Freedom

Overheard at work:

Worker 1: "You have too many freedoms in this country."

Worker 2: "No such thing. But with freedom comes responsibility. We have too many irresponsible people in this country."


Amen, brother!

Nuclear Weapons

All through the Cold War, nuclear weapons were considered a mutually assured destruction threat deterrent. Because of the power to destroy humanity and cripple the planet for a long period of time, it was believed that no one would use nuclear weapons again (after World War 2). World safety was assured because the super-powers could not and would not use those weapons.

Now we have gone to war over one nation's supposed nuclear weapons and complain about other nations possibly developing their own nuclear arsenals. It is a poorly kept secret that Israel has nuclear weapons. We are in negotiations with North Korea to get them to dismantle their nuclear weapons development. UN inspectors are in Iran, questioning their use of nuclear material. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons.

My question is: Why go to war over nuclear weaponry?

If what our leaders told us during the Cold War is true, that nuclear weapons are, in fact, too terrible to use because of their power, wouldn't the "safety" of mutually assured destruction in the middle east and other hot-zones create a new cold war in which world safety is assured?

Are those in power now admitting they lied to the world all through the Cold War? Or is it only a deterrent when the United States has those weapons?

----

What I think I'm learning about politics as I get older is that I'm too smart and too cynical for my government to let me live.

Our government is in the job of scaring us. The more fearful we are, the more control we give them. The more power they have, the less likely we are to educate ourselves or question their decisions.

Think for yourself. Question everything.

Idle Question (2)

Which series do you think has more quotes used to explain life's little foibles, The Godfather or Star Wars (episodes 4-6)?

I'm thinking it is more a question of the age of the person. If over 40, The Godfather. If under 40, then Star Wars.

"I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

"Do or do not; there is no try."

Idle Question

In order to save your most cherished, would you rather:

1. Be murdered in a horribly painful manner?
2. Inflict a horribly painful murder on a random stranger?

Yet another of the strange and often unexplained thoughts that pass into my mind.

Basketball and the Olympics

I hope that this American "Dream Team" continues to lose at the Olympics. I wish this not because of any anti-American sentiments or ill-will I feel toward the players or coaches on the team, but because of ill-will I feel toward all those players who should be there but who are not.

There should be no greater honor than playing for your country in the Olympics. Big stars should feel a strong obligation to go out and show the rest of the world where they stand in comparison to our best. Unless you are injured, you should be there. Afraid for your safety? You earn enough to hire your own security.

That being said, a collection of super-stars can only go so far. I am not saying that this team cannot pull its collective head out of its collective ass and still compete for the gold. I am saying it was just a matter of time before the rest of the world caught up with America. Mostly because the talent is there AND the rest of the world plays team-oriented basketball. To counter this, instead of sending a collection of very talented individuals, we should send a team to the Olympics. The entire team-- including coaches. In this way, we have people who have played together for at least a season, know and understand their roles on the team, and who know and can count on their teammates in stressful situations. This is what the rest of the world does.

With as quickly as the rest of the world's talent level is catching up to America in this sport, sending over individual talent and hoping it coalesces into a team in a couple of weeks to months is not going to get the job done. As we learned from the Pistons' defeat of the Lakers in the last NBA Finals, a team of "lesser" talents can overcome a collection of individual talents.

Larry Brown and the Pistons would school the rest of the world using defense and quality team basketball. Brown has taught his team to understand and employ team-oriented basketball; offensively and defensively. And they have played together for at least 82 games plus the post-season, winning it all in the Finals. They have the chemistry and understanding of each other and the game plan to play against the best in the world.

I think that some of our best college teams could go and put up a very respectful showing at the Olympics, if for no other reason than they are a team first. These kids may not win it all for America, but they would play hard, show up for four quarters every game, and would battle.

Here's hoping the NBA learns from this year and changes its strategy for the next Olympics. Otherwise, we can look forward to being dominated in world play in our own sport for the foreseeable future.

