Bernie Goes Bust

If you follow me on Facebook it should be no secret to you that I support Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. I guess I should say that I supported Bernie Sanders. Until last night, I held out a minor modicum of hope that he might still seek the Democratic nomination or might run as an independent, despite what he's said over the last few weeks.

Last night, I watched a few minutes of Sanders' speech at the DNC in Philadelphia. I was hit with a sense of finality when he said, "Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States. The choice is not even close." Many in attendance were hit with this as well. From the crowd came a mixture of cheers and sounds of dissent. I'm not sure what I will do in November but let's rewind a little.

I supported Bernie Sanders not because he was anti-establishment but because he was true. First, he eschewed corporate money and mounted an incredibly successful supporter-funded campaign. If real people just like me hadn't wanted him to run, his campaign would have fizzled before it really got started. He made it all the way to the convention. If he wanted, he could seriously contend for the nomination.

The second reason is his integrity. I'm not using integrity in the sense that he's scandal-free. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. What I'm saying is that, throughout his political career, his messages and goals have been consistent. He has always been for a fair wage. He has always been for human rights. He has always been in favor of education. He has always been for more equitable distribution of wealth. Okay, maybe you can point to some instance where one or more of these statements do not hold true but, overall, he's been fighting for the same things since he started.

My third reason for supporting him is his message. Do I agree with every goal he wants to attain? No, I don't. Do I agree with every method he wants to use to attain those goals? No, I don't. Do I believe all of his goals are attainable within a four-year term? No, I don't. The thing is, though, that he is the only one really talking about some of these issues. While many of the candidates have been hitting hot buttons of "christian" values, the sanctity of marriage, who should use which bathroom, and discussing hand size in relation to manhood, Sanders has continued to talk about raising the standard of living, bringing back the middle class, improving access to higher education, reforming the student loan system that's structured in heavy favor of the lenders, and no longer considering a business a person.

As Sanders gained momentum and there was a good chance he could win the nomination, Clinton started parroting some of Sanders' rhetoric, presumably to sway some of his supporters to her side: "See, I can do that too." Her inconsistency of message alone caused me to be leery of her but the email scandal is what really made me distrust her. Her use of an external server really doesn't bother me that much. There have been others that have done the same. Was it a wise thing to do? Certainly not! Utilizing a server outside the government network poses a technological security risk at the very least. If even one work-related email passed through that system then it poses a national security risk. That can all be handled internally and might be the catalyst for a formal rule change but that wasn't my primary focus. What caused my distrust was the deletion of a large number of emails from that system after the contents were requested by the congressional committee or the FBI or whomever requested them.

For a long time after Clinton started to gain her lead, Sanders would not entertain the idea that he would not be the nominee. He was asked if he lost the nomination would he support Clinton and his response was that he did not intend to lose the nomination. He was asked if he would run as an independent and he saw no need to. At some point after Clinton "locked up" to nomination, as a result of shenanigans or not, she and Sanders must have had a meeting. I say this because almost overnight he put his support behind her and told the media that he would not run as an independent no matter the outcome. Then, in his speech at the convention, he spoke about student loan debt saying, "During the primary campaign, Secretary Clinton and I both focused on this issue but with different approaches. Recently, however, we have come together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America."

I know why he did it. The Republicans are not putting forth a united front and he wants to ensure that the Democrats do. I applaud him for that and I applaud Hillary Clinton for working with Bernie Sanders to put forth a united platform. I am disappointed that Clinton's choice of running mate was not Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren but I see a high probability that Sanders will be appointed to a position in the Clinton presidency where the two collaborate. At least, that's what I hope. Either that or I see Sanders ending up in a powerful congressional position to the same effect.

So, in all likelihood, come November, I will have a megalomaniacal [insert additional negative adjectives here] oligarch on one side, an entrenched politician who even the FBI thinks is shady on the other, and candidates from whatever tangential parties may show up on the ballot. I certainly don't want Trump to be my president. Without getting too opinionated, I do not feel he represents me or my interests in any way, shape, or form and I distrust Clinton to follow through on her promises. I would like to think I would vote for one of the non-major-party candidates but I honestly fear that doing so would tilt the election in Trump's favor - and that scares the hell out of me.

I don't know who, at this point, will get my vote for president in November. The only thing I can say for certain is that I will cast my vote then hope and pray that everything turns out okay.

