-themed thrill-ride, rather than a house of horrors. In addition, of course, I miss exiting out into the old gift shop. After a half hour in the dark, getting my fears and appetite for classic monsters whetted, I used to love browsing the gift shop and buying a souvenir from my experience.

I love the House of Frankenstein’s kitschy, nostalgic 1970s feel. While I am not fond of the Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhis, or Michael Meyers slasher films, I will grudgingly tolerate them if it keeps my classic monsters alive. I would love to see some time, money, and especially care given to updating the older parts of the exhibit. By now, the technology should enable breathing new life into the older exhibits – or better presenting their original wax museum artistry. I would also love to see House of Frankenstein endure. My hope is that it will last at least long enough for my young sons to reach an age where they can go through it.

• Roadside America review of The House of Frankenstein
• Television ad for both Dr. Morbid’s Haunted House and House of Frankenstein
• Project Absurd’s Video from The House of Frankenstein
• Facebook group for fans of House of Frankenstein, Lake George, NY

During my last shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes a costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.

And our president expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture — a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

Starner Jones, MD

Jackson

According to Snopes.com, Dr. Roger Starner Jones wrote the letter “Why Pay for the Care of the Careless?” to the Clarion Ledger in 2009.

After reading this, I came away with far more questions than the answers he provides or implies.

1. Is it professionally appropriate for a doctor to write a letter laced with the sarcasm that he had the “pleasure” of evaluating a patient who he then paints in negative terms?
2. How does he know the gold tooth was “new”? Last I checked, gold teeth don’t have freshness dates stamped into them. Was it 18k, 14k, or 10k? How many ounces? Was it just a gold veneer to cover a bad tooth? What is the real dollar value of it, relative to health insurance or health care costs?
3. Did he get receipts for the tattoos? Does he know she is the one who paid for them? Does he know how long ago she got them? Is it possible she got them before losing her job and having to go on Medicaid?
4. For that matter: Does he know her employment history and how long she has been on Medicaid? Since I know that Medicaid often requires recipients to either look for work or frequently re-verify why they qualify for it, does he know if she has been looking for work?
5. Last I checked, the cost of putting an R&B ringtone on your phone ranged from relatively free (downloaded from a piracy site or using a friend’s, work, library, or your own computer to rip the song from a CD [which, by the way, are available for free use or loan at many public libraries] and transfer to the phone) to about a dollar. Compare the cost of a ringtone to the cost of health insurance and healthcare and the difference will be several orders of magnitude. So is that a valid measure of the patient’s worthiness for Medicaid?
6. Why was this patient at the hospital? Was her illness related to the cigarettes and beer? If not, then Dr. Jones’ argument collapses because despite her unhealthy lifestyle, the patient’s habits are not related to her illness nor her use of Medicaid to pay for it.
7. How would Dr. Jones respond if it were not the woman who came into his hospital, but her dependent child, who might also be eating an unhealthy diet and watching too much TV? Should that child be denied coverage because of the mother’s decisions? And what happens when a child raised in such an environment reaches adulthood and has two decades worth of conditioning guiding their behaviors — as is likely the case with the woman herself?

After pondering those questions, however, I also came up with my own answer to Dr. Jones:

A doctor’s first and foremost concern should be identifying what is wrong with a patient and treating them — both for their physical symptoms and offering them guidelines on how to improve their health. A doctor should not be concerned with the jewelry the patient is wearing or whether or how the patient will pay for their care. No matter how valid his observation may be that some people in our society are living unhealthy lives, this doctor has failed to separate his medical responsibilities from his personal income and has made the far worse mistake of using one particularly notable patient to stereotype everyone on Medicaid.

What if we reversed this? What if, in 1988, I was the patient who saw Dr. Jones? I have never smoked. I do not drink beer. In 1988, I never drank wine or cocktails; today I have either one about 6-8 times per year. Yet in 1988, I did not have health insurance. I could not afford it, plain and simple. When I passed a kidney stone, my family and I needed some financial assistance to cover part of the cost. If this doctor were to take me as the example, what would he say? Would he then support medical financial assistance for the needy? If he is opposing it now and using this woman as an example, wouldn’t he be denying those who might truly need help from getting it?

Since then, my finances have improved. Through income taxes, I have not only “repaid” the assistance, but my taxes have helped other needy people who have been in similar circumstances. But I have also seen first-hand  how horribly expensive health insurance and healthcare can be for even a well-paid person. And even with health insurance, one is not safe from incurring potentially bankrupting costs.

During the last three years, I ran my own business – not by choice, but by necessity. At enormous cost to myself and my family, I provided health insurance through my small business. How much cost? I paid $800 per month for a family of four with a high deductible of $10,000 per individual. So, if my family were in a car accident, we could have faced a maximum out-of-pocket of $40,000 before the insurance would cover anything. Moreover, the $800 per month premium was not all. I also put $480 per month into an HSA account. So I was spending $12,000 per year for health care for my family. That almost equals my mortgage (which, tangentially, is underwater, thanks to Bush-era lending policies that overinflated the housing market.) Do you think this woman, if she eliminated cigarettes and alcohol, could afford $12,000 per year for health insurance? I doubt it. Moreover, even if she could, I know first-hand that it would not buy her much coverage.

Compared to health insurance, the cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos, cell phone, ring tone, tennis shoes,  and even gold jewelry  are relatively affordable.

Over the last half-century, we have created an economy where it is more affordable to live an unhealthy lifestyle than a healthy one. High rewards for malpractice lawsuits have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance, which the doctors and hospitals then pass on to the patients in the form of higher bills. Knowing that the health insurance companies will try to bargain them down, doctors and hospitals knowingly bill higher to begin with, hoping that the negotiation with the insurance company will lead to a fair price. In addition, so as not to be accused of such an overbilling practice, patients without health insurance are charged and expected to pay full price, often with little room for negotiation. Meanwhile, the extremely unhealthy dollar menu becomes all the more affordable to those who don’t have enough money to live a healthy lifestyle.

For their part, patients, especially those with health insurance, are developing an entitlement mentality. If heart surgery will buy John six more months of life with his wife and kids, well, then John  will expect his insurance to cover it. It does not matter to John that the skill level, technology required, and risk level (which has to be insured against a malpractice suit) are all very costly. Those six months will cost tens of thousands of dollars, a cost that will be amortized across the group. But screw the cost and thereby screw the group, John and his family think he is somehow intrinsically entitled to those six months.

Don’t get me wrong: I do not like giving money to people who have consciously made risky or outright bad choices and ruined their own lives. But what is the alternative?

Despite anti-smoking laws, healthy food campaigns in schools, raising the drinking age, etc., we still have plenty of people who make bad choices. And when they get sick, whether we want to pay for them or not, then what? What is your alternative? When someone comes into a hospital, are we supposed to spend an hour evaluating and fact checking his or her lifestyle history? If we do find that they smoke, drink, and eat unhealthy, do we deny them treatment? If not, who pays?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this doctor’s preferences would radically alter our society in ways that would be drastically at odds with the very “free market economy” solutions that the Right talks so much about. It certainly sounds like he would favor a total prohibition of cigarettes and alcohol. He might also not allow people to get gold teeth or tattoos, and perhaps favor some odd laws regarding who can own cell phones or buy R&B ringtones.

If you want healthcare to be available and affordable for all, then we all have to both control and share the costs. If you do not want healthcare to be equally available and affordable to all, then you are the one chairing the “death panel.” You are deciding that someone who smokes or drinks or has an otherwise unhealthy habit (and remember, most unhealthy habits are more affordable than health care) and can’t afford health insurance or health care should suffer and die.