Perceptions

People can be surprising.

I've been working on a project at my job for a few months now. It hasn't seemed to be going well at all; I have had to get my boss involved with it, the person with whom I've been working has been slow to turn around emails and phone calls from me asking for more information (or any info at all!), and deadlines have been something of a moving target.

And then today my boss forwards to me an email she received in which the person with whom I've been working praises the job I've done, says I'm the best writer with whom she has worked, and thinks all of the documents I've done for her are top-notch.

Just goes to show that our perceptions become our reality and that other people may not share in our vision.

What a surprise.

Slow Drivers

Some words of advice for slow drivers:

1. Driving slowly is not always the best decision. Depending on how slow you drive, you may actually be presenting a greater risk on the road than one who drives too fast. Moderate your speed to be closer to the “flow” of traffic on the same road. I am not advocating speeding by any means; but going significantly slower than the flow of traffic is just as dangerous to other drivers.
2. If you break for green lights, you will fulfill your goal of needing to stop at a yellow or red light. Lights are timed to keep as much traffic moving as possible. In addition, the yellow light is designed to warn you of a change. Every time you break for a green light, you are increasing the likelihood that you will miss the next light, and so will all of those drivers behind you. As long as the light is green, go!
3. Any time the road you are on has more than one lane going in the same direction, the rule that slow traffic should be in the right lane applies. This is true on small roads and on super-highways. Please remember it and get yourself to the right when cars start stacking up behind you.
4. When sitting at an intersection with a light, prepare yourself for the light to turn green and go when it does. The occasional lapse is fine, but when I’m following behind you and have to wait for you to realize that the light is green at every single intersection because you are preoccupied with the topography of your navel, there is a problem.
5. If you think you are lost, driving slowly and impeding other drivers will not help you. Pull over to the side of the road and get your bearings. Let those who know where they are going to go.
6. NEVER pull in front of another vehicle (turning, changing lanes, on an on-ramp, etc.) without making sure there is adequate room. This is especially true of the other drivers do not have additional lanes that they can use to avoid hitting your slow-moving vehicle.
7. Lastly, go on the internet to the DMV sites for your area. Most now have an online tutorial and quizzes you can take. You might want to refresh yourself on all the rules that have changed since you took drivers education 15 years ago. It may be an eye-opener for you! California's interactive tutorial can be found at the following website: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/interactive/tdrive/flash/flash_intro.htm

Next time… advice for stupid drivers.

Star Spangled Banner

As Independence Day approaches, take a read of this nice article about the Star Spangled Banner.

http://www.jacksonville.com/community/cc/hefty/stories/062804/062804075059.shtml

A lot of people don't know or understand this national treasure and the writer does a nice job of explaining it to today's audience.

Spider-Man 2 Review

So I watched Spider-Man 2 after work yesterday. What a fun movie! In every way the equal (or superior) to the original film.

The Plot
This film shows a beleaguered Peter Parker constantly missing classes, being late for work, and missing out on his friend's lives as his life as Spider-Man takes more precedent. He is failing his classes, is fired from work, is late on his rent, and is losing Mary Jane. These stresses lead to underperformance and a loss of power as Spider-Man, the one area he thought he had control of.

Peter decides he must ditch his alter-ego in order to lead a "normal" life. And his normal life does improve for a time. He is able to mend fences and get back on track for some time. He even tells Aunt May of his culpability in Uncle Ben's death, for which she forgives him (eventually).

Meanwhile, one of Peter's heroes, Doctor Otto Octavius is experimenting with a new energy source that he, and Harry Osbourne who is funding his research, hope will change the world. Unfortunately, the experiment goes awry and Dr. Octavius' cybernetic implants used to control the experiment are fused with his nervous system and start taking over his mind.