Not Just No But HELL NO! To SOPA And PIPA

You may not have heard of this but with all the publicity you probably have. Congress is working on a new bill called the Stop Online Priacy Act or SOPA. It has been introduced and championed by none other than those who refuse to change their business models to meet popular demand and attempt to punish their customers as a means of survival: The Entertainment Industry.

Here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.^[4]

Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.^[5] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.^[6]

Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment,^[7] is Internet censorship,^[8] will cripple the Internet,^[9] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.^[7][10] Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by English Wikipedia and major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.

Here's the part that concerns me.  It requires "Internet service providers to block access to [infringing websites]." ISPs are a utility, not an enforcement agency. It's like asking the gas company to patrol the streets and turn off the gas to the homes of suspected drug dealers. It's an impossible task.

Okay, maybe ISPs won't have to patrol for the sites but simply block them when they are informed about them. Well, that currently requires a court order and sounds a lot like DMCA takedown notices and we all know how well those have worked out.

Boil it down and it's censorship without due process. I am all for copyright owners protecting their works but this is not the way. It blatantly ignores the concept of fair use which includes criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

How You Can Take Action: (many taken from the EFF website)

1. Via Google: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
2. Call your Senators and Representative and tell them to oppose Protect-IP and SOPA, respectively.  Click here for some suggested talking points.
3. Contact Congress through EFF’s action center.  Customize your letter to explain who you are and why you are worried about this bill.
4. Do you administer a website? Then put a banner on your site protesting censorship or link to EFF’s action center. I put a banner on my wav site.

Don't be silent or you may be silenced.

Can Windows Phone 7 Series Make It?

I was just reading that, as I feared, the tens of thousands of Windows Mobile applications currently available will be useless on WP7. In fact, current phones won't even be able to handle the new operating system so it's a brand new start for Microsoft.

Microsoft has made some moves that put them into a position to continue to be competitive in this market. They've created the Microsoft Marketplace (which I'm not even sure how to access - or if I even can) to compete with the App Store and have brought Zune functionality to the operating system to compete with the media functions of the iPhone (come on, we all know that's the phone to beat).

The Zune marketplace and social aspects are already in place and they're not too bad. It should be easy to plug the phone into that environment. What's going to hurt Microsoft is if they have problems with access to the Marketplace, if they carry over those stupid Microsoft Points that don't relate to any value in the real world and if they don't have a ginormous amount of applications available out of the gate. In other words, if they handle the phone store like they've handled the Zune HD markeplace, they're dead in the phone market. They're on good track if they don't f#@k it up.

Fear Of The Unknown

I am really scared that decisions are being made that will significantly impact my future and not necessarily for the better. I cannot speak out for or against health care reform, financial reform, military actions and the like because I just don't have the necessary information. The information is hard enough to find and gather and understand but I simply can't spend time thinking about these things.

I'm having enough trouble keeping my sanity balanced just trying to move through the day from when I wake up to when I go to sleep. Now on top of all that I have a president and a group of "leaders" who are making decisions on my behalf that live in their ivory towers where the rules don't apply to them and who have no clue what it's like to live like the people they represent. It scares me that they will make those decisions and there ain't a damn thing I can do about it. I cast my vote (and will continue to do so) but it just seems to get deeper and deeper.

I must stop now or my fear will turn to insanity.

The Passing Of A Legend (in his own mind at the very least)

I heard today that Oral Roberts passed away yesterday at the age of 91. I mention this not because I was a follower or a fan but because I grew up in Tulsa, OK where Roberts' ministry is based. Tulsa is also the home of Oral Roberts University.

When I was growing up, Oral Roberts had an evangelical broadcast every Sunday. I don't know if it was syndicated* or not but I never watched. The reason I remember the man is that he had a way of extending his reach beyond the Sunday Broadcast.

Roberts was one of the first televised evangelical preachers. Most of what I remember about his broadcasts was that he often talked about faith healing, which I believe is possible but not to the extent he claims - especially not what he claimed personal responsibility for, and appeals for money. I think it was him that I once heard say, with closed eyes and face toward heaven, "I feel
someone's arm healing. Someone who is listening tonight. Someone in the audience has an arm that is feeling better. I want you to reach that arm deep into your pocket..." In all honesty, I cannot tell you if the part about reaching deep into the pocket was real or not (the first part was and similar proclamations were common) or if it was inserted into my memory by my opinion of him.

Four things about his ministry stand out in my mind. One of them relates to his son, Richard, but we'll get to that in a moment.

