HinesSight

A rose cleavage tattoo: to stare or not to stare?

Ah, I enjoy etiquette questions of this sort (especially when I get to both ask and answer it):

Q. Mr. Manners, if an attractive young woman wears a low-cut top, showing off a rose tattoo nestled in her shapely cleavage, is it proper to admire this work of body art in an obvious fashion?

A. Absolutely.

That's my short answer. Here's the explanation, and some background.

Recently I went into a Salem business and was approached by a twenty-something female employee. I was immediately distracted from my intended task by a more enjoyable activity.

Namely, appreciating the sight of an artistic rose tattoo that had the good fortune to occupy the nicely-curved valley between her breasts, which were exposed (but not excessively) by a scoop-necked blouse.

Since I'm about six feet tall, and she was considerably shorter, I couldn't avoid gazing at the tattoo and its surrounding busty environment.

I did make a desultory attempt to maintain eye contact with her as she asked if she could help me, but quickly realized that this was going to be impossible. Like a living bobblehead, I found my eyes bouncing back and forth from her chest to her face, which was nice to look at -- but considerably less interesting than the vivid red rose.

I just spent some enjoyable moments with Google looking for a photo of a similar tattoo. No success. This page has some cleavage tattoos, but not the right kind. And the rose tattoo here is way more chest-expansive.

Contemplating the etiquette of the situation after driving off, I decided that my response was entirely appropriate. Such was confirmed by a couple of friends, one male and one female, who supported my reasoning when I asked their opinion.

Which is, that if a woman (1) exposes her cleavage via her business attire, and (2) draws more attention to this part of her body via a bright red tattoo, it would be discourteous not to stare at what she obviously wants admired.

There are, of course, limits.

I'm glad that I didn't whip out my iPhone and snap a photo of her breasts (though I admit this thought later passed through the inappropriate-action area of my male brain -- which comprises a significant fraction of the whole neuronal mass).

My Googling did reveal that some consider cleavage tattoos trashy. And one commenter on a "Dress for Failure for Women" post said:

I’ll never forget the marketing assistant in a client’s office who perpetually wore ample cleavage coupled with a prominent rose tattoo…. well, you can probably guess where. Talk about a distraction. Unfortunately for her, the distraction was primarily humerous. We could never quite get past the thought of how close the tattoo artist might have come to puncturing her (ahem) chest.

Well, I can only speak the manly truth: I enjoy visiting business establishments where the female employees are attractive. If they dress provocatively, that's even better.

Given a choice between being helped by a busty young thing with a rose tattoo showing in her cleavage, and -- gosh, just about anybody else -- you can guess where I'm more likely to take my return business.

(Check out some responses to the question, "Is it rude to stare at someone's tattoo?" No, say the tattooed. Just don't touch, usually.)

Fox News still denies reality of global warming

It never fails to amaze me that a cable news channel -- Fox -- is so dead-set against reporting reality.

I watch Fox News occasionally as part of my exercise regimen, since it usually only takes a few minutes of viewing to get my pulse racing into the "Outrageous!" zone. Yesterday, what got my heart rate up was more global warming B.S. inspired by Al Gore's testimony at a Senate hearing.

Fox commentators made a big deal out of the fact that it was snowing in Washington, D.C. when Gore spoke.

Which, of course, shows their abysmal ignorance regarding the difference between weather and climate. Changes in the weather happen daily; changes in climate happen over long periods of time.

There's no doubt that the Earth is warming.

The only debate is over the causes, and what should be done about it. Whether it snows in a city on a particular day has zero relevance to global warming science, but you'd never know that from listening to Fox News.

A Christian Science Monitor story asked, "It's cold. Does that debunk global warming?" Obvious answer: No.

The National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. Climate, says NOAA, is what we expect; weather is what we get.

In other words, you can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even.

Yet Fox News also misled viewers by saying that 2008 was the coldest year in the United States since 2000. Here's what Fox left out: 2008 still was the ninth warmest year ever measured.

According to NASA:

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

Another blood-boiling bit of Fox News non-sensicality was their focus on a poll that found a high percentage of Americans (over 40%, I recall) don't believe that global warming is a big problem.

Over on a Fox blog, a global warming head-in-the-sander cited a similar, or maybe the same, poll: "A recent Rasmussen poll says 59 percent of those surveyed don’t believe mankind is warming up the planet."

