PBS continued...

I wrote every Senator and Congressman that didn't have a redirecting "my secretary does the responses" form on their website. They overturned it, though, but not without a nasty redistribution of power. Because of PBS's honesty (which, by default, criticizes the current administration), the GOP demanded that they were too liberal and has appointed a new leader: Patricia de Stacy Harrison (R), a high-ranking official at the State Department, and former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee. The ultimatum was either to kill the truth or bend it, and with the public outcry they opted for bending it instead. Mrs. Harrison's purpose is to "stabilize" the last venue of free speech by causing CPB-sponsored programming to lean more to the right. In the next year you'll see NPR and PBS become more like Fox News: more propaganda, more political bias, and an ultimately poisoned media outlet. A no-win situation!

Okay so it's probably not that bad, but controlling the larger end of media and publicly criticizing what can't be controlled is not the way to win votes from the people paying attention (which is the ultimate objective). Of course, where in America is there a majority that pays attention? You can still see some light shined on this at npr.org, but that light is a little dimmer today.

dfb

so it begins...

My week is heading down a dangerous path. Yesterday it began: Father's Day, and brother #1 and #2 each got a gift for Paw. #1 presented a new handheld grinder for all those necessary handheld grinding jobs. #2 presented Daddio with his favorite cartoon character, stuffed, dawning a personalized message. I would be brother #3 (we are in no particular order, however I am the youngest if you must know), and #3 spent a week searching for that perfect gift for P. Smurf, but couldn't decide between two gift ideas. #3 opted to purchase the same handy mechanics toolset as the one he owns, based on how conveniently the supreme family ruler found it to be while fixing the (aforementioned) MAF sensor. But wait! This cheap toolset couldn't have cost more than sixteen dollars! How dare you, #3, for even considering such meager expenditures for such a worthy cause! Shame shame shame!

So #3 (still me, but I refuse to acknowledge it) decided to get yet another gift, and convinced his wife to free up more assets to the sum of thirty dollars. This enabled the overzealous brother #3 to purchase the other gift as well, which is a ten-zillion watt 6-foot telescoping portable "supernova" work light, for those late evenings on the lawn or the redirecting of inbound regional flights.

Let me elaborate: The cartoon character is a small stuffed animal. The handheld grinder thingy is about the size of a power drill. The suitcase toolset and the 6-foot telescoping portable supernova work light are slightly larger under the Father's Day tree.

Needless to say, I'm expecting my brother to mention something about compensation, Freudian approval, overzealousness or something even worse. Oh, Dad really liked the gifts.

So that was yesterday. Well, today is day 2 of the spectacular week startup extravaganza. One hour into work I received a tech support email. "Click this virus and upgrade your computer. This virus will help you receive email. This virus is trustworthy, and will not send hundreds of copies of itself throughout your formerly secure network. This has been scanned by your reliable virus scanner and has been found to be virus-free. Mwahahahahaha..."
So I took a few more swigs from my flask, a quick *puff* from the community hooka, and clicked it.

Oops.

I am now operating from an older computer down the hall. Did you know that you can upgrade a Commodore 64 to run Windows XP? No, no you can't.

More on this week, later this week.

dfb

what, the media, conflicting? no!

I'm conflicted.

I hate Fox News. HATE IT. It doesn't disgust me that the conservative opinions are given so much airtime. What rumbles my innards is that those conservative opinions are specifically directed against the liberal opinions that are given so much less airtime. Of course, they would argue that CNN does the same thing, only opposite. (Why do they need to oppose eachother, anyway?... future blog... promise)

But that's not why I'm conflicted... well... sort of not. I have recently read an article that included various polls which I think will peak your interest.

Did you see the episode of The Simpsons when Fox News arrived to film the Mayor? As it drove by, you first saw: "Fox News Channel"... then toward the end of the extended trailer it read "Bush-Cheney, 2004." Although the writers of The Simpsons are no strangers to sarcasm, they never jest without a foundation for the humor. And there is a point here: Fox News publically involved itself in the Presidential Election Campaign last year, and blatantly sided with Bush (honestly, do you think that if it were impartial that he would have won? Considering that he was given the office by, what, 1 or 2 percent total?)