First is Oral Roberts University. The university in and of itself is not terribly remarkable but the campus has one interesting feature: The Prayer Tower. The Prayer Tower stands prominently in the center of campus like a miniature space needle. It is visually interesting (click the link for a picture) but I once had the opportunity to see beyond its decorative purpose.

During a church retreat, presumably in an effort to learn more about other religions, we took a tour of the prayer tower. We went up into it and saw that the outer edge is lined with rooms (prayer rooms) into which Pilgrims (for lack of a better word) can go to pray. The unusual part was that there were phones outside each room that visitors could pick up to listen to the pilgrim praying and, I would think, join in. I guess for the faithful it is something important but it has always stuck in my mind as weird.

Second is the City of Faith hospital. The hospital was wrought with controversy before ground was ever broken. The hospital was built adjacent to the university campus. The city council noted that, at the time, there was not a need for a medical facility in that area of town and made requests that it be relocated to a more appropriate section. Roberts apparently needed to have his creation close to home base. (check the link, it has some information on the events that Tulsans got to poke fun at while the CoF was being built - including the infamous 900-foot Jesus)

The hospital tower itself is beautiful. Its golden facade stands tall and shines in the sun. It can easily be seen from several miles away when traveling NE on interstate 44 from Oklahoma City. I once had an opportunity to go inside (I think on the same church retreat) the lobby while it was still operating as a hospital and it was a monument to true opulence and excess. At the time, the 60-story center tower was only complete up to the 32nd floor or so and the 60th story was complete but everything in between was still under construction. If memory serves, those floors never were completed while it was a hospital.

Now, the CityPlex Towers are mostly office space but they once housed the Tulsa office of Cancer Treatment Centers of America which, in my opinion, did more good overall than the hospital ever did.

Within six years, the City of Faith was bleeding money and Roberts told his television audience that he had had a vision that if he did not raise $8 million by a certain date, God was going to "call him home," meaning he was going to die (this was event #3). The fundraising was down to the wire but an anonymous donor pledged the remaining amount. I don't remember the actual amount but it was significant. And, yes, he had that kind of power over people. Some Tulsans wanted his efforts to fail just to see whether or not his vision was true. Being as he reached the age of 91, I guess God wasn't near as ready to call Oral home as he had thought.

Finally Oral's son, Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University at the time, was accused of misuse of university assets (money). I recall seeing a television interview with him regarding his expenditures (which may not have been related to the ORU scandal). The reporter asked Richard why, if the ministry was in need of money (which they were constantly asking for), was he building a multi-million dollar mansion? Richard's response was that a member of the congregation had donated the funds to build the house. The reporter countered by asking why Roberts had not requested that the money be put into the ministry rather than a house that he did not need. Roberts just insisted that the money was specifically for the house. This went back and forth a bit but the gist of it that I came away with was Roberts saying, "But it's MY money."

There are many other stories and jokes and incidents I could relate but let's just say it was interesting growing up in the midst of all of this.

To all of Roberts' followers: I do not belittle the man's passing. He was somebody's husband, father, friend, leader and inspiration. He will be missed. It is not my intention to shed a negative light on him but to share my memories of him and his ministry which tend, unfortunately, to be largely cynical. I am certain that he did good works and there are people in this world today that wouldn't be where they are without him. That just isn't the side of him to which I was exposed.

----------------------
* I accidentally misspelled that sindicated - I found it somewhat Freudian.

POPPIES Poppies poppies poppies

I've been having a lot of weird, existential thoughts lately. Did I use that right? Let's see... Existential - adj - pertaining to existence. Yeah, I think that's right.

Anyway, a few of the media outlets I read, listen to and watch have been talking about the end of the decade. It has hit me a little funny. It's been 20 years since the decade has been the big thing. I mean, at the end of the 90's we were all talking about the end of the century.

I've seen top lists of music, movies, and all manner of things. I've heard about things we're thankful about in the past decade and things we wish never happened (i.e. fashion disasters and fluff like that). I've given some transient thought to those sorts of things but nothing too profound.

I have been thinking a little more deeply about life - my life, specifically. (see, this is where the existential part comes in) I remember trying so hard to grow up and get to 21 when I was a full citizen and the state and government held no restrictions over me that they didn't hold over everybody else. 21 years later, I wonder what happened to the time between then and now. The first 21 years seemed to go so slow, the second 21 seemed to go so fast. Maybe that's because when you're less than a decade old (see how I tied that in?), a year seems so much longer because your entire existence only consists of ten of them.