Peter's new-found life begins to crumble when Mary Jane decides to get married to some other guy who has been there for her (more on this later). Peter finds it harder and harder not to help those in need, even though he has given up his alter-ego. Harry persuades the newly evil and renamed "Doc Ock," or Doctor Octopus, to capture Spider-Man in exchange for more of the rare element needed for the Doctor to perform his energy experiment again on an even bigger scale. Remember, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Doc Ock qualifies.

The good Doctor attacks Peter and Mary Jane to get at Spider-Man and kidnaps MJ. This is just the catalyst that Peter needs to regain his Spider-Man powers and abilities. This leads to a tremendous fight on an elevated train between the two, and to a final confrontation at the end.

What Works
The animation and CGI in this film is far better than in the previous movie. The fight and excitement of the scenes with Spider-Man are par excellence. Sam Raimi (the Director) intersperses action, humor, and drama so that no scene feels overdone in one area.

The interplay between Alfred Molina and Tobey Maguire is great, both as scientist with college kid and super-villain to super-hero. The two have great chemistry and dialog.

The fight scene on the elevated train is worth the price of admission alone. The completely believable way in which the two "wall-crawling" combatants move around the train and fight is incredible and breathtaking. The resolution to this scene, where Spidey has to stop the runaway train are also incredible. From someone like Superman, we would expect a much simpler solution that works the first time. But Spidey is a flawed young man trying his best-- so Raimi has his first couple of attempts fail (and intersperses a little humor into this scene to both cut the tension and show his vulnerability). I was sitting next to a family of four. All five of us during the fight scene and the runaway train resolution were leaning forward and holding our breaths. When the scene reached its conclusion, all of us gave a sigh and started breathing and leaned back in our chairs again.

Raimi and Toby Maguire also do a great job of showing the human side of super heroics. Spider-Man is the flawed teenage/young adult who has taken on too much responsibility for one his age. We need to see those flaws and believe in them. They succeed in showing us this all-too-human side to the super-hero.

** Spoiler Alert **
The way in which most of the primary characters learn who Spider-Man is under the mask is thoughtfully and well done This both sets up the third film and leads the character to understand that maybe the secrets he has been keeping have been hurting him more than helping him.
** End Spoiler **

What Doesn't Work
The relationship between Peter and MJ is a little overdone. After the first two times of the "I really love you but you aren't there for me" speeches, we get it. Move on. Strangely, the relationship that MJ falls into (with John Jameson son of J. Jonah Jameson, editor of the Daily Bugle) because of Peter is underdeveloped. We never get any real insight into how they met, or why they are together, or how they work together. More development here would be nice to help us understand why she is leaving Peter for this other man.

It's a small thing, but the constant close-ups on Tobey Maguire's face and eyes get a little tedious. As with overdoing the speeches mentioned above, this cliché is done one too many times. We get it, use a different technique.

Kirsten Dunst is a good actor and it is disappointing to see her given so little to work with. More MJ and more Kirsten is always a good thing.

Alternately, James Franco seems a little out of his element as Harry Osbourne. There was little subtlety to his acting. Granted, they are setting him up for a major role in the third film, but here he just came across a little out of his depth. I had an unwelcome flashback to Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones.

Overall
This film instantly joins 1978 Superman, 1989 Batman, X-Men, X2, and the original Spider-Man as best super-hero comic-book adaptations to film of all time. I think it succeeds at this primarily because it avoided the pitfalls of so many other films-- adding more characters and too many villains. By keeping the focus on Spidey/Peter and only introducing one new villain, we get to actually learn more about the characters, see the universe of these movies grow and change, and feel the progression of the movies as believable and understandable.

Grade: A

Music

While I greatly enjoy alternative rock, Top 40, Heavy metal, and other genres, the music I always come back to is slow.

I like a wide range of slow music. From Tori Amos’ China to Marc Anthony’s You Sang To Me, Madonna’s Crazy For You and George Michael’s Father Figure to Alanis Morissette’s Mary Jane and Garbage’s Milk, and even power ballads like Guns and Roses’ November Rain. Old or new and across most genres, sad music speaks to me. I like slow music from the 50s through the 70s, from the 80s through today. There is something inherent in slow music that I respond to. I like the generally sad, lonesome themes and vulnerabilities that are expressed.