Well, I can imagine a medieval version of Fox News (assuming there would be a difference from the 21st century version) intoning, "Ninety-nine percent agree with the Pope: Galileo is wrong -- the sun does go around the Earth."

Scientific research, and reality in general, doesn't depend on public opinion. Truth is independent of how many people believe in something. Evolution remains a settled fact even though creationism is accepted by a disturbingly high percentage of Americans.

Fox News is looking increasingly desperate to me.

Reporters and commentors seem frantic to show that even though the Republican agenda was heartily rejected by voters the past two elections, there's still some warmth left in the conservative oven.

Not from what I see on Fox News --the same old science-denying, rich people-affirming, government-hating crap that got our country into its current problems, and deserves to be channel-flipped onto CNN or MSNBC.

Solution to Safari not loading pages completely

One of the few glitches I've found with my dearly beloved MacBook laptop is how the Apple web browser, Safari, fails to load all of a page much of the time.

Sometimes it stalls and I have to reload the page to get any content. Sometimes it will download some images, but not others -- leaving Google News or Google Reader, for example, littered with annoying missing picture icons.

Others have complained about the same problem. Today I found an easy solution that, so far, seems to be working.

As the suggestion on that link said, I went to my Mac's system preferences (under the Apple icon) and clicked on Network, then Advanced, and finally DNS. I added two lines under the DNS server info already there: 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2

I have no idea what this does.

But it sure seems to have solved the problem of pictures not loading. Web sites appear to load faster and more smoothly now, so I wanted to share this tip in case somebody else has been frustrated with a similar Safari irritation.

My advice: Dump DISH and grab DirecTV

If you're thinking of getting rid of DISH network because it no longer has a favorite local station (like Portland's KATU, in our case), don't hesitate to jump to DirecTV.

That's what I decided to do, and after five days of experience with DirecTV -- the installer came last Thursday -- I'm wondering why I didn't dump DISH sooner.

Since we have several Qwest services (local line, unlimited long distance, DSL), adding DirecTV shaved another $10 off our bill. It's hard to compare the costs of DISH and DirecTV, given the many programming and receiver options, but it looks like we're going to save at least a little each month with DirecTV.

And now we have a considerably better picture, which isn't only due to getting the HD package (which we didn't have with DISH).

Basic digital programming is sharper on DirecTV, a conclusion echoed by a friend who also recently made the switch. A recent Consumer Reports issue found that DirecTV subscribers are considerably happier with their satellite service, including picture and sound, than DISH subscribers.

Now I know why.

The installation guy was on time and professional. The HD DVR is considerably more advanced than our old DISH DVR, which admittedly was several years old. I much prefer the channel guide set-up on DIrecTV, as well as how the listed recordings show up.

One of my qualms about switching to DirecTV was losing my beloved 30 second skip on the DISH remote control, which happens to be almost exactly the time between a play being whistled dead in a college football game, and when the next snap occurs.

Indeed, the DirecTV remote doesn't skip, but slips -- since the button takes three seconds to advance 30 seconds, and you see the televised images whizzing by (I guess this is a bone thrown to advertisers, since you get a subliminal exposure to ads).

I'd prefer to have a genuine skip button, but I'm adjusting to the DirecTV version. Maybe someday they'll switch to a real skip so I can save a bunch of three seconds each day and apply the time to some other important activity, like napping.

My only other gripe with DirecTV is how it records The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, plus other programs, I'm sure, that are repeated after the initial showing.

I indicate that I only want new shows recorded, but every day the HD DVR dutifully records every single episode of these two programs. So every day I dutifully delete all but the new show every evening.

Some Googling reveals that this problem seems to be caused by the content in the online programming guide that DirecTV uses, so I guess there's nothing DirecTV can do about it.

Still, I wish the DVR had the option of recording a particular program at a certain time, rather than having to get all new episodes (which, as I've found, often aren't really new).

Anyway, aside from these minor gripes I'm much happier with DirecTV than with DISH network, even leaving aside DISH's dropping of our local ABC station.

The Washington state Attorney General has a pretty good description of this issue here.

I realize that DISH and Fisher are both responsible for the dropped stations, but it still was irritating to miss the first episode of Lost's new season last Wednesday (fortunately a friend put it on DVD for me; it also was repeated a few days later).