Finally, lest you think in your privileged position of having a good paying job and health insurance that you are not paying a high price for the poor choices of others, just take a long, close look around you. See all of your co-workers? You’re in the same health insurance group as they are. That group may even include employees at other companies who have partnered into the same health insurance program. To cover everyone, all of the individual medical expenses of each person in the group are being amortized across the group. Therefore, when Mary has a heart attack because she eats unhealthy snacks from the vending machine and grabs fast food on her way home from work, each person in the group will be sharing part of her expenses in their premiums. And while she may not have a gold tooth and tattoos, she probably spends plenty of her income on things other than saving up money for the future medical costs that we all face in our later years. And you’re probably not saving up, either. And what about John, your chain-smoking, type A boss, who also has wine with his surf-and-turf, and may have contracted something from his affair with the department secretary. Part of your premiums will cover his herpes meds, his cancer treatments, and his eventual stroke. They may not be on Medicaid, but the group premium you pay isn’t just to cover your costs; it will cover John and Mary and leave the insurance company a “healthy” profit, as well. So why should you begrudge this woman in Jackson, Mississippi her equal access to affordable healthcare?

1. christian stuart

Well, that’s sort of a duh! Surprisingly though, “christian lee” ranks in at #5 and “christian stuart lee” at #10. I am going to guess that someone named Christian Stuart is more famous than me, even though Google lists my site first for that search term. I already know that there is a “Christian Lee” who is an Asian porn star.

2. defacing a ralph lauren polo shirt

I find the use of “defacing” odd. You don’t hear that word often. Yet the phrase above is used often enough to show as the second most popular in my site statistics. So this is the first of many searches that leads me to believe that not all of the searches are coming from live humans. I suspect there are spammers using automated searches to find, monitor, and interact with sites out there. The program probably pulls from existing content on your site and then uses a snippet of it to keep checking back later.

3. star wars illogical and 6. illogical star wars

That people are searching for those terms, does that mean a lot of people already think Star Wars is illogical – or at least questionable?

4. christian anectdote

The anecdotes here are likely far from Christian.

7. president obama says that they will have a holiday tree this year instead of a christmas tree. do you agree with this?

Several similar searches like this one cropped up since I wrote “Christmas Tree or Holiday Tree?”

8. “internet explorer 4.0 commemorative edition”

Hey, whoever was searching for this, please come back! If you were interested enough in it to search for it, might you want to buy it off me? I didn’t think anyone would want it when I wrote “Things I’ve Found While Unpacking,” so I am astonished someone searched for it!

19. “asylum as entertainment”

What was this person searching for? There has to be an interesting story behind this. Were they seeking movies that are set in insane asylums? Or were they looking to take a vacation getaway to an insane asylum? Or are they in a mental institution and going bored out of their mind?

20. “christian stuart lee” or “christian stuart * lee” or “lee, christian stuart”

The above search also had a few other facts about me as part of the search, but I have removed them for privacy. My response when I saw this was…

Wow! Someone was really, really looking for me. How many other Christian Stuart Lees could match the entire search string used here? This had to be a search exclusively for me. Creepy. Whoever you are, unless we’re related, I hope what you found here deterred you from stalking me any further! And if we are related, you probably have my contact info and can call me up to ask me what my Web site address is.

31. atheist chants

Do atheists chant? I named the site Rants and Chants because I expected to either be dissing or praising books, movies, TV, music, technology, news, or Life. However, if you are literally looking for atheist chants, what are you expecting to find? It’s not like repeating “there is no god, there is no god, there is no god” is going to be heard by the nonexistent god. So to whom are you chanting? And why?

35. chant and rant

No, you’ve got that backward. It’s Rants and Chants. Probably because I am more likely to rant first.

39. chants for calling satan

And there were lesser variants on this one. I’m surprised that I would have come up high enough in the results for this that someone would then click through. Just as I don’t believe in invisible benevolent spirits, I don’t believe in invisible evil spirits either, so you are free to move on.

40. chants for driving

No chanting while driving! Radios, GPS, and cell phones are distracting enough!

45. christian chants

This one still amuses me. When I wrote the first “Search Me,” this was the number one search term hitting my site. What must the people who search for “christian chants” think when they find my irreverent site?

62. christmas tree christian meaning only

This poor person must’ve found “Christmas Tree or Holiday Tree?”, read it, and gone away even more confused about the Christian meaning of the Christmas tree. I see a Christmas tree as an abstraction. It has no concrete tie to anything in The Bible. So it is open to considerable interpretation, especially when you ladle on the spectrum of religious, pagan, secular, seasonal, and commercial ornaments.

64. conservative republican yuppies

I have always described myself as a moderate independent. But a hippie girl I knew in college called me the most Conservative Republican Yuppie she knew (about 6 months before a more Conservative Republican girlfriend then called me the most Liberal person she ever dated, go figure.) But I doubt anything I’ve written in the last 8 years would put me on the Conservative Republican Yuppie side. As best I can figure, it’s been my criticism of the increasing extremism in the CRY sphere that has pushed those word higher up in whatever tag cloud the search engines are building from my content.

66. correct way to set toilet tissue

I’m delighted and proud to have provided what I think is a valuable and insightful result for this search. And I am sure my grandfather would be very amused that his humor lives on all these years later and is being read by others.

73. egg rolling chant

What?!?! Was this just some random combining of words? What is an egg rolling chant? Why would you want to chant while rolling an egg?

77. funeral meme

I tried to start a meme, but I am disappointed that it didn’t take off. Still, seeing this gives me hope that someone was searching for a funeral meme and they might pick up and carry forward mine.

80. how much is a montgomery ward telescope worth

Answer: Probably not much. Few mass produced telescopes achieve antique value.

81. how one can succeed in first night — and — 83. how to succeed in first night

Sadly, whoever searched for the answer to that question only found out how to fail and be laughed at.

84. http://www.christianstuartlee.com/

Someone searched for that? Just type it into your damned browser address bar!

87. is it unchristian to support a sports team?

The answer to this question is not on my site. However, if you don’t mind having an atheist tell you, I honestly don’t think Jesus cares whether you support a sports team. He cared more about how you interact with other people. Oh, he might have said something here or there about not being worldly. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of Christianity, you ought to worry about the answers to far more important questions. Now go search for a charity or a volunteer program.

91. kid investment chants

You want your kids to chant while they invest money? Try “here, Dad, you can use my money…” You are looking for a chant to say while you are investing money in your kids? I usually just grumble at how much it costs.

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.

However, “refudiate” is not a word. At best, it is a portmanteau of refute and repudiate and Palin subsequently reposted her tweet with refute. Except refute means “to prove wrong” or” to deny the truth or accuracy of” something, so that doesn’t really fit. In the end, she most likely meant repudiate, as in “to refuse to have anything to do with : DISOWN” or maybe even in the sense of “to refuse to accept.”

Nevertheless, when called out on her use of both refudiate and refute, Palin’s response was to compare herself to Shakespeare:

“Refudiate,” “misunderestimate,” “wee-wee’d up.” English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

Except, she is not Shakespeare; she is not making up a new word that has a new meaning nor even combining two words whose meanings together add up to meet what she means. Instead, she did mean repudiate – it is the word that comes the closest to what she is asking peaceful Muslims to do. Sadly, her coming off as an ineloquent yahoo is not going to buy her argument much credence with intelligent Muslims.

Since Sarah Palin thinks she is equal to Shakespeare and can make up words as she sees fit, I have decided to do the same, using her name as the root of several words. Please make use of these as often as possible to help spread their use and refudiate Sarah Palin.