Another reason I enjoy slow music is that it requires better composition and singing than fast music. Slow music tends to show the imperfections in a singer’s voice and vocal range. It accentuates poor writing and musical composition.

People know a bad slow song the instant they hear it. It is very rare that a slow song is considered bad by only one group of people. Bad rhymes, poor vocal choices, a singer singing outside his or her ability or range, and poorly constructed music all conspire to show the faults of the song and highlight a bad singer.

For example, Madonna is not the greatest singer in the world. She does not have a great deal of range and her writing is often suspect. In her faster dance music she can get away with this because these songs are slickly produced and there are many tricks that may be used to hide the flaws. But in a slow song those tricks cannot be used and she is out there for all to see. Early in her career, she did the song Crazy For You for the movie Vision Quest. This is one of the all-time great slow songs. The song was perfect for her voice and the music was a great accompaniment to her vocals. It works.

On the other hand, Mariah Carey—arguably one of the best voices in recent years—has written some poor slow songs. Many of her more recent releases had odd lyrics, inappropriate uses of her seven octave voice (Mariah—just because you can hit seven octaves doesn’t mean you should or have to in every song!), and poor music to accompany her voice. And her last three albums have not done well as the audience can hear that and responds negatively to it.

Some singers and bands have a particular knack for hitting the right tone with slow songs and lose their audience when they move away from this. Boys to Men come to mind. Still others are known only for fast music and it takes a great, totally unexpected and vulnerable slow song to kick them to the next level. In recent years, Radiohead’s Creep and Green Day’s Time of Your Life come to mind.
The other main difference between most slow songs and most fast songs is the story they tell. Slow songs tend to tell a story and lead you somewhere, while fast songs can do this, they do not need to; fast songs are more about getting you moving and grooving and hooking you with a catchy refrain.

Harry Chapin’s Cats and the Cradle tells a moving story of a father and son and the gap in communication that they have and the regrets that form between them. The Goo Goo Dolls Iris sums up the entire plot of the movie City of Angels in one song, telling of the angel’s desire to become mortal for the love of a woman. Tori Amos’ China tells of the emotional distance between two people as their relationship is falling apart. John Lennon’s Imagine is a heartfelt wish for change for the entire planet.

Fast songs can tell a story. But for every Metallica Enter Sandman, Duran Duran Hungry Like the Wolf, and Eminem Lose Yourself, there are dozens and dozens of boy-band music, bad rap, and poor heavy metal.

Slow songs can often be redone for a new audience and hold up extremely well over time. Oasis’ Wonderwall, the song primarily that propelled them to stardom in America, was redone even slower in an acoustic version by Ryan Adams and is just as good. Many hits from the 70s and early 80s have recently been remade and have been hits again. One of the best examples is I Will Always Love You. This song had been a minor hit for many individuals. Then Whitney Houston did it for the movie The Bodyguard and it became an instant wedding classic.

Slow songs are always the music I fall back on. They are the soundtrack of my life, more than any other style or genre of music.

Friends

To paraphrase many much wiser philosophers: You can't pick your family-- that is an accident of birth-- and you can't pick who you love-- that is an accident of biology. The only people you get to choose are your friends.

I've got great friends. I have some friends who are incredibly unique in both thought and action. I have others who are ultra logical. Still others are incredibly emotional and giving people.

I am an egotistical cuss sometimes. I tend to think of myself as the sun in my own personal universe around which all my friends and family rotate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think EVERYONE is the sun in their own, personal universe. The key is to get those universes to overlap and get as many planets and moons orbiting in harmony as possible.

I have changed many of my friend's lives forever, for good or ill. I've had an affect on my friends. And boy have they affected me! Each has brought such a different and interesting perspective into my life that has made me a better person. Some have taught me to be more open with my thoughts and feelings. Others have shown me new ways to think or act. Still others have brought new ideologies into my life.