I don't have a lot of regrets. I have had times when the rug has been pulled out from under me and times of great success. I wonder where I'm going from here and if I'm competent to make the journey. I fear the unknown but look forward to enjoying the next howerevermany decades I'll be sticking around.

I told you they were weird. So, what about those best of lists? Here's one for you.

Bubby's Top Ten Innovative (or just plain cool) Things From The Last Decade:

1. MP3 Players
2. DVRs (OK, they were introduced in the late 90's but they really took off in the last 5 years)
   
3. Abilify
4. Two words: Blu Ray
5. Affordable flat-screen TVs
6. Magnetic, clip-on sunglasses for prescription glasses (no more dork shades!)
7. S.A.M.E. weather alert radios (no more alerts for cities 150 miles away)
   
8. Social networking (I have [re]connected with so many people via Facebook)
9. Camera phones / smart phones
10. GPS
11. Text messaging
12. Wikipedia
13. Hybrid cars
    
14. Nintendo Wii

Okay, so there's 14 of them.

(33 1/3 bonus points if you know how the title relates to the post)

Apple Better Ease Up At The Guard Shack

The stories of developer frustration over Apple's random and arbitrary approval process for iPhone apps is well documented on the internet. There are stories of rejections that did not come with a reason, just a "no." There are stories of minor updates for previously accepted apps being rejected. There are even stories of developers being banned from continuing to develop for the iPhone and having all of their existing applications removed from the App Store simply because they formula-developed a couple thousand applications for niche markets. But as you peruse those stories, they are from small, independent developers.

Recently, however, some major players have said, "no more." Earlier this month, Facebook developer Joe Hewitt, who created the FB iPhone app, handed further development of the application to another developer. This decision was because of Apple's policies.

My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple’s policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer.

The web is still unrestricted and free, and so I am returning to my roots as a web developer. In the long term, I would like to be able to say that I helped to make the web the best mobile platform available, rather than being part of the transition to a world where every developer must go through a middleman to get their software in the hands of users. (source: TechCrunch)

Just as Hewitt had bleak predictions of gatekeeping middlemen in the software industry, this author says it isn't going to work because it failed miserably in the past.

The software business learned that in the early 1980s, when companies like VisiCorp showed that although the words "software" and "publisher" fit together, the underlying concepts don't. Software isn't like music or books. It's too complicated for a third party to act as an intermediary between developer and user. And yet that's what Apple is trying to be with the App Store: a software publisher. And a particularly overreaching one at that, with fussy tastes and a rigidly enforced house style.

If software publishing didn't work in 1980, it works even less now that software development has evolved from a small number of big releases to a constant stream of small ones. But Apple doesn't understand that either....

How would Apple like it if when they discovered a serious bug in OS X, instead of releasing a software update immediately, they had to submit their code to an intermediary who sat on it for a month and then rejected it because it contained an icon they didn't like?

Ostensibly, the app store approval process is there to provide quality control but also serves as gatekeeper for products that either have the potential to tax the infrastructure or products that directly compete with products Apple is developing. In the latter two instances, the approval process works but those are easy lines to define, making it easy to see when they have been crossed. It fails, however, in quality control.

I would imagine it would be an easy enough process. If the application does not violate any trademarks or copyrights, it does not have the potential to compete directly with a product we are developing (and may or may not release), it does not have the potential to tax the infrastructure, and does not consistently crash either itself or the system, it's approved and we'll let the market decide how good or useful it is. But Apple obviously isn't doing that because even I have an idea of how much of a pain in the ass it is to get approval for iPhone applications and I'm not a developer. That should tell Apple something about how badly this is going.

More Microsoft Me Too

Microsoft dominates the personal computer market with its Windows operating system. Why? Because almost 30 years ago IBM talked with Bill Gates and he convinced them to bake MS BASIC into the ROM for their Personal Computer. Then, IBM decided to have MS provide them with a disk operating system, which MS actually acquired from another source. Because the "PC" was so open and everyone and their dog eventually started making PC-Compatible computers, MS DOS exploded onto the scene.

Then came the Macintosh from Apple. It used a graphical user interface acquired from Xerox. It was nothing like anyone had seen before and used a pointing device (mouse) to intuitively "point and click" your selections right on the screen.