Another great article to read, but it's by what would be called a "liberal" reporter, therefore it must be packed full of lies. Even though he would be sued and lose his credibility for such a public declaration. But republicans say that bringing these things up is "beating a dead horse," is a waste of American time, and is just the whining of the sore losers. Apparently a President losing two elections in a row and still gaining office is okay as long as it's in hindsight.

Oh, this is funny. Go to Google, then type in "gop.com." Look carefully at what it brings up: GO P.com. That's "GO PEE" .com. I love you Google. I love you.

Anyway, my point is really based on that first article about the media. I'm conflicted because, well, it makes Fox News look good. Almost... "Fair and Balanced"... The reason it looks this way is for several reasons. First, it's comparing all the media to itself. This is the privately controlled media and the publically-owned media together. NPR, or National Public Radio, would be a publically-owned media outlet. The same goes for the BBC. These are news sources that we own, because they depend on our anonymous donations and government grant money. Click here to see the relationship between PBS, which owns NPR, and the government. It's interesting because, in fiscal year 2003, public broadcasting's revenue was $2.3 billion. $465,586,000.00 (roughly... I think they round to the nearest thousandth) came directly from the Government. I'll refer to this later.

The privately-owned media, such as Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, are controlled by their advertisers, contributors, and more government grant money. The difference is, well, these are for-profit groups. That means that their primary objective is to make profit. The government contributes to that, especially just before an election. Hmmm...

How does Fox News look "Fair and Balanced?" It's because it's the only news organization that swings right. It also has the smallest gap of believability between Dems. and Reps. While everything else is obviously more believed by the left, it seems to stand out as the one station that is going against the proverbial flow.

Okay, I was conflicted. There is a key word here, for those of you who think I should have emerged from the netherparts of a bull with a peanut in my head: "believability." These polls are based on what Democrats and Republicans believe to be more true. It doesn't indicate which way the organizations lean, but what the Leaners want to watch.

What's the conclusion? Well, a little off the thesis, but people have ridiculed me for avidly listening to NPR and watching "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" and "NOW with David Branclaffenbackenffio (or whatever... it was Bill Moyers, who is a Baptist Minister)." They say that it is "far left," and that it favors criticizing republicans. Okay. I accept that. But guess what? It's not swayed either direction. Its entire objective is to remove objectivity. PBS and NPR are publically owned. They're also given HALF A BILLION DOLLARS annually by the same Republican-Controlled Government that it supposedly criticizes. I mean, for God's sake, two of the hosts from its flagship news show (Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill) were used as mediators for two of the Presidential Debates between Kerry and Bush because of their impartiality. And, after all that, it still manages to swing toward the left? Well, then I guess if the most non-biased, interest-free, government-funded and ethically trusted, publically-owned media outlet goes left, then call me a Liberal. (really, don't, because I'm not against Conservatives, but if I was labeled "Liberal" then I would be accused as such.) Everything else has some sort of flaw or special interest, but not PBS.

Another article that is crucial is from the Washington Post. It applies to PBS, and it may infuriate you, but good God it's scary. Go Here to find out why PBS is in danger because Republicans fear its honesty.


This brings me to my next point: I hate Fox News, and CNN, and MSNBC, and ABC, and CBS, and ClearChannel, and Rush Limbaugh, and 99% of all other talk radio, and religious organizations that decided they were political, and going to war for no reason, and giving the control of America to a moron that lost, and...

Deep breath.

dfb - avid pbs fan

and if not us

then who else?

two dead brothers on a mission to save the world... and complain about it

yay for michael

So MJ's out on technicalities and backfired prosecution attempts. It's good to have a team of lawyers better than the state. Emily Bazelon of Slate gives a pretty good explanation of where the prosecution went wrong and the defense went right.