I have gay friends and straight friends. I have religious friends and atheistic friends. I have male friends and female friends. I have young friends and old friends. I have friends with whom I share little in common and friends with whom I share a great deal in common. I have distant friends and close friends. I have hard friends and easy friends. I have Republican friends and Liberal friends. Married friends, single friends, friends with children, and friends without children. I have friends who put up with my quirkiness and I have friends who I put up with their quirks. I have work friends and home friends and friends in-between.

And each and every one of these friends is important to me in a strange and wonderful way. I look forward to seeing them and I make an effort to stay in touch with them. I may not send birthday or Christmas cards or call once a month, but I do contact them when they pop into my head and I find out where they are and what they are doing. My friends ground me and keep me going at the same time.

I've got great friends.

Business and Bonuses

What business needs to remember is that relatively small bonuses, of any sort but I'm going to speak primarily about money, make a big difference to the grunts who work the trenches.

When the company does well, typically the top excecutives give themselves large bonuses, frequently equal to thousands or millions of dollars. Let's say that one of the top execs earns a $1 million bonus for a year. If you take that top excecutive's $1,000,000 bonus and instead give it to the, say, 700 people who made the company go, you could give each of those people an approximately $1400 bonus. For most of these workers, this will be somewhere between half and one full paycheck's amount. To these 700 people, this amount is a significant bonus and worth striving for, whereas for someone who already makes millions of dollars a year and has all the nonmonetary perks of being a top executive (stock options, golden parachutes, company car, etc.), the $1 million bonus is not nearly as significant. The same amount of money spread out among more people will help your company more and have a greater positive impact in the long run.

When I hear stories of Micheal Eisner getting a $20 million bonus in a year that Disney was actually down, I cringe. I think to myself, "I wonder how far that $20 million would have gone if that poor schmoe wearing the Pluto costume got $1000 for HIS hard work?" Of course, if it was truly a down year, then no one should have gotten a bonus, least of all one of $20 million.

Now, I'm not down on top executives by any means. They have generally worked hard and sacrificed much to be in those positions. But those positions come with the large salaries, the company perks, stock options, and the like. They are like the spark plugs of an engine-- without a spark, the engine just sits there. But you only need that spark occasionally; from then on, the pistons and valves do the majority of the work. Without the pistons and valves, that spark does nothing more than cause a fire; the pistons and valves translate that fire into usable energy by turning the driveshaft and making the car (the company) move. To continue my car analogy, getting gold-plated spark plugs is nice, and can improve your car's performance a little, but making sure the pistons are properly lubricated against friction can make the difference between your engine running or not. Think of solid, quality bonuses given to the grunts as the lubricating oil that keeps those pistons running smoothly and consequently makes the car move forward.

It is more true that the schmoe wearing the Pluto outfit does more for the Disney corporation on a day-to-day basis fulfilling the fantasies of the parents and children that show up at their theme parks than Michael Eisner did in his role as CEO of the corporation. Without a product and the people that build and sell that product, no CEO (or other top exec) has a job.

A different look at spam

I don't know about you, but I'm just not sure of the quality of degree I would get from the online "collages" that offer "acredited" degrees via spam emails.

I'm also not sure I want my "penus" enlarged. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm fairly certain it's the size it should be.

Call me crazy.

Abuse Scandal and America

At what point did our men and women decide to start treating the prisoners captured in anything less than a dignified and respectful way? Whether it was their own invention, or orders from their superiors, does not matter. We are in a delicate situation at best--and an explosive one at worse--in the Middle East and we need to act in as restrained and dignified a manner as possible to uphold the name of the United States. This includes how we treat all nonmilitary people, military personnel, and prisoners.