Microsoft has been behind the innovation curve ever since and has primarily been chasing Apple.

Windows is an obvious re-envisioning of the Apple OS. The lawsuit has long since been settled but Microsoft continues to be close but not quite as sleek and efficient as Apple. There are a variety of reasons for this, mostly hardware support, but the statement remains true.

When Apple came out with the iPod, just eight short years ago, it exploded onto the entertainment scene with a fervor not seen since 1979 when the original Sony Walkman was introduced. Microsoft respond by introducing the Zune, which will forever be compared with the iPod, and solidified Microsoft's "me too" stance. The problem was that they took five years to make that response and they seem to be constantly tripping over themselves just to keep up.

Apple rode the iPod wave for quite a while before taking pot-shots at Microsoft with their "I'm a Mac" media campaign. Apple's simple, straightforward Apples to... well... non-Apples approach garnered an increased market share for the Mac. How did Microsoft respond? They didn't. Not at first. Eventually they started their "I'm a PC" and "PC Hunter" campaigns but, again, it was late in coming.

Right after the iPod came the Apple Store. Every year, they open 25-30 new stores with a current total of 276 worldwide. This past week, Microsoft just opened their first two stores. Again, a little late in the game. Somehow, I don't think the Microsoft Store will be as popular as the Apple Store.

I saw a video of one of the openings and the first thing I thought was "Apple Store wanna-be." There's no sign that says "Microsoft," just a square logo sporting the 4 colors of the Microsoft flag. The store appeared to be open and airy, just like an Apple store.

But, really, what does Microsoft have to sell? The only hardware that they make is the X-Box and the Zune and those are readily available at thousands of retail locations. They're supposedly selling computers but that sounds like it will work as well as the Gateway stores. The only advantage I see to an Apple store is the Genius Bar and defective unit diagnosis. I don't even know if MS has anything similar.

My point is that Microsoft needs to come up with a real innovation. Whether they create it or acquire it, the innovation needs to be big and it needs to appear before Apple comes up with it. Otherwise, I see MS continuing to lose market share and finally eventually (maybe not in my lifetime) losing to the true innovators, whoever they may be.

The Passing Of A Legend

His movies helped define the 80's. He turned the tables in Mr. Mom ("220, 221 whatever it takes."). He sent us on Vacation (and helped us forever brand a national chain store "Wally World"). He revealed invisible teenagers everywhere with Sixteen Candles. He introduced us to The Breakfast Club. He cooked up some Weird Science. There was Pretty in Pink (which I have not seen except for a few scenes). He taught us all how to relax and have some fun (and introduced us to Ben Stein) in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Introduced us to Macaulay Culkin in Uncle Buck, then wrapped an entire concept around him in Home Alone.

John Hughes suffered a heart attack and died on Thursday, August 6 while taking a morning walk during a trip to NYC to visit family. Never before had we seen such great film making that gave such respect to teenagers. Want to know what it was like growing up in the 80's? Watch his films.

We'll miss you, John.

Elvis and Michael

There are a lot of parallels between Elvis and Michael Jackson

• Both enjoyed almost instant success
• Both rose to superstardom
• Both were on the cutting edge of the music scene
• The music of both defined a generation
• Both were criticized for their vulgar dancing (Elvis for gyrating, Jackson for grabbing)
• Both wore costume-like outfits during performances (Elvis' jumpsuits, Jackson's sequined military-style coats, etc.)
  
• Both tried to close themselves off from the public because the insanity of their popularity was too much to handle
• Both were tabloid fodder for their looks later in life (Elvis' weight, Jackson's skin, face, nose, etc.)
• Both had large compounds that outsiders always wondered about what went on in there
• Both died just prior to launching a tour that was set to revive their career

And as I said before, I bet we start hearing about the drug abuse (although, I don't think Jackson was quite at the level Elvis was)

Ed, Farrah, and Michael

It's been a rough week in the celebrity world. First, on Tuesday, Ed McMahon passed away. This wasn't much of a surprise. After all, he was 86, Johnny Carson, the person to whom he was most closely associated, died a couple of years ago, and he'd disappeared from the public eye a long time ago. I figure Dick Clark isn't too far behind.

Yeasterday, we lost two of my generation's icons. Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson. Just last month, NBC ran a documentary Farrah had put together about her long battle with cancer. I didn't see the actual show but I did see some pre-show interviews with Ryan O'Neil, her long time partner (I don't believe they ever married). Ryan had said that they set out to film a survivor's story but that it wasn't looking like it was going to end that way.