As entitled, Yay for Michael. Not that I think he's innocent--it's creepy that he wants to sleep with young boys and yes, he should be quarantined for it, but in a sense, well, he already is. The pasty former pop star is creepy, in that he secludes himself in the Neverland Ranch and rarely (if ever) ventures out. His face is mangled. His own skin reacts violently to sunlight. His career is over, and to his name he only has a weak theme park, an equally distorted family, a big house, and a Beatles Collection. Not much future. He may or may not molest boys, but if so then he truly is an unique offender, because his strategy is ingenius.

Normally, one would assume that a "sexual predator" seeks out children and inflicts itself onto their person in complete secrecy and with deceitful intent. MJ is sought by children's parents (who, the defense argues, are gold-diggers... I can't refute that argument, but have at it if you dare), and the parents encourage sleep-overs, alone time, and severe intimacy. They read creepy letters from MJ to their children that claim a (childish and unrealistic) parental role, when they know full well that their kids are sharing his bedroom.

Needless to say, Michael isn't a predator. He's more like a lonely, openly weird child molestor who is given children to play with. I would have been more satisfied with this outcome if the jury had said, "We the jury find the defendant not guilty on all counts, but we the people demand a court order preventing intimate, unsupervised interaction between the defendant and any persons under the age of 15 years."

I am, however, still content with the results. After all: he's been ostracized by society in so many ways that, well, he's where he belongs, whether he intends to hurt children or not, and whether or not the children are hurt at all. The bubble around this fading superstar won't burst anytime soon. I say let him live his secluded, delusional life with the Liz Taylors, Janet Jacksons, and Macaulay Culkins of America. Let him remain separate from the rest of us. He doesn't see life the same way that we tend to see it, and he's ultimately a sad individual. If parents wish to brighten his day by presenting their own child for his vicarious, delusional pleasure, then take the parents to court for contributing to the derangement of an already deranged individual. If they want to take advantage of his vulnerability to swindle a little settlement money when he fondles their son, take the parents to court for putting their child in harm's way with prior knowledge of the impending danger. Or entrapment. Or neglect. End result: the parents deserve to be thrown behind bars for at least one of these offenses.

So Yay for Michael. He got off on everything, and now he's returning to his former way of life: his own solitary confinement.

dfb

badass lawnmowers and Sith light sabers

So, even mediocrity needs justification. I drive a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse. It has a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder. It sounds like an angry lawn mower at 3000 rpms. I think it can beat a Ferrari, and I have an excuse for everytime it can't.

Did you ever wonder how a car's engine keeps running when it changes altitude? Well, aside from a 10,000 foot difference, it theoretically should keep running. Okay, so, have you ever wondered how a car keeps it's mixture in line with it's airflow to maintain a specific level of emission? Eh? Eh?

Okay so no, you don't wonder. If you don't care then don't read this... just move on to one of my other crappy entries and be done with it! This one's for the people who want to pretend to be technical. There is a mechanism on modern cars called a "Mass Air Flow Sensor." What's really interesting is that it has its own computing system that mates with the main computer in a car, and when the car is traveling a 110 miles per hour up a mountain (I'm late for work) it is compressing a huge amount of relative air that is constantly changing its density into the air filter. The MAF sensor tells the computer how much fuel to inject into the fuel/air mixture to keep the engine running smoothly, reduce emissions, and optimize gas mileage. So, with less air pressure at the top of the mountain, less fuel is injected to "lean" the mixture and therefore keep a healthy fuel/air ratio for combustion. Eh?

I know this because my Mass Air Flow Sensor broke and I had to replace it with a part from Ebay. It was so bad that I could literally tap it and my engine would shut off. So there. Also, check out "How Cars Work" on howstuffworks.com. I've learned how to build a car, treat an alcoholic, make a computer virus, pick a standard dead-bolt lock, and put together a light saber Sith and Jedi-style. When you're on a quest to learn, well, everything, I highly recommend this website along with the WikiMedia Project.

Eh? Eh?

dfb

maturity

Looking around myself, I wonder some days about my own status in the adult society. Afterall, I'm 24, married, I own a dog and I'm working on my first 30-year mortgage and paying extra on it every month. Yet I am still in the transitional phase between my college youth and the mature adult I'm doomed to become. So, this reigns in the question: What is maturity?