It is shameful to the entire nation that this abuse scandal has leaked out. There should not be anything to leak. I've heard the argument that, "Even so, we still are treating the prisoners better than Saddam did." These people do not understand the point. If we are trying to espouse the benefits of our democracy, if we are trying to change the world and lead by example, our example must be better than any other nation on Earth. When we make a military commitment to something, our military must act decisively, humanely, and with as much decency as possible in the hellish environment that is war. We must treat each detainee as if he is our family. Each high-ranking political figure we capture must be treated with absolute respect and full disclosure.

And we must start training and involving the nonmilitary people in the rebuilding efforts immediately. If they have a personal stake in the new nation as it rises from the ashes of the old, then they will fight harder against those who wish to destroy what is rebuilt, will help us in all aspects of our time in their nation, and will create a stronger foundation on which the new nation can stand as it takes the first steps toward democracy.

It is these actions, the humane treatment of even our most hated enemies, the education of nonmilitary indigenous people, and the respect we show to all people and cultures that will be our greatest weapon in fighting terrorism and nondemocratic nations.

All of this has been jeopardized by a few bad seeds (again, whether grunts or officers, military or nonmilitary) who were given a little bit of power and abused it in a horrendous manner.

A moneyless society

I think we can start moving the world toward a moneyless society. Let me explain.

The end goal would be for each person to be allocated the essentials (food, shelter, clothes) and then be free to pursue their own goals through the free exchange of skills and abilities. In this way, no one wants for the essentials and money is taken out of the equation. Just imagine what you could do and learn if you didn’t have to constantly strive to keep yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, let alone all the amenities that people want. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of governmental infrastructure to allow much of this to happen, the workings of which I have not fully worked out yet. That's for another post.

In order to start striving for this goal, we need to start bartering our skills and knowledge to each other directly rather than for money (that we then use to buy what we need and want).

I envision a web-site that has a Skills Available and a Tasks Needed area, like the classifieds in a newspaper, where you could post one or the other. It would include chat boards (both public and private) where interested parties could hook up and negotiate the services rendered. Lastly, there would be a contract area where both users, after successfully negotiating the barter, would sign a binding agreement that no money would be exchanged, what services would be rendered by each to the other participant, and that neither can seek legal redress against the other (except under the strictest of terms).

For example, I could post under Skills Available something like:

"Skills: Writer and editor. Primarily versed in creative and technical writing areas. Good at "big picture" views/overviews. Skilled in Microsoft Office and Framemaker applications for writing/editing. Available for work most evenings and weekends.

Tasks: I need a program to track my comic book collection. Must be done to exacting specifications for user interface and reports, but choice of programming language, internal structure, and internal design up to programmer."

Now, someone with programming skills who needs help with a story concept he has could then contact me through the site and we could enter negotiations. Once we discussed the various projects and agreed to perform them, we would move to the contracts sections and electronically sign the binding barter agreement.

The beauty of this agreement, in my mind, is that you get people who WANT to do something working on your project. You are, in essence, asking someone who has the time and energy to simply help you. In exchange, you are willing to help them.

Another plus is that you can agree to do something in an unbalanced fashion. Still using my example from above, let's say that after reviewing my program request, the individual agrees to do it and believes it will take him a week working evenings and weekends. However, the story concept that he presents to me is a large, complex fiction that will need to be researched thoroughly, outlines and character designs will be needed, with the end result being a novel that may take 2 years to write. I can still make the "uneven" barter if I truly desire to do the work. The point is, we agree to that NOW, at the beginning and upfront with each other. Maybe as part of the agreement, he agrees to do other projects for me. Maybe the person in question has skills in other areas I could use; he is an auto mechanic by day who has learned and enjoys programming in his off-time. Maybe we agree that I will write his story and he will create my program and do some work on my vehicle.

The point is we are trading the unique skills and knowledge that we both have to get the things we need/want. We are bartering personal interests and needs rather than money and goods.

Are there holes in my theory and in my initial ideas for creating a utopian society where money is an anachronism and people trade skills and knowledge? Of course. But I'm willing to trade my skills with someone who can help fill in those holes.