I never had the Farrah Fawcett poster. Frankly, she just didn't do it for me for some reason. But it weas that poster that made her famous (oh, and that Charlie's Angels thing). I can't say that I'm torn up about her passing.

I'm not torn up about Michael Jackson, either, but that one did surprise me. I remember my first thought was, "Finally, that poor, tortured soul is at rest." Jackson was, without a doubt, a superstar. He rode a gigantic wave in the 80's (Thriller is still the best selling album of all time) but in his race to outdo himself his life kept taking major turns toward the weird. I get the nose job he had some time in the late 70's or early 80's that appeared on his album "The Wall" but in his mind, in his struggle for aesthetic perfection, he ceased to be black (I kinda get that one too), his nose became razor thin, his jaw line was a characature... in essesne, he ceased to look like himself... completely.

My prediction is that we'll start getting information that Jackson's death was more than the result of an illness or some congenital heart defect. The rumors have already started that it was linked to anorexia, Anna Nicole Smith had nothing on Michael Jackson, and I bet we hear news similar to when Elvis died.

Unlike some, I probably won't remember where I was, exactly, when I heard he died. In my world the children won't scream, the lovers won't cry and the poets won't dream. I'm just not that affected by it. I do, however, understand the significance.

Sign O The Times

There is a car dealership in Oklahoma City that is as much about their used car inventory as their new car inventory. Actually, it's probably more since I can't remember any of their new car ads but I do remember their used car ads. Their used car ads play on the radio all the time. They usually have a poorly impersonated celebrity voice (part of the charm) and their big hook is a job and $199.00.

But their commercial has changed. It used to say, "Do you have a job? Do you have $199.00? Then you are approved for a used car!" The latest commercial says, "Do you have a job? Do you have $199.00? Then you could be approved for a used car!"

Interesting.

Urgo Is Dead

Dom DeLuise died Monday evening at the age of 75. There was no disclosure of the cause of death, but DeLuise had been battling cancer for more than a year and had been hospitalized due to kidney failure and respiratory problems.

DeLuise had a long career in both television and films. He was most famous for his supporting roles in a number of Mel Brooks films, including 1974's "Blazing Saddles" and 1976's "Silent Movie." He was also in the Brooks-directed "The Twelve Chairs" (1970), "Spaceballs" (1987) and "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" (1993). Other credits include "Smokey and the Bandit II" (1980), "Cannonball Run" (1981) and "Cannonball Run II" (1984), "The End" (1978), "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" (1982) and "Johnny Dangerously" (1984). His voice was featured in such films as "An American Tail" (1986) and its sequels, "All Dogs Go to Heaven" (1989) and its 1996 sequel, and "Oliver & Company" (1988). [Source: CNN.com]

Whether behind the camera or in front of it, members of the DeLuise family have consistently been a part of the Stargate family. Stargate SG-1 fans will remember DeLuise as the title character in Season Three’s “Urgo,” where he played the fun-loving physical manifestation of an alien probe (and its creator) who wanted to experience life. After being implanted into the brains of the SG-1 team, he subliminally gets the team to show him new experiences while they struggle to get him out of their heads.

But beside this memorable episode, Dom left his greatest mark on the Stargate franchise through his sons. Peter DeLuise served as a director, writer, and producer on Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis for most of those series’ runs. Son Michael played Nick Marlowe/Colonel Danning in the episode “Wormhole X-Treme!” and son David played Pete Shanahan in several episodes of SG-1. [Source: GateWorld]

In the immortal words of Allan Sherman, "Hail to thee, fat person!"

It's Not Easy Being Green

It has happened once again. The multi-colored NBC Peacock has turned green. It's green week on NBC and all of their networks (it's part of an Earth day thing).

When I turned on the TV this morning, the Today Show was running a story about people in Miami who were saving buckets of money by installing a meter or some sort of device that regulates their energy usage throughout the day. Basically it limits usage during peak times and allows usage during off-peak times.

I don't understand how this works. I get the mechanics of it, I don't get the economics of it.

Back in the day of analog cellular technology there was no such thing as a subsidized phone and you paid by the minute - every minute - for service. You would get a bill showing that you had used X minutes during the day at 50¢ per minute and Y minutes on nights and weekends at 25¢ per minute. I understood, and still understand, that the cellular companies charge more for calls made during the day than in the afternoon. My electric bill isn't like that.