Is it a mortgage, a dachsund, a wife and a full-time job? Many people around me are relying on this definition, but they have no suspicion of the severe doubt in my mind. From a religious standpoint (Christian, that is... NOT republican... I'll deal with the affiliation of political parties to world religions at a later date), maturity is relative and insignificant. There is right and wrong and a subjectivity to some interpretation, a heaven and hell (again, subjective), and the prophetic wisdom of the great biblical figures. Jesus himself said (in so many words) that the best way to heaven, or to finding favor with God, is to be like children. Does this mean to abandon "maturity"?

Merriam-Webster defines maturity here.

Have I "completed natural growth and development"? Have I "attained a final or desired state"? Am I "due for payment"?
Or my favorite: "belonging to the middle portion of a cycle of erosion."

So, am I in the middle portion of my erosion cycle? I guess not, assuming I'm to live here a full 80-100 years. Based on this argument, I'm officially "immature." Non-eroded. At the beginning of my billing cycle. (you get the idea)

But go back to that "final or desired state" definition. This interests me, because only from a secular perspective does this apply to both mentality and physical being. Toss in a little spirituality, and you have a contradiction. Well, really you have the physical eliminated and what remains is only spiritual. Given this definition, and based on the belief of an afterlife, the state of maturity is unattainable until death and spiritual rebirth.

Of course, that's Webster's definition, and everybody has their own.

My personal definition, I think, is a fusion of Webster's, Christianity's, and a pinch of my own thought process (God forbid). I believe that we are only reaching maturity when we are fully eroded, as in closest to death, because at that point (assuming it's an expected and timely death) we are letting go of our lives and getting closer to God. (thank you Trent Reznor)

Again, I'll elaborate more on birth, death, religion, politics and everything to do with the meaning of life at a later time. I'm just too lazy to explain it all right now. I'll also explain why I don't think it's necessary for me to explain it to you. But not without explanation. Promise.

In the end, we are all children and never exit this phase until we are dead and out of our shells. That's maturity. When you realize that we are all children, and open your mind to the idea that none of us--none of us--have a smidgeon of a clue about what we're doing here or why anything happens the way that it does. That is enlightenment. That is the first step to maturity. Any 13-year-old can pay mortgage and walk a dog and be in a serious relationship (I know, marriage is usually permanent. Step off!). So can any retiree. The adolescents can be aware that they are children. Can an adult?

I think what most people see as "grown up" is really a clouded perspective about their own behavior. It's an absolute, and absolutes don't exist in the human condition. The next time someone tells you "that was a very mature thing to say" or "stop being so immature", just throw it in their face that they're really not even infantile because they haven't yet realized their own helpless vulnerability to the powers that surround them, and therefore haven't reached the most mature possible stage in this life: Toddler.

dfb

dead fly boy

First entry, really a test, but I thought I'd make it a worthy post. How about the subject of the "Meanest, Baddest Bird on the Planet."


The F-22 Raptor has three program modules for all of its controls. If one module is disabled somehow, another one loads all of its programs and takes over the duties.

Its Pratt & Whitney engines tilt with the control inputs, so it can literally outmaneuver everything else by about 50% more agility. It can also carry nukes and is the only airplane in the world that flies supersonic (Mach 1.5) without needing to use its afterburners. Oh and its stealth.

50% more agility! That means that if a Raptor and an F-15 Eagle turned 180 degrees at the same time, the Raptor would be there in 2/3 the time. That means that the F-22 can make a full 360 turn in the time it takes for anything else to make a 240. This airplane leisurely speeds up to Mach 1.5 without breaking a sweat. If it was hungry it could eat anything it wanted and poop out afterburners. It's the most dangerous machine on the planet. It's the Jet Li of airplanes. It's the Holy Grail.

And I rent a Cessna 152 with my Dad.

Feel sorry? Want to make a boy's dream come true? Just go to Lockheed-Martin. They'll appreciate a few billion dollars. Oh and I might need a flight suit and a helmet, but I'll be happy to fit that bill if you provide the plane. Deal?

dfb