Radio talk show host

I just realized why I like this blog idea so much; no interruptions! It's like I'm a radio talk show host and whenever I feel like it I can simply hold forth without someone butting into the conversation to give me their point. It's not that I don't want to hear other's points, but I would really prefer to hear them after they have effectively and actively listened to mine, and then instead of offering up an opinion completely separate from anything I was saying (because they weren't paying attention), it would be refreshing to get a response tempered with context. End rant.

In the vein of being a radio talk show host, I'm going to cover a few topics in this post. The first topic will be Qwest. I would like to announce that we have effectively rid ourselves completely of the local phone carrier. That is correct, no land line whatsoever. I am so pleased that I will never again have to call them for a DSL support question (to which the answer was always "Uhh...have you reset your modem?") that I will now dance a jig. In their place we will be using the cable company as an ISP and Vonage for our home phone needs. The cost will be exactly the same as DSL and BASIC phone service through Qwest, but we are getting something like 12 times the bandwidth, voice mail, conferencing, call forwarding, faxes, etc...and the reliability and call clarity cannot be any worse than Qwest. I only wish I'd switched much, much sooner. Interestingly, the ISP asked why I was canceling service, but Qwest didn't. It's as if Qwest doesn't believe they have any competition...and their service and quality show it. Qwest, the freight train of VoIp and cable Internet are blowing the whistle, and you're walking on the tracks with your Walkman, blasting Def Leopard. It's not going to turn out well for you, at least pick a decent band to go out to.

The second subject this evening will be the scapegoat. I'm in the middle of a book from the late 90s called "Paris to the Moon" by Adam Gopnik. The book itself is wonderfully written and as a completely recreational activity (nothing too challenging, convicting, heady, etc.), it's an absolute joy. Last night I was reading a portion of the book in which he compared Bill Clinton to Barney. In order to understand how in the world he got there, and from Paris no less, you'll have to read the book, but he ended up comparing a child's attraction to Barney and an adults' attraction to Clinton. It was really a very insightful chapter.

But, in the middle of his discussion on presidential similarities to the big purple dinosaur Gopnik mentioned how at the time many people in New York were railing against Clinton for one reason or another. This got me thinking, has the president of the U.S. always been a scapegoat for a large portion of the population? I can certainly say that the current Bush fits that bill, as did Clinton apparently, and Sr. Bush. I don't really remember Reagan, but I remember my parents griping about him. I have no idea what went on before that, but I wonder if it wasn't much the same. So here's what I'll say about it: don't be lazy. A situation, any situation, much less a global or national situation is rarely if ever simple enough to lay the blame at the feet of one person and doing so shows an inability or an unwillingness to critically examing the contributing factors.

Let's take Katrina...just for example, and not because I of course need to add my comments to the millions that have already been made. But, let's take a good look at what really happened there and then ask ourselves if we can really start blaming even three people. Firstly, a category five hurricane hit New Orleans. Anyone who knows anything about hurricanes, fluids and gravity knows that this is a very bad thing for a city, built in a bowl, surrounded by water. But, the day after didn't seem that bad. There was some flooding, but no one (the New Orleans population included) seemed to be that worried. Day two was a little worse when the levies broke. Day three got to be very bad with the looting and the rioting and the random snipers and such. Day four the National Guard and the Army begin to show up and things start to at least get sorted out a bit.

So, where does the blame lie? Many, including a good portion of the media have chosen to blame Bush for not responding fast enough. That's fair enough, the federal government was a day late in sending troops, and Bush is the commander in chief. But what about the people who began the rioting and the looting? They certainly deserve some of the blame. The City of New Orleans? Their evacuation plan was clearly a little less than excellent, and where were the police and firefighters? The state of Louisiana? I certainly never heard a clear articulation of their needs until day three.

The point (uninterrupted, might I add) is that to constantly point at the federal government in any situation we find to be displeasing and say, "it's your fault...fix it" is lazy, irresponsible, and dangerous. The federal government certainly has some responsibilities and they should of course be held accountable for those. But, the state, city, AND individual also have their own set of responsibilities and should certainly be held accountable to those, because without those our government and our society fails.

I would also like to point out that when I spell check this, the spellchecker for the blog entry will identify the word "blog" as being an unknown.