My electric bill says I used X kilowatt hours of electricity at Y cents per. That's all. It doesn't mention peak and off-peak usage. I understand peak usage times (there are more people using more energy during the day) but I don't understand, based on the billing model, how these devices save the consumer money nor why there is a delay button on my dishwasher. Is it just that other municipalities bill differently and do differentiate between peak and off-peak usage? Or am I missing something?

The Heat Should Get Turned Down A Bit

As I told you several months ago, the OSU Center for Veterinary Health Sciences nas been taking some heat because of practices used in our live animal surgery program. Some of the practices mentioned are false (i.e. intentional breaking of bones) and others are unfortunate but true (the animals are euthanized after the second procedure).

I just received some fantastic news from our Dean. Rather than translate, I'll give it to you verbatim:

Good Morning,

Last week President Hargis provided funds to implement the Shelter Medicine Plan for the Year 3 Surgery Laboratory. The funds are from the university and not from the OSU Foundation. All live animal surgery will be survival and we will utilize dogs from animal shelters for spay and neuter procedures. Animals will be returned to the shelters for adoption.

This plan has been under study for several years and not implemented due to lack of funding. I am pleased we now have the funds to implement the plan beginning this fall semester. We will continue to seek private funding for our shelter medicine program. The university funds provide an additional incentive as matching funds to private gifts.


Michael Lorenz
Dean

I am a lot more comfortable with that and I thank President Hargis for allocating these funds.

What Does One Trillion Dollars Look Like?

It looks very impressive.

Kinda puts perspective on the whole thing, don't it?

Good Day, Paul Harvey

I learned this morning that legendary broadcaster Paul Harvey passed away over the weekend. He was 90 years old.

Paul Harvey was famous for his radio news broadcasts that combined hard news with the lighter side. He is also famous for telling us "The rrrrrest of the story." His voice was one that could grab and hold your attention. His voice, like that of Walter Cronkite, was one you could trust.

Goodbye, Mr. Harvey. The world is less now because you are not in it.

Miss Conception

It's been a different kind of week at work. Before I get too far, I need to clarify a few things. I work for the veterinary school (Center for Veterinary Health Sciences) at Oklahoma State University. I am not a veterinary student, technician, orderly, assistant, nor doctor. I don't deal with the animals... at all. I fix computers and classroom equipment.

On Monday, a story was published in The Daily O'Collegian stating that the wife of billionaire OSU benefactor Boone Pickens was withdrawing a $5 million donation to the vet school. This money was being withdrawn because of "barbaric" practices at the school. I'll let you read what it said, then I'll be back to tell you the reality of the situation.

By Jaclyn Cosgrove

Senior Staff Writer

Published: February 23, 2009

The wife of OSU alumnus and billionaire benefactor T. Boone Pickens plans to send a letter today to the OSU veterinary school dean to inform him she’s taking her money elsewhere.

Madeleine Pickens said in an exclusive interview with The Daily O’Collegian on Friday that she made the decision to move her $5 million donation from the OSU Center for Veterinary Health Sciences after a veterinary student informed her of practices Pickens calls “barbaric.”

Pickens said she has learned the veterinary school buys dogs from breeders who have to follow less strict U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines; OSU then uses animals for surgical training procedures.

“Right now, when they buy these dogs, they bring them in, and they do a surgery, put them to sleep, do the surgery, wake them up, next day, put them to sleep again, maybe take out a kidney, wake them up again, put them to sleep again, maybe break a leg, fix it, wake them up again and then they kill them,” Pickens said. “That’s barbaric. That’s what you did years ago. Medicine has changed.”

...

“I’m very much focused on OSU changing its ways with the vet school, and I’m hoping that students get involved in this and say, ‘You know what? We have an opinion, too, and we don’t agree with this,’ she said.

And now, as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story.

Point number one: There was never a donation from T. Boone Pickens or his wife that was slated specifically for the vet school. There can be no withdrawal of a donation when there is no donation to withdraw. My understanding is that the possibility of an unspecified donation has been mentioned to the vet school but any such donation would be contingent upon the dean supporting a political agenda, on behalf of the whole of CVHS, that Madeleine Pickens is strongly involved in. The dean has repeatedly declined to meet that requirement on the basis that the issue itself does not fit into the mission of the CVHS.