Palin (n): An idiot, particularly when it comes to American politics, history, geography, the role of the Vice President, diplomacy and international relations, or seemingly much of anything.

Palinate (v): Like pollinating a flower, this is the spreading of Sarah Palin’s stupidity into the minds of others, particularly where those thoughts bear fruit in the form of sensationalized activism at Tea
Parties.

Palin Comparison (n): A nonsensical mixed metaphor on a political or social topic.

Palindin (n): derived from paladin (“a trusted military leader” or “a leading champion of a cause”)  An untrustworthy sidekick who is likely to go rogue and say stupid shit that sinks your chances of becoming President. A mindless champion of a cause who verbally grasps at straws to make her argument.

Palindrone (n): Any political speech full of aforementioned um, er, ah, and ya knows. Bonus points for malapropisms.

Palinesque (adj): To earnestly say ambiguous, rambling, made-up statements full of um, er, ah, and ya know. Again, bonus points for malapropisms.

Palinode (n):  the opposite of palinode (“a formal retraction”). A Palinode is an informal, spin-doctoring follow-up that attempts to excuse something by defending it, rather than retracting it. For example, Sarah Palin issued a Palinode equating herself with Shakespeare, rather than to admit she mistakenly used a word that does not exist.

Palinver (v): same definition of palaver (“to talk profusely or idly”)

Gone Palin (v): When the person you have chosen as a trusted, intelligent, and supportive partner turns out to be exactly the opposite and sinks your career. Worse still, she proudly writes a book entitled Gone Rogue, flouting her damage to your career as an accomplishment for her.

Should Sarah Palin ever get a divorce, I refudiate her — which is to say, I refuse to date her; she is just too dumb for me. She infudiates me. Or maybe I should say she infeudiates me — since she both infuriates me and makes me want to declare a family feud between my family and hers.

But enough of the joking. Now to the true heart of the matter…

As for the subject of putting a mosque near Ground Zero,  I think it is in questionable tact and taste to do so, but this country has never legislated against either poor tact or taste (just take a drive around). In addition, there is the ambiguity of the term “near.” Yes, within the few blocks proposed is definitely an ironically poor choice of location. However, how close could a mosque be built and avoid being offensive to those who are currently offended by it? Mid-town? Staten Island or Brooklyn? The Bronx? Westchester? Murfreesboro, TN? Sheboygan, WI? Let’s face it, whether it is a block away, a state away, or half a world away, we all live on the same planet and we had all better start figuring out how to live together.

Moreover, any legal effort via any governmental organization to block it would run up against the First Amendment restriction that no law can prohibit the free exercise of religion. At best, the issue can only be resolved through public discourse and negotiation – for those on both sides to not only explain their positions, but to listen and  be willing to find some middle ground and define where would be an acceptable location. To make that appeal, however, peaceful, intelligent Muslims must not be asked to “refudiate”, but to appreciate that if America will be tolerant of them, they should show similar tolerance and respect by considering another location. Moreover, both sides should engage in a peaceful and intelligent dialogue about what constitutes a reasonable, acceptable location. Perhaps Sarah Palin could spearhead a fundraising effort to acquire land just a few more blocks further away? But I suspect she would refudiate the merit of such diplomacy – which makes this probably the first time refudiate has actually been used with the dual meaning of refute (to deny the truth of) and repudiate (to refuse to be involved.) So maybe I’m Shakespeare now.

For more insight, I recommend these two news stories:

• Islamophobia and the Muslim center at Ground Zero
• Controversy Surrounds Construction of Mosques Across U.S.

All legitimate definitions cited in this posting were checked with Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. A copy of it should be sent to Sarah Palin.

Finally I said, “Well, Ben, maybe it’s just that you have a headache, so everything is annoying to you. I get that way.” That prompted his first laugh of the day.

At school, one of the other moms said hello to him and asked how he was.

“I have a headache,” he said.

“Oh, that’s too bad,” she said.

“My Dad gave it to me,” he replied.

:-/

I’ve long wondered if the ending would involve a big reveal that much of what we’ve seen is not what we have thought it was — that there is some bigger, overarching plot or some individual or group that has been driving all of the events we’ve seen as part of some bigger conspiracy. I’ve wondered if such an ending could be setup in the series without our noticing the hints, but, after its revelation, would have us running back through the episodes and connecting the dots. It would also lend itself to moving the series off television and into a movie franchise. However, I suspect the series finale will merely wrap up the existing plots and character threads.

Bear in mind, we have yet to find out why the Russians opposed the peace deal with Kamistan to the point of feeling it necessary to assassinate President Hasan. Nor do we know what information President Logan has or how he came by it. Perhaps the finale will reveal some legitimate reason why the peace initiative should fail and we will see that Bauer’s battle to do what he thought was right has merely served to benefit the wrong side.

Alternatively, given 24‘s history of moles and betrayers, maybe we will find out that President Taylor is not as noble or honorable as she seems. It has seemed to me, out of character for her to be going along with Charles Logan’s actions. Previously, she seemed perceptive enough to recognize and avoid manipulation.

Or, for that matter, Chloe O’Brien may turn out to have an agenda that doesn’t involve saving Jack, but stopping him for her own reasons. Or we may see the return of any number of characters with something to reveal. If the finale does reveal some long-running concealed plot, we could also see the return of any from a list of the few characters who have survived. I’m partial to seeing Mandy return to confront Jack and trace it all the way back to the first episode.

No matter how it ends, I do think the series needs to tie the ending to the beginning.

In the very first episode, two lines of dialogue strike me as the most significant for Jack Bauer’s character. The first is the very first thing said to him when the show introduces his character. He is playing a game of chess with his daughter, Kim. Kim says to him, “You’re in trouble, Dad.” For the finale, I think this is an even more significant line. Kim and her daughter are now the only family Jack has left. Everyone else he has ever loved or been close to has been killed. Moreover, the recent death of his latest lover has now sent him spiraling out of control on an emotional vendetta that has him defying the government he once served. Jack is now in trouble again. One obvious possible ending for 24 is that Jack may live, but Kim and his granddaughter may be killed, leaving him truly alone in the world.

Later in the first episode, after we’ve gotten to know Jack just a little, he gives a short speech to a co-worker. It’s the first time he says anything philosophical about himself, the work he does, and the people and situations he has to deal with.

“You can look the other way once and it’s no big deal. Except it makes it easier to compromise the next time and pretty soon that’s all you’re doing is compromising because that’s how you think things are done.” Jack pauses, then continues. “You know those guys I blew the whistle on? You think they were the bad guys? Cause they weren’t. They weren’t bad guys. They were just like you and me, except they compromised once.”

After Jack says that, there is a long pause, lending significance to the speech. I would like to see the finale of 24 come back to that speech, bring the series full circle thematically, and weigh whether Jack has compromised.

My biggest hope for the end of 24 is that the talk of a movie is a ruse to conceal a surprise ending in which Jack Bauer does die. For eight seasons over nine years, the show has prided itself on anything can happen plots in which no character is safe from the bullets. Having Jack die fighting for justice would bring us to the ultimate “silent clock” ending of the series.

The one solace that I take with the end of 24 — or the end of anything — is that a story has its highest meaning at its end. If anything lasted forever, where is the meaning in that? I hope that by tomorrow night we will see a proper ending to the best action/suspense/thriller on television. As with Life, let us cherish every ticking minute of it.