It's a first step; an idea to strive for. And if we put enough first steps together, who knows how far we can go?

One more poem I'll share

The Abyss

There is a lost, lonely little boy cringing inside.
He shivers slightly, but is afraid to move.
It is a frightening place there, outside.

All this urchin sees is humiliation and abuse.
He hugs his knees to his chest and
Prays there's something beyond the refuse.

"God" and "evil" are foreign concepts to the boy.
All he feels is pain and loneliness and fear.
This child's life has no room for hope or joy.

The world outside and the people around rush by him.
He wants to join in, live, and grow, but
His fear of failure overcomes this whim.

He prays for helping hands to guide him through his wilderness,
But closes his eyes and sinks deeper, deeper inside.
All he can see through his fear and pain is the Abyss.

And the Abyss sees him.


06/97

------------------
Again, this is intellectual property and you must obtain written permission from the author (that's still me) to use this in any way. Thanx!

An old favorite of mine

Society’s Mirror

I’m cold
Inside and out
An unfeeling
Monster
Who hurts
People
It’s all an
Act
The smiles
And frowns
During the day
I’m numb and
Uncaring toward
You and
What you
Want
A sterile
Machine
That’s either
On
Or off
I’m frozen
Unmoved by
Your cries
Pity me
For I’m
Just
Like
You

-----------------
I wrote this in the early 90s. Remarkable how often I still feel this way.

BTW, this is intellectual property and you cannot use it without written permission of the author (me!). Thanx for your understanding.

Potential Greatness

Is it better:

1. To have the potential to be great, to possibly have what it takes to be the best at something, or
2. To have the potential to inspire greatness in others?

The world economy and America

From the 40s through the mid-70s, there was more of a partnership between companies and workers. When companies were going through a slump, they told the workers and asked for their help in tightening belts and pulling on boots-straps to overcome the situation. Workers, for their part, helped if they could and got the benefit of life-long jobs and known retirements and benefits.

In the late 70s and 80s, this started to change and took strong hold in the 90s. Workers started job hopping, staying on average 2-3 years at any one job then moving on. Companies started to look more at the bottom line and stock valuation than at their company as a whole (including those who worked for the company). The age of the trolling CEO came into being, where a CEO would job hop as often as their employees; moving from one company, slashing it to bits and making it look profitable to Wall Street, then moving on and leaving a company divest of employees and, in many cases, ripe for a takeover.

Then we had the internet stock boom and bust where all of these practices really came to a head. People were overnight becoming millionaires and the next day were dirt poor again.

Since September 11, we have lost more jobs and companies and the government has been largely unable to create new ones. Our industries are in the crux of change; outsourcing is become a threat to the American worker, Wall Street is continuing to overvalue profits as compared to the stability of companies, and "good enough" just doesn't seem to be enough any more.

All of this leads to a cautious work environment where everyone is afraid to talk with everyone else. From management to workers, and even among workers within each group, people don't communicate. Adding the fears of outsourcing, an underperforming job market, and fears of further war and terrorism, and we've created a nation of people afraid of everything.

I don't know what the exact solution to all of these problems is, but I do have some suggestions:

1. Management opens up. Rather than keeping possibly layoffs a secret until the employee shows up and find out they are out of a job, management can go back to the days when they would warn that this might happen. They can throw in with the workers and attempt to work on a solution together.

2. Respect your fellow workers. Management can start to rely on workers to do the right thing and workers can start relying once again on management looking out for them. Ask the workers if they would be willing to take a temporary pay cut of 3% in order to make numbers and not lose any jobs. I'm willing to bet, as long as management lives up to their end of the agreement (making the cut temporary and not cutting the jobs) that workers would rather do that than face the prospect of months out of work. Workers need to work in an atmosphere of trust and cooperation from which the company as a whole will benefit.