Bottom line: switch to DirecTV if you're ticked off at DISH. Based on my experience, you won't have any regrets.

Advice from Salem for Sam Adams: don't resign

Sam, don't resign. That's my advice -- and it's been echoed by every progressive friend I've talked with here in Salem over the past few days.

Based on blogospheric news this afternoon, I'm glad to hear that you seemingly are going to stay on as Portland Mayor and not let the Prude Patrol chase you out of office.

There's lots of ways to look at your involvement with a 17-18 year old gay guy, and your subsequent efforts (a.k.a. "lying") to cover up the sexual nature of this relationship.

Here's how things look from my vantage point fifty miles or so south of scandal central.

Portland, realize how fortunate you are. The left-leaning citizens of Salem would be overjoyed to have a sex-crazed 42-year old gay mayor named Sam Adams.

They're stuck with Janet Taylor, who would never be caught doing anything illicit, and also will never be caught leading her town in an intelligent, creative, dynamic, Green manner (I say "they" because we live five miles outside of the city limits).

It'd be crazy if Portland cut loose a competent mayor like Sam Adams just because he tried to keep his on-the-edge-of-propriety sex life private. And, admittedly, out of the campaign for mayor spotlight.

Politicians are entitled to lie for good reasons. Based on opinion pieces like this one, the Resign Sam! feeding frenzy mainly seems to be founded on Adams not telling the truth when he was asked, prior to election day, about his relationship with the marvelously named Beau Breedlove (if Beau goes into gay porn, he won't have to take on a nom de plume).

I keep hearing, "This isn't about sex. It's about Sam Adams not telling the truth." Also, "If Adams hadn't lied to voters, he wouldn't have been elected."

OK, let's ponder the implications of those statements.

They're contradictory, which led Adams into a double-bind situation that justified his dissembling. If this isn't about sex, but rather lying, like so many people claim, then if Adams had told the truth about bedding an 18 year old it shouldn't have had much effect on his campaign for mayor.

Yet the same people also say that if Adams had told the truth, Portlanders would have been repulsed by a middle-aged man having (legal) sex with a teenager and many wouldn't have voted for him.

This shows that it really was about sex, which Adams -- savvy politician that he is -- realized. So he lied about his relationship with Breedlove, knowing that judgmental, prudish voters would punish him at the ballot box.

Imperfection is an asset, not a liability. Sure, in an ideal world politicians would always tell the truth. And citizens would always cast their vote for good reasons unrelated to a candidate's sexual predilections.

But this isn't an ideal world.

Those who want it to be so aren't in tune with reality. They're adrift either in a fundamentalist religion fantasy realm, where everybody obeys a moral code issued by God ("Thou shalt not lie"), or a secular utopia that's equally unrealistic.

People are complex creatures.

Especially talented, high-strung, intelligent, creative men like Sam Adams -- plus Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Gary Hart, and any number of other middle-aged males whose passion for life (and politics) spilled over into a passion for out of wedlock or barely-legal sex.

Europeans understand much better than we do that an elected official's policies are the important thing, not with whom he takes his pants off. A British commentator  wrote:

Britain is sliding towards an American style of politics, where we obsess about the "character" of our politicians rather than their policies. This is new. Just 40 years ago, we had a Prime Minister - Harold Macmillan - who famously said: "If you want personal morality, talk to a bishop, not a politician". Few British people disagreed. (It's probably just as well: Lord Boothby was having an affair in the Downing Street flat with Macmillan's wife, Dorothy, and also sharing young boys with Ronnie Kray).

...Of course, character and personality matter to some limited extent - but only insofar as they shape policy. Margaret Thatcher's stubbornness, for example, matters because it made her incapable of reversing catastrophic policies such as the poll tax. But to suggest that David Blunkett is more likely to lie because he has slept with a married woman is to disregard even the most basic history. Does Franklin Roosevelt's adultery undermine the New Deal? Does Adolf Hitler's fidelity to Eva Braun tell us much?

Politicians who can't be imagined doing anything other than sticking to the "straight and narrow" (I'm thinking George Bush) likely are going to be similarly unnaturally rigid with their policies.

I'd much rather have my president, or mayor, be wild and crazy in the bedroom and passionately intelligently creative in the policy arena.