Point number two: The school buys dogs used for live surgery training from a USDA licensed broker. I do not know the licensing requirements for these brokers or those that specifically breed dogs for research purposes but I would imagine that any "les strict" guidelines, if there are any, would be because these brokers are not breeders. As such, any guidelines relating to the breeding of the animals would not apply to them. Again, I don't know the requirements and that is just speculation on my part. I do know, however, that the brokers are licensed by the USDA.

Point number three: If you know anything about research and the extremely strict guidelines that must be followed in regards to any live animal research (i.e. there are guidelines that specify how a mouse is and is not to be euthanized prior to feeding it to a snake), you know that the allegations Mrs. Pickens makes in the article are preposterous and, frankly, impossible. Before this article appeared, I didn't even know we had a live surgery training program much less how it functioned. I do know that if we operated it as she alleges, we would have been shut down a long time ago. I have been told that the procedures involve abdominal exploration, spay/neuter, and a couple of other similar and less-invasive procedures. No bones are broken. No organs are removed. As one state representative and OSU CVHS graduate said, "Our training is designed to prevent animal suffering, not create it." (Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing)

Point number four: "...all veterinary colleges are under strict guidelines regarding the use of animals in teaching and research. At OSU, our animal facilities and protocols are regularly reviewed by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), industrial partners, and the Council on Education of the American Veterinary Medical Association." (copied from a letter to constituents by Michael Lorenz)

Although the are some unattractive aspects to the surgery program at OSU CVHS, the students I have heard from have said the experience is invaluable, utilizing cadavers does not provide the same level of training, and even those who get emotionally involved agree that the unattractive aspects are a necessary part of the process.

If you have any questions about the story, the allegations, my comments or the program, please email me. If I cannot answer your question or address your concerns, I will find someone who can.

Black Friday Warning - Rebates May Be In Jeopardy

Have you already seen some good deals that will be available for Black Friday? Do any of those deals include a mail-in rebate? Is the item still a good deal without the rebate?

You may want to ask yourself that last question while you're out shopping. CPG, a company that processes rebates for a large number of major retailers and manufacturers (see a list here) has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. From what I have read, many of the client companies will be covering the rebates themselves but the safe bet is... don't count on the rebate (even more so than usual).

Time Has Little To Do With Infinity And Jelly Doughnuts

I have been watching a few short segments about the election results and have had one or two interesting conversations in the past couple of days about it. I think my sister is right, there is a lot of ignorance (and misunderstanding and confusion and...) about this whole thing.

I was talking to someone this afternoon who was very obviously a staunch republican and doesn't care who knows it. She was proud that every county in Oklahoma voted in favor of McCain AND that Oklahoma overall had the highest percentage of votes for McCain of any state in the nation. I believe they called Oklahoma at 7:01pm central.

Anyway, I was trying to point out to her that I found it interesting that Wednesday morning saw almost every news outlet saying the United States had elected its first African-American president and this morning (Thursday) several of them had changed to referring to the first black president. I didn't even get through the first half of my observation before she started in on "If McCain had won, would they be saying we'd elected another white president?" I don't know... maybe... I think they'd be more focused on the first female vice president. But do you think maybe she's a little bitter that Obama won?

But I see it all differently. It really isn't about race, even though that's the catalyst of it all. I grew up attending magnet schools. What that means is that the Middle/Junior High school and High school I attended pulled students from all districts across the city and from a WIDE variety of racial backgrounds. I have an understanding, weak as it may be from my middle-class white perspective, that it isn't that Barack Obama is black. It is that black peolpe, as a race, have been persecuted, prosecuted, and beat down for so long in this country that the election of an African-American to the position of President of the United States is a symbol that some of those wounds are starting to heal. Barack Obama is a symbol that we can put aside our prejudices, that we can come together to support a person for who he is and not for what he looks like, and that we can remember the past but move beyond it.

This election was destined to be bigger than any one man or any one woman no matter who won the election. As Barack Obama was introduced for his victory speech, I could see in his eyes that he knew this. Not that he merely realized it but that he knew in his soul the basic truth of it.

I have high hopes for our new president-elect. I think it is time for our country to be led by someone who has a different view that looks beyond the way it has always been done and sees the way it should be done. No, he's not perfect. I am 100% positive that I will not agree with 100% of his policies and politics. But I welcome his perspective.

As another blogger put it, "I'm energized. I'm excited. And I'm terrified. So much can go right and so much can go wrong. But finally there is a new direction."