3. End raiding. Instead of everyone moving around every couple of years, start staying put. Become an expert in your field. Do what you do best. Create an invaluable niche in your workplace that only you fill. This goes for workers AND management. This also leads to a stable work environment and stability for the company in general.

4. End Wall Street fear. Wall Street needs to stop reacting to "bad news" that a company made it's projections instead of exceeding them and instead start buying in to those companies. Companies that make their projections are stable, solid, assured. Praise them for their stability. Stop devaluing good, solid investments because you can't get rich short term. Start valuing them because that's a company you want your money in for the long haul.

5. Outsourcing. There is no way for American worker's needs to counter the much different economic situation in foreign countries. However, I have two suggestions:
A. If outsourcing is something you fear, contact companies and ask if they outsource to other countries. If they say yes, tell the company representative that you will no longer use their company's products/services until they stop that practice. This gives the company in question a specific reason why you won't shop there and also takes money away from their bottom line.
B. Every job that is outsourced means a small boost to the economy of the country in question. For example, in a recent report on India, it said that the average worker there makes the equivalent of $300 a year American. A recent software company that opened a division in India is paying their people $3000 a year American. That will affect the stability of India's economy as more countries outsource jobs to this country and wages in India continue to improve.

We are only beginning the first movement of the pendulum as it starts to swing. Many of us will be greatly affected by these changes. However, in the long run, third and second world nations will receive the money they need to improve their lifestyle and potentially reach 1st world status. As they do so, the pendulum will swing back as America continues to lead the way in different economic areas and new jobs do, eventually, get created. None of this can happen without a feeling of trust, confidence, and positivity. Reporters need to start presenting us with the positive sides to the stories; government needs to start looking to the positive side to these changes; and people need to stop living in fear and start learning to trust again. These could very well be the first baby steps we take toward a money-less society not driven by fear and want, but by desires and inspiration.

Let's find a way to reach for that brass ring.

Spam

The quickest, easiest way to stop spam, those annoying bulk emails you receive offering you penis enlargements, free vacations, and porn, is to make sending email cost money. I propose a pricing plan equivalent to 1/10 of a penny per email or address. By this I mean that if there is one email address in the to/cc/bcc field of an email, that email costs you 1/10 of a penny. If there are 10 addresss total in your to/cc/bcc fields, that email would cost you one full cent.

For over 90% of the users of the internet this would mean they would spend a few dollars per YEAR on emails. At 1/10 of a penny per address used, $1 would allow you 1,000 (100 cents in a dollar times 10 emails per full cent) addresses. When you look at your Sent list, how often have you reached a thousand emails and how often do you include more than one person on any one email?

However, to a spammer who is generally sending bulk emails to thousands of addresses per email sent or thousands of emails to individual addresses, this adds up quickly. It is my understanding that "small-time" spammers generally send around 10,000 emails a day. At my proposed pricing plan, that would be $10 per day. Over a year, that's $3,650.

A "big-time" spammer, who is typically doing this type of bulk emailing "professionally" using specific softwares and buying email lists from companies, etc., sends 100,000 emails a day or more. That is $100 a day or $36,500 a year. They would need to pay the average American's yearly salary just on one person sending out the average amount of spam per day. Which means, on top of the costs for buying addresses, professional software, etc., they would need to get enough "hits" to make more than that amount per year in order for it to be cost effective.

In a typical day, I receive around 250 bulk emails. Many of these are obviously from professional spammers using multiple incremented email addresses. So, my personal email account is receiving around $.25 of spam per day using my email pricing scheme. If there are around 100 million email users in America, then I would offer a conservative guess that half of them are receiving bulk emails. If I'm average at 250/day, this means that about $12.5 million of spam (using my pricing) is being sent a day. Even if I'm one of the higher targets and the average user is only getting 100 bulk emails a day, that is still around $5 million providers could be charging on emails per day. Or around $1,825,000,000 per year.

Do you really think the spammers will continue at their current rates if they have to pay these fees?