I'll end with a bit of philosophy from Alan Watts that supports my Stay On Sam moral position:

The real goodness of human nature is its peculiar balance of love and selfishness, reason and passion, spirituality and sensuality, mysticism and materialism, in which the positive pole has always a slight edge over the negative.

(Were it otherwise, and the two were equally balanced, life would come to a total stalemate and standstill.)

Thus when the two poles, good and bad, forget their interdependence and try to obliterate each other, man becomes subhuman -- the implacable crusader or the cold sadistic thug.

It is not for man to be either an angel or a devil, and the would-be angels should realize that, as their ambition succeeds, they evoke hordes of devils to keep the balance.

This was the lesson of Prohibition, as of all other attempts to enforce purely angelic behavior, or to pluck out evil root and branch.

Big Look task force on wrong track

Oregon's 2009 state legislature has many pressing problems to deal with, notably our steadily sinking economy. Proposals to reform the land use system should take a back seat, especially if they don't make sense -- which describes what the Big Look task force has come up with.

Today I went to a Salem City Club meeting where three Oregon land use experts shared their take on the Big Look legislative recommendations.

Mike Thorne, who chaired the task force, tried to present a rationale for "tweaking the system," as the Portland Oregonian called it in a story published today. But he failed.

He admitted that Oregon is way ahead of other states when it comes to protecting farm and forest land, preventing urban sprawl, and fostering economically vibrant city centers.

So the statewide land use system is working well.

However, Thorne said there's a perception that it needs to be more flexible. He didn't say what led the task force to conclude this. Facts weren't high on the Big Look task force's agenda, as I pointed out earlier in "Legislature should ignore Big Look Task Force."

After Richard Whitman (head of the Department of Land Conservation and Development) provided more detail on the Big Look recommendations, 1000 Friends of Oregon's Bob Stacey explained why the proposed legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

The task force wants to make it easier for counties to rezone farm and forest land so subdivisions can sprout instead of crops and trees. Yet the protection of resource lands is a clear success of Oregon's current land use system.

So why weaken it?

Stacey said it's a shame that rezoning farm and forest land to allow for more development is the top priority of the Big Look task force, especially since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly (62%) for more protection of these lands in approving Measure 49 in 2007.

Indeed, it's crazy to propose weakening Measure 49 when it hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Measure 49 allows property owners to have three home sites on farm or forest land, so it already compromises protections for resource land.

Plus, court cases involving Measure 49 are wending their way through the state and federal legal system. This is no time to further muddy the land use waters with the unnecessary Big Look proposals.

A reader's comment on the Oregonian story told it like it is.

As a rural Eastern Oregon property owner let me tell you this regional system will destroy meaningful land-use planning in this state- this is a state- not a bunch of artificial regions and we need statewide planning.

Most county commissioners in this state would vote for anything if you stuck a dollar bill in front of their face- As a whole they are the most parochial backward looking dinosaurs anywhere.

Yet the Big Look task force wants to allow politicians from two or more counties to band together and agree to pave over irreplaceable farm and forest land. Crazy.

We need to preserve what makes Oregon special, not trash it so a few people can make some extra bucks at the expense of the many. Our land use system is doing a good job enhancing livability and economic prosperity.

Yes, it can be improved.

Unfortunately, the main recommendation of the Big Look task force -- weakening of farm and forest land protections -- is a big step in the wrong direction.

1000 Friends of Oregon gets it right:

The Big Look Task Force was created in 2005 to evaluate Oregon’s land use planning program and to recommend improvements to meet future challenges.  The Task Force’s work is drawing to an end; its legislative recommendations and a final report will be submitted to the 2009 Legislature.

Oregon will experience many changes over the next 30 years, providing both opportunities and challenges: almost 2 million more people will call Oregon home; global warming will continue to pose an environmental and economic threat; oil prices will rise; and Oregon’s economy will be operating in an increasingly global context.  Our statewide planning program, while imperfect, has been remarkably effective in achieving its goals over the last 30 years.  We have protected farm and forestland, contained sprawl, and managed growth far better than most other states.  To turn future population growth and the challenges of climate change and globalization into opportunities, we must strengthen our land use planning program, not weaken it.

The Task Force’s legislative recommendations include several proposals that 1000 Friends supports.  However