Yes, it is a cliché, but when I walked in it was like stepping back in time. They had a wall of scale models and racks of paints and glues. When I was a kid, I loved assembling models both for the pride of doing a meticulous job in the assembly and for the funny way the glue fumes made my head feel. They had an entire aisle of HO and N gauge trains. In my youth, I probably had a hundred feet of track and scores of train engines and cars, as well as buildings, many of them passed down through several generations. I still have them in boxes in my basement. The store had Star Trek action figures exactly like the ones I had when I was a kid — and even the play set of the Starship Enterprise, which features a small booth that simulates a transporter by spinning. They also had model rockets — the kind with actual incendiary rocket engines that would launch the rocket high up into the sky, usually with it coming down well beyond the field where we launched them.

When I was a kid, every town in upstate New York (and probably in America) had at least one hobby shop. There were classical older ones on main streets, rich with the smell of balsa wood. There were middle-aged ones in roadside strip malls or bright, youthful ones in the newer indoor malls. During my lifetime, as our economy has shifted from urban and small-town living to suburban, I watched as the stores moved from Main Street to strip mall to indoor mall. However, eventually many started to go out of business. It was only just over a year ago that K-B Toys closed out. While it had started out as Kay-Bee Toy and Hobby, by the time it folded, it had shifted over to mostly toys. Other stores either became or lost out to mail-order catalogs. More recently, computers and the Internet have killed off the remaining hobby shops – in more ways than one.

Even before the Internet, video and computer games took a bite out of the hobby business. It wasn’t just that kids began spending more time playing electronic games than they did scale models. It was also that computer games like SimCity allowed them to build intricate, highly interactive virtual worlds for less money and in less space than a real train set would require. Why build and race RC cars when you can play Grand Theft Auto? Or RC planes when you can get the virtual flying experience of Microsoft Flight Simulator? Why buy an ant colony when you can buy SimAnt and avoid the risk of real ants escaping in your bedroom? In addition, sites like Club Penguin, SecondLife, and World of War Craft have replaced the old board or card-based role-playing games.

The best of the hobby shops were the size of small or medium sized department stores and featured not only aisles dedicated to specific product categories, but entire quadrants of the store’s floor space divided into sectors for art and craft hobbies, science hobbies, collector hobbies, and game hobbies.

For science-based hobbies, the ultimate hobby “shop” was Edmund Scientifics’ catalog and for the lucky few in the mid-Atlantic or Northeast states, a trip to the Edmund Scientific store in Barrington, NJ, was a pilgrimage that brought impressive bragging rights. I made that journey many times while visiting my paternal grandmother, who lived near there. I still remember the genuine submarine periscope in the entrance.

These are just a few of the things I, and our culture, will miss with the demise of the local hobby shop:

Magic kits and books of tricks

When I was very young, I fell in love with a short-lived television show called The Magician, starring Bill Bixby, and I loved reading biographies about Harry Houdini. The first career I ever remember saying I wanted to pursue was to be a magician. When my family got me a magic kit, I learned every trick it could do. The local hobby shop had even more gear and books for magic tricks.

Model Trains

Kids today don’t want the time-consuming assembly. Moreover, most of them lack the imagination to see how to keep going with the hobby once their set is completed — at which point all you can do is watch the train just going around repeatedly.

Chemistry Sets

My chemistry set had real glass test tubes., brass weights and a scale, a real glass thermometer, an alcohol burner, Litmus paper, pipettes, a beaker, rubber stoppers, and about 25 to 30 chemicals. Our local hobby shop stocked an additional array of chemicals in a variety of sizes. The rack more than rivaled the spice aisle at a grocery store. My one complaint was that I felt constrained by the book of experiments that came with the kit. If all I ever did was to follow the step-by-step directions, I was just learning by rote. I wanted to learn enough to be able to apply that knowledge to combinations that weren’t in the experiment booklet. With the advent of terrorism concerns and methamphetamine labs, many of those chemicals would now require a permit to purchase.

Telescopes

Today’s kids probably think of astronomy the same ways as I felt about the chemistry experiment book – like they are just following along behind the real astronomers. The odds of discovering a new asteroid or ever being able to see Jupiter better than Pioneer and Voyager have are low even with the best telescope. But I loved mine for the fact that, with your own eye, you could directly see some amazing sights. For some reason, no photo of the Pleiades has ever pleased me as much as seeing it through my telescope.

Photography

I remember on one of my first photography jobs was at a company that did line art for toy catalogs. They asked me to photograph, process, and print pictures of a collection of toys for them to trace for the artwork. The owner said he had a lab I could use — then he handed me an amateur photo developing kit that he bought at a hobby shop. The thermometer was no more than two inches long. The film tank could only hold one roll. The trays were just barely 5X6, and there were only enough chemicals for a first-time trial of about 24 photos. I loved the smell of D-76 — and even the feel of it. I worked barehanded so that I could tell by feel just how fresh the chemicals were and how far along the emulsion was in processing. The chemicals would penetrate my skin, leaving them smelling like a darkroom for days afterward.

Trading cards

I wasn’t one for sports cards; I know nothing about sports. Moreover, the way one used to get introduced to trading cards was through chewing gum. The cards used to come in a pack that included a card-sized plank of bubble gum. The first time I got trading cards, I was really just looking to get some chewing gum. I had cards for Star Wars and Close Encounters. I used to love the television and movie cards.

The best part about the hobby shop was that it catered to your interest and love of the hobby, so it spoke to something within you. You felt connected to the experience. The grocery store? Well, I have to eat, even if I don’t always want to. The clothing store? Unless your hobby is fashion, you are probably buying based on practical reasons. The hardware store? Well, damn it, half the stuff in my house needs fixing and it’s cheaper for me to do it myself, even though I am getting well beyond the point of really wanting to fix anything. But scale models, telescopes, chemistry sets, magic, photography, model trains, those were things for which I enjoyed spending time and money. Sadly, the way our economy and culture are going, I may have a hard time sharing those beloved interests with my sons.

President Obama has decided that there will no longer be a “National Day of Prayer” held in May. He doesn’t want to offend anybody. Where was his concern about offending Christians last January when he allowed the Muslims to hold a day of prayer on the capitol grounds. As a Christian American “I am offended.” If you agree copy and paste no matter what religion you are, this country was built on Freedom

It appears to be a summarized from an e-mail that has circulated since the last National Day of Prayer.

Let us break this down, claim by claim:

President Obama has decided that there will no longer be a “National Day of Prayer” held in May.

No source is cited for this claim, because none exists. It is a lie. Last year, Obama chose not to have the White House National Day of Prayer service, but he did still sign a proclamation recognizing the day and was described as observing the day privately. As of my writing this, he and his staff have made no other statement or proclamation indicating that he will cancel the day.

What is true this week is that a Federal court in Wisconsin — part of the Judiciary branch of government, not the Executive branch, if you recall your grade school education — has ruled that the National Day of Prayer violates the separation of church and state clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights First Amendment. The ruling is subject to further appeal, so this year’s National Day of Prayer can happen as scheduled until a higher court rules. In the event that this case reaches the Supreme Court, because of the separation of powers within our government, the President has no authority over the Judiciary to force either a cancellation or continuation of the National Day of Prayer.

He doesn’t want to offend anybody.

So, you’re offended by people who don’t want to offend people? Isn’t the desire not to offend what we also call politeness? Isn’t it a good thing to be polite? Don’t you raise your kids to be polite? Isn’t the opposite of being polite rude? Your answers to those questions might be thought-provoking, but given that the first sentence was false, they don’t matter to this issue. However, you may want to spend some time meditating on them and considering whether your religion has really provided you with a considerate, polite, and tolerant moral compass. (In case you didn’t get it, I’m inferring the opposite, but by your own measure you ought to admire my willingness to offend, right?)

As for whether or not Obama would avoid involvement in a national day of prayer or, for that matter, any reference to prayer or religion, maybe you should look at these items direct from President Obama on the White House Web site:

• 2009 Presidential Proclamation National Day of Prayer
• Remarks by the President at Easter Prayer Breakfast
• Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast

Where was his concern about offending Christians last January when he allowed the Muslims to hold a day of prayer on the capitol grounds.

The Muslims who prayed in Washington DC in 2009 did not require a license, permit, or any legal approval by the President or anyone within the Executive branch of our Federal government. They required a permit from the city of Washington in the District of Columbia (specifically, the U.S. Capitol Police.) The President neither allowed nor forbade them praying — he simply was not involved at all because their right to assembly and to prayer was not subject to his authority. Moreover, any Christians or Jews or pagans or anyone else who wanted to arrange a similar gathering would have been within their rights. Even atheists would be within their rights to assemble in our nation’s capitol to protest the National Day of Prayer or to observe a self-declared “day of pondering science.” It is, as noted in this viral status, a free country.

Moreover, I feel compelled to ask: Were you offended by allowing Muslims to pray in public? Really? Why would you be offended by Muslims being allowed to pray in public? Would you instead prefer to ban them from praying in public? Is that Christian love, tolerance, and respect? Is that according them the same treatment you would expect for your own beliefs and practices? Oughtn’t you to do unto others as you would have done unto you — and to allow others to do that which you would hope to be allowed to do?

If you want the facts about the “Islam on Capitol Hill” event, then check them.

As a Christian American “I am offended.”

As an Agnostic American, I too am offended — that you would want or accept your government establishing a day when it believes everyone should pray. Regardless of how ecumenical it is (or thinks it is) in acknowledging the rights of all religious people to pray, it is not the government’s job to be telling people when to pray. Nor is doing so inclusive of those Americans who have an equal right under the law to be free from any establishment of any kind of religion, no matter how well intended or “open-minded” it might try to be. Thankfully, the law has stopped short of compelling everyone to pray, but it is pretty close to the border of establishing religion and prayer as the officially sanctioned government preference — and that is a border the government should not be straddling.

If you agree copy and paste no matter what religion you are, this country was built on Freedom.

I love that this last sentence is a run-on sentence. It speaks volumes to the intelligence of whoever originally wrote it. However, I have more intelligent thoughts on the meaning and intent. I agree that no matter what religion you are, this country was built on freedom. One of those freedoms is from any establishment of religion by your government. So your government ought not to be sticking its proclamations into your choice of when, where, how, who, what, why, or even whether to worship. Therefore, the most appropriate response to any government “cancelling” a National Day of Prayer should be relief and gratitude, not anger. Especially if, on other matters, your Republican Conservativism compels you to object to “Big Government” and the “Nanny State.”

And that brings me back to the Federal Court decision from earlier today. Shouldn’t the Conservative response to this court decision be, like their response to the healthcare bill, that we do not need socialized religion? How can you object to “big government” involvement in fostering affordable healthcare for all Americans, yet you welcome having the government tell you — and everyone else — what day to pray? Or even to pray at all!

Think about it: This ruling in no way restricts your religious freedom. You can still pray on May 6 — or any other day you choose. You just won’t have the government telling you to do so. And isn’t that the definition of freedom?

Additional coverage of this topic:

• I found Michael Stone’s reporting in the Portland Progressive Examiner to be a clear analysis of the viral Facebook message.
• About.com’s Urban Legends page gives a concise analysis.
• You may also want to re-acquaint yourself with the First Amendment and the principle of separation of church and state, as well as the origins and history of the National Day of Prayer.

Since no such statement was made, the question is misleading. Therefore, the only correct answer is to not answer and to call-out the questioner’s motives for lying.

To my eyes, the question is intended to be divisive. If you answer “No,” you probably believe that Christianity is under attack in a culture war with Liberals and/or a spectrum of people who are, in a word, unChristian and you need to defend your faith — even if it means pushing the Church into the State. If you answer “Yes,” you probably believe that Conservative Christians are waging a culture war of intolerance against the broad spectrum of people of other faiths who have a right to either get equal representation in the public forum or to not have one religion’s culture dominate theirs — even if that means altering or removing traditions that Christians have had the luxury of enjoying in the public sphere by virtue of their historical majority in America.

Being an independent moderate, I’m going to analyze this and come to my own answer.

I tend to be a Literalist. If you are going to call it a Christmas Tree, it had better be a Christmas Tree and by Christmas, I mean concretely tied to Christ’s birth, or at least his life. Sounds Conservative of me, right? To that end:

1. Where is the Biblical support for the tradition?
2. What about the Christmas Tree makes it Christian?
3. What is on your Christmas Tree that you would use to defend calling it Christmas or Christian?

The Bible does not say there was a pine tree next to the manger — or even that the manger was made of pine lumber. At the Last Supper, Jesus didn’t say, “The bread is my body, the wine is my blood, and the pine tree is my birthday cake.” Instead, Jesus upholds the Old Testament commandment to not worship idols (Matthew 4:10, “Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.”) Christmas Trees are merely rebranded pagan decorations and may not be consistent with some more fundamentalist Christian folks. Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Amish, and the United Church of God are all very devout Christian groups who do not have Christmas Trees and would probably either not care about a “Holiday Tree” or would, more conservatively, object to any tree at all.

Most of the time a “Christmas” Tree is a secular abstraction and a Literalist would be hard pressed to find much concretely Christian about it. At best, the star on top (if there is one) might be claimed to be the Star of Bethlehem. And some Conservative Christians might adorn it with ornaments that have Christian meaning. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people, including those who conservatively insist on calling it a Christmas Tree, have ladled this abstract icon with a mélange of secular, commercial, and even pagan ornaments.

Sometimes, the pagan ornaments find their way on there without the Christian even recognizing them as pagan in origin. Most Americans who would describe themselves a Christian also include Santa Claus in their Christmas celebrations and decorations. Yes, he did have a Christian origin in Saint Nicholas. However, he has become Santa Claus, the jolly old elf who has a factory full of elves. Elves? We’re back to pagan influences. Moreover, the modern Santa Claus is similarly questioned by the most conservative religious groups as being a secular tool of commercialism. Finally, he has many of the attributes of God (he watches you, he keeps a list of who is naughty or nice), which opens the question about whether he violates the first commandment.

I would ask that anyone who so publically defends calling it a Christmas Tree really stand back and take a long, hard look at their own tree this year. Are all of your ornaments religious? No Mickey and Minnie or other cartoon characters? No pagan fairies, pixies, elves? No golf clubs, sports team emblems, or other symbols of your favorite leisure activities? Nothing secular or commercial at all?

The logic of calling it a Christmas Tree is not supported by the Bible, the history of the tradition, or the way in which most people use it.

So I have, in an odd way, my own “conservative” side that would put me on the side of some of the most Conservative Christians — even more Conservative than most of those who insist it should be called a Christmas Tree. However, I am an independent moderate and see another side, as well. I will now lean toward a Liberal way of thinking…

People hold strongly to what they have known in their own lifetime, as if that is the way that it has always been. “Call it a Holiday Tree?!? Why, it’s always been a Christmas Tree and to change it would be unChristian!” However, it has only been a Christmas Tree since the 16th century — and even then started within a sub-culture of Christianity until it spread in the 19th century. Let’s also not ignore that its popularity coincided quite well with Commercialism and Consumerism, and the marketing of this tradition accounts more for its widespread use than any religious tradition.

By calling it a Holiday Tree, it allows a broader range of people to come together in peace and celebration — and isn’t that what Christianity is supposed to be about? I have open-minded Jewish friends who put up a Hanukkah Bush every year. I have open-minded pagan friends who put up a Winter Solstice Tree. I even have open-minded atheist friends who put up a decorated tree. None of this changes the core of their Judaism, paganism, or atheism, but it does allow all of us to celebrate together. And I have friends of all stripes who don’t put up any tree at all – and they are still fine people.

So do I call it a Christmas Tree or a Holiday Tree? Well, I call it a Christmas Tree when it is overtly Christian, devoid of anything secular or pagan, and is in a church or the home of someone who is a devout Christian, which is not very often. Or, sometimes, to at least show respect to gracious and polite hosts who insist on calling it a Christmas Tree within their home. Most of the time, however, calling it a Holiday Tree is more inclusive, expresses more love for my neighbor of any faith or lack thereof, and fosters peace on Earth (or at least here in America) and goodwill toward humanity — and to object to that would be unChristian.

Besides, would you rather there be no tree at all?

My first real telescope was from Montgomery Ward. I am sure even moderately experienced amateur astronomers would scoff at the quality of such an inexpensive, store bought scope. Nevertheless, from ages 12 to 22, it was certainly better than owning no scope at all and I always enjoyed using it. I have since seen better telescopes and would very much love to own one, but that in no way renders my cherished memories of my first telescope worthless. I often think of it this way: For whatever an astronomy purist might say to deride my first telescope or any department store telescope, it was certainly manufactured with better specifications and quality than Galileo’s handmade telescope that he used 400 years earlier to discover four of Jupiter’s moons.

It was a 60mm refractor, meaning it had a 60mm diameter lens at the front of the tube and the viewing lens at the other end of the tube. I don’t recall the tube focal length, but I think it was about 600mm. It came with a very heavy and stable tripod mounting — with the outer tube of the legs made from heavy steel and two inner extensions made with lighter aluminum. Everything moved smoothly and tightened down securely.

Unlike most beginner scopes today, which are actually better than what I had, it had a single viewing lens mounted in an extendable tube. With the viewing lens pushed all the way in, it offered a default 15X magnification. That was great for spotting objects and getting them centered in the scope. You could then slowly pull the viewing lens out to three additional positions that it would stop at with an audible click. Each click doubled the magnification. You could go from 15X to 30X to 60X to 120X. Of course, you would have to fine-tune the focus of the image each time, but the convenience of just incrementing through the stops was worth it. It saved time over swapping eyepieces and kept moisture and dust out of the tube. I haven’t seen a similar design in over 25 years.

My first telescope died when the focusing rack-and-pinion broke. The “rack” gear — the long, straight one — cracked one night in cold weather, about ten years after I got the scope. Unfortunately, I couldn’t fix it, nor could I replace it. I went as far as trying to find a replacement for the entire eyepiece assembly, but whoever made the Montgomery Ward telescopes in the 1970s had used parts that matched neither the metric nor the English sizes.

For nearly 20 years, I have longed to own another telescope. Now having two sons, I am eager to introduce them to the wonders they could see. I know what a high quality and expensive telescope would offer and it would be fantastic to own one. However, I keep reminding myself that they will likely be just as amazed as I was to look through any telescope and see mountains on the moon, moons orbiting Jupiter, rings around Saturn, the stunningly beautiful Pleiades, and the amazing colors in the Orion nebula.

I would love to find a great quality telescope at a cheap garage sale, but I am not averse to buying a “low” quality telescope at a department store. My advice to anyone thinking of getting their kids a telescope is this: Do not go overboard, just make sure it is from a known brand name (Celestron, Meade, Bushnell, or Tasco); even a modest one will give your kids a glimpse of the beauty and wonder of our universe. And that is certainly a great start from which they can grow.

My new home office is now at least complete enough to have assembled furniture, which means I can start using it. I began moving into it this weekend.

In boxes packed six years ago, I have found the following:

• Every computer book I unpack violates my rule of not having any computer books with copyrights more than five years old.
• Worthless software from the Windows 98 and ME era.
• My 15-year-old After Dark Disney screensaver collection. I doubt it will run on Vista.
• Scores of 3.5″ diskettes. One box was new, never used, and went straight into the garbage.
• A pair of analog “rabbit ears” TV antenna — very useful now that digital TV has finally become the standard.
• A bunch of remote controls for things I no longer own.
• A brand new Handspring Visor that cost $400+ as a gift for my wife. Now worth less than $50 on eBay.
• An all-too-silly “Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 Commemorative Edition” CD in a tri-fold mailer full of marketing hype. Commemorative? I wonder what that is selling for as an eBay collectible?
• Scraps of paper with reminders for things I was supposed to do six or more years ago.
• My original scissors, tape dispenser, letter trays, stapler, and a complete collection of other original desk accessories — all of which I bought replacements for two-and-a-half years ago when I started Thabit Lee Media and couldn’t find the box of original supplies.
• My 30-year-old index card file box, which I have long since replaced with Windows Contacts.
• Close to 100 audio cassettes, most of them containining personal stuff I will now need to digitize. I also found my audio cassette deck to aid in the transfer.
• Enough recyclable paper to fill a paper grocery bag. And enough shredable paper to fill a third of a grocery bag.
• My first LaCie external CD burner, which ran at an amazing 4X speed and connected via a SCSI cable and card.
• A 56k dial-up modem.
• Enough dried out pens and highlighters to build a nice scale model of a log cabin.

I wouldn’t mind all this quite so much if something among it had retained or increased in value. After all, the new office has cost me probably over $2000 and will continue to require more investment for a new router, a NAS, probably a new Mac and maybe even a new PC soon, among other expenses. I just hope in six years I am not picking through another round of boxes of junk.

I woke up Friday morning, anxious to check the weather because I had travel plans for the weekend. Within a few minutes, I clicked through every local and national news channel, only to find that every one of them was running continuous coverage of Michael Jackson’s death. Even the local cable channel that everyone calls “the ugly news” was finding ways to cover it. I had to sit through ten minutes of “Michael Jackson has been dead for more than twelve hours, and still is, but we are continuing to follow this developing story…” before they finally paused to give a few seconds’ sound bite for the weather, after which they went right back to breaking news about Michael Jackson.

Developing? Breaking? More than twelve hours later? I began to wonder whether Michael would arise from the dead and reveal that he is, after all, the Second Coming.

I burned out on Michael Jackson while he was still at the height of his career. I bought “Shake Your Body Down to the Ground” and “Beat It,” but I didn’t consider much else worth buying. The white glove thing seemed silly and pretentious to me. Moreover, after Thriller, he quickly went weird, getting surgery to look like Diana Ross, setting up the Neverland ranch as a creepy Peter Pan haven, and constantly grabbing his crotch. His songs became lame. If Annie were okay, he would not have to ask “Annie are you okay” forty-three times in a four minute song (“Smooth Criminal”.) I was relieved when Nirvana’s Nevermind bumped Jackson’s Dangerous off the charts.

When the pedophile charges came out and the court cases ensued and dragged on, I got thoroughly disgusted with the freak show – and the freak at the center of it. Yes, I know, he was not found guilty. But, c’mon, even if there were no lines crossed, what is a man doing hanging out with an entourage of pre-pubescent boys? Why would he have them at his house for sleepovers, regardless of who slept in what bed? He was either a totally naïve idiot or he was bordering on an unhealthy interest. The circumstances themselves should not have been arising and every other adult professional around him should have been bursting any naïve bubble he may have been in.

When it came time to replace my vinyl 45s with MP3s, I no longer considered any of Jackson’s songs worth getting. Even if I accepted (which I do not) the “it’s the artistry, not the artist” argument, I just don’t think Jackson’s songs have aged well enough to still be considered great songs. On an artistic level, he is not the Beatles, he is not the Rolling Stones, he is not Fleetwood Mac, nor the Police, or Led Zeppelin, or Billy Joel, or any of a long list of other great 60s, 70s, or 80s musicians. More than that, however, I also cannot separate the “man” from his music. I refuse to buy anything he’s ever made because I don’t think he, either artist or person, deserves my money.

So to have Franken Jackson’s face thrust before me on more than a score of television channels Friday morning was more than I could take. I quickly set my facebook status to notify the world that I was boycotting television, radio, and even the Internet all weekend, waiting for the hype to blow over. Even before I logged off, I had Like and Comment notices indicating others agreed with me.

I have to confess, on my evening drive up to Saratoga Springs, I reached Albany and my resolve to avoid all media was wavering. I was well within WEQX range. EQX is a great, independent radio station from Manchester, Vermont. They play a lot of Modern Rock and advertise themselves as the “real alternative.” They introduced me to Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Blur, Oasis, Matthew Sweet, The Church, Joy Division, Arcade Fire, Fatboy Slim, Moby, Spoon, and Snow Patrol, among others. If I could count on any radio station to avoid getting caught-up in the media frenzy, it would be EQX. When I broke my resolution and turned on EQX, they were playing Wilco. I felt relieved.

However, as soon as Wilco ended, the DJ came on and started talking about Michael Jackson. He blathered on all too politely, regarding Jackson as an artist and musician, diplomatically dismissing any other considerations. What really pissed me off was when he said that every artist since the 80s would cite Michael Jackson as an influence and voice their respect for him as an artist. Excuse me? Why can I not imagine Noel Gallagher doing that? Nor, for that matter, very many other 90s Alternative Rock musicians who wanted to break the corporate produced mold that Jackson not only represented, but was their biggest, bestselling product.

I turned off EQX and remained in a media blackout until Sunday night. While I doubt the media will drop this story any time soon, I am hoping that voicing my distaste for the coverage will encourage others to do the same and we can finally get back to talking about far more important current events, such as the Iranian election, climate change, and the faltering global economy.

Late last week, a facebook friend posted a link to this article: “Another One Bites The Dust” among the odder funeral request songs – Huddersfield Examiner. Reading it, I thought about what songs I would want played at my funeral and realized I finally had a meme I could start and spread.

The rules:

• Tag some people who you would like to see participate.
• List 10 to 20 songs that you would want played at your funeral.
• Try to be both genuine and original. I.e., don’t list “Stairway to Heaven” or “Another One Bites the Dust” just to be cute here, unless you would really want it played at your funeral.
• List them in the order you want them played — 1 is the first song to open your service
• The last song you list would be played at graveside or cremation.
• Have fun! Make a statement. It’s your funeral.

Here is my list (I had a hard time limiting to 20!):

1. Mahna Mahna by Mahna Mahna & The Two Snowths (Muppets)
2. Tomorrow Never Knows (Anthology 2 version) by The Beatles
3. Imagine by John Lennon
4. Joy by Apollo 100
5. Cat’s In The Cradle by Harry Chapin
6. I Believe in Father Christmas by Greg Lake
7. Mr. Blue Sky by ELO
8. Elephant Stone (Mint Royale remix) by The Stone Roses
9. One Love (full-length version) by The Stone Roses
10. No Man’s Land by Billy Joel
11. Dear God by XTC
12. Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve
13. Lilah by Don Henley
14. My Love by Paul McCartney & Wings
15. I Will Follow You Into the Dark by Deathcab for Cutie
16. The Scientist by Coldplay
17. Mad World by Gary Jules
18. Choose Life by PF Project
19. Shut Your Eyes by Snow Patrol
20. There’s a New Sound by Scooter (Muppets)

I have just posted the above list to facebook and tagged ten of my friends. I am eager to see whether it takes on a life of its own — or faces its own funeral in silence.

As a bonus to readers of my blog, I am going to include a list of some of the songs that did not make it into the list above:

• Paperback Writer by The Beatles
• All You Need is Love by The Beatles
• Golden Slumbers by The Beatles
• Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney
• Last Resort by Eagles
• Songbird by Fleetwood Mac
• Life in a Northern Town by The Dream Academy
• She Bangs the Drums by The Stone Roses
• Here’s Where the Story Ends by The Sundays
• Teen Angst (What the World Needs Now) by Cracker
• Live Forever by Oasis
• I’m a Little Snowflake by Laurie Berkner

1. Landline phones: The highly unlikely scenario leaves me to wonder… but what happens when you dial 911 and can’t speak? Unless your cell can provide your location, going without a landline seems somehow riskier. Moreover, you will always have to keep your cell charged — and remember where you left the damnably small thing.
2. Floppy disks: I migrated off these almost a decade ago, burning every one of them to CD-Rs. I’ve been trying to migrate off of CD-Rs and onto a large external hard drive, with backup to DVD-Rs. All that said, I still have every e-mail, every Word doc, PDF, spreadsheet, photo, mp3, video, or any other files I’ve generated going all the way back to 1991. In addition, I have archives of most of the Web sites I’ve worked on.
3. Wristwatches:: I miss my Casio G-Shock. A glance at my wrist is still faster than fumbling for my cell phone in its holster. Moreover, my G-Shock had a 7-year battery life, while my cell has only 3 days in stand-by mode. I do still own a wind-up watch in an emergency bag, in case the eschatologists are right.
4. VHS tape and VCRs: Ah, fond memories of trekking down to South Broadway, in the snow, to rent a VCR and some tapes and then trek back, in the snow. I have fond memories of discovering unusual tapes to rent — and not so fond memories of 6 weeks working at a horrible video store. Arduous memories of having to buy scores of DVDs to replace the scores of VHS tapes I bought. Now I am left with a small pile of aging VHS tapes I need to digitize at some point.
5. Beepers: The prelude of the obnoxious cell phone era. A minister in Saratoga had one and seemed like the most pompous ass I had ever met when he had to cut short visiting my grandmother when it beeped right when he arrived at her hospital bedside. Maybe it was God?
6. Film cameras: While I am blown away by the thought of someday replacing my Nikon n8008 with a Nikon D700 or D3, I find this loss the second-most-painful. To really learn and internalize photographic principles, you had to keep track of how you took each photo, so that you could remember when you saw the developed result hours or days later. Moreover, I am still awed by the color, clarity, and tone of Kodachrome. Paul Simon will never sing a song about SD memory cards or ink jet printers. In addition, I loved the smell of the chemicals and the feel of the developing prints as they moved from tray to tray. Digital is so much cleaner, easier, and reliable, but film was magic.
7. Typewriters: This is the first-most-painful loss from this list. No, I do not lament the painful fingers I got from learning to type on a manual typewriter. However, I do miss the hum and warmth of my two Smith-Coronas. As with film photography, you had to know how to spell and had to know your grammar to get it right the first time on a typewriter. Moreover, seeing the pages of my first novel stack up on my desk was a better visceral measure of my progress than Microsoft Word’s status bar reporting some number of pages. Moreover, the freaking Internet wasn’t an omnipresent distraction from my writing. I had to budget my research time for library trips. Now, I go to look up one thing and find myself drawn into grazing through links into tangential topics.
8. The Walkman, Discman and MiniDisc player: I owned a knock-off called a Kasuga, from DAK Industries’ mail order catalog. It had AM/FM and cassette — and could record! It lasted until just a few days off warranty. I still prefer CDs to MP3s — because CDs do offer uncompressed sound quality and we’ve forgotten all about the quality of our music listening in our hectic, ever portable lives. I’d rather sit still in front of an audiophile component stereo system, really think about the lyrics, and feel the emotional contour of the melody, thank you.
9. Dial-up Internet access: Another thing I left behind almost a decade ago — and with no regrets. Well, broadband does offer that distraction of being “always on,” so you can always be sucked into the Web, instead of doing other things. Come to think of it, dial-up made you think about whether and when you went on and how long you stayed — or sometimes it forced you off, which might have been what you needed.
10. DVDs: See VHS tapes, above. Now that I have bought the entire James Bond library on VHS and then on DVD, I will now have to buy it yet again on Blu-ray — and in another 10 years, it will probably be available in Hi-Def via online streaming, anytime, anywhere, for a dollar or two per play.

To the list above, I would add:

• CRT displays, whether tube televisions or computer monitors
• Incandescent lighting
• Newspapers
• PDAs – as standalone devices without an integrated cell phone
• Paper checks
• Audio cassettes
• Snail mail, especially letters and greeting cards
• And quite probably Humans someday — maybe soon, if we don’t get our act together

I just hope books are never obsolete.

Mind you, before I saw 24 Hour Party People, the only Joy Division song I had heard was “Love Will Tear Us Apart.” I liked the song, but didn’t know enough of their oeuvre to prompt me to buy a CD or otherwise seek out more. The movie, changed that. I was so impressed with “Transmission,” “Atmosphere,” “Digital,” and “She’s Lost Control” that I added a couple of Joy Division CDs to my wish list.

Tonight I had to return some DVDs to my local library, a couple of miles from my house. While I was there, I remembered they have a CD collection, so I decided to look for some Joy Division there. I found their second, posthumous album, Closer, and checked it out just before the library closed at 9:00 p.m.

Out in the car, I put in the disc and turned it up. About a quarter of a mile from the library, I felt a frisson ripple through me. The first track, “Atrocity Exhibition,” is about an insane asylum as entertainment and that then as metaphor for the human condition. It has a prominent drum and bass line, as well as injections of rattling, scratching noises. The rhythm is relentless, the imagery disturbing, and there is a constant invitation, “This is the way, step inside…”

My shudder of creepy piloerection, however, came from more than the song. It was the collusion of the song and the drive. My home is a left and a right and a left and a right and a left and a right expedition ending at a tree-circled cul-de-sac. Under heavy cloud cover, there was no moonlight. My headlights were the only light on winding, hilly, and heavily wooded suburban streets. Strong, gusty wind was ripping leaves from the trees, showering them down in shifting jerks and often driving them laterally across the road in front of me, as if they were running from some force approaching from the west. The car swayed with the road and with the wind. Then, in dark homage to American Beauty, I saw a plastic bag swirling and rolling in fits around a front lawn, like some trash-embodied ghost come early for Samhainn. And all the while, Ian Curtis invited me. “This is the way, step inside…”

This year, I am fighting a much harder to stop adversary. Specifically, it is “Iowa” 319-447-5488, which I have traced back to a survey company.

On Wednesday 9/17, I received yet another call from these jerks. Finally, there was an actual person on the other end of the line. I immediately told her we are on the Do Not Call list. Her response was an equally immediate “We are a survey organization; we’re exempt from the Do Not Call list.” Nevertheless, I hung up and then submitted the complaint online.

Then I decided to dig deeper into the FTC.gov site and discovered this:

“Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted,”
(http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm)

She was right. Despite my asking them to take me off their list because I do not want to receive calls from them, the Do Not Call list lacks the tooth to stop them. The best I could hope for is that if they ignore my request to stop calling me, I could maybe file harassment charges. Of course, that would likely mean sending them a letter from a lawyer to document my original request – and who has the time or money to deal with that?

My phone number is unlisted, but random auto-dialers still get through. I am on the Do Not Call list, but it has exceptions to its jurisdiction. The system has to change.

First, we need to kill this notion that free speech for political candidates, survey organizations, or anyone else I don’t want to call me extends to my private phone number. Look, if I post a notice at the front of my property that says “no commercial, religious, political, or other soliciting” or maybe post a sign that says, more generally, “no trespassing,” then I am legally within my rights to file trespassing charges against anyone who walks past that sign to knock on my front door and interrupt my day. The same should extend to my phone. If I what I really want by being on the Do Not Call list is to limit my incoming phone calls to just friends, family, and *real* business relationships I have (i.e. my bank calling me not to offer me some new service, but to advise me of something quirky with my account), then I should have the right to do that and to prosecute anyone, anywhere who does not honor it.

Based on that, the second thing we need is a Do Not Call list with more options. Maybe some people like phone surveys. Let them opt in. I will opt out. Or maybe there are people who don’t mind receiving calls to support their political candidate. Fine, let them specify such. For me, I will actively seek out the politician I want to support.

Third, we need a rebuilt Caller ID system that cannot be spoofed to show just “Iowa” or “California” or other ambiguous Caller IDs. Really, Iowa is calling me? The entire state of Iowa is calling me? I didn’t know that many people could share one party line. No, it’s just useless information that makes a mockery of “caller identification.” And it ought to be criminalized as fraudulent representation.

Finally, we need a more technologically robust phone system supported by price-competitive phone companies. My phone service is through Verizon. Yes, they do offer a call-blocking service. However, it is limited to only a finite set of numbers and the price hardly seems worth it. Just like my Norton software lets me subscribe to an ever-growing list of blocked spammers, so too I want my phone company to offer a blocking service that takes the known phone numbers of solicitors who have been communally agreed-upon as offensive. Solicitors who auto-dial and hang-up. Solicitors who won’t take “no” as a deterring answer. And I want an easy to use phone method or Web interface to flag or enter-in numbers of callers I want blocked.

Can we get to work on this now? Before my phone rings again?

Original post:

As of last night, May 20, around 11:00 p.m., some asshole spammer out there has been sending out e-mails that have my domain in the from: line. These spam e-mails are not from me. Whoever is doing this is “e-mail spoofing” the from: line with a bogus address at my domain.

If I ever find out who they are, which I realize is a futile hope, I will file a libel/slander lawsuit against them, since sending spam spoofed with my domain is as damaging to me and my reputation as libel or slander would be.

I have asked my Web host to investigate, but I am not confident that anything will come of it. What the entire Internet really needs are much more strict requirements for how e-mail works and is validated.

Update:

During the last 36 hours, I have received over 250 e-mails that have bounced back into my Inbox. All of them have come back from automated systems — either from anti-spam programs or from undeliverable e-mails to expired accounts. I’ve weathered the storm by setting up my own automated rules to Trash the messages — and I hope I’m not inadvertently trashing any legitimate e-mails.

My Web host has been extremely helpful in making some changes to my mail server and they have recommended I check out the Sender Policy Framework (http://www.openspf.org/). They have also offered some reassurance that spammers typically use a spoofed domain for only a cycle or two of spamming and then move on.

When I shared my predicament with a friend, his response was the amusing “look on the bright side” suggestion that it might generate more traffic to my humble little site. I’m not a fan of the “even bad publicity is publicity” mindset. I want a bigger audience, but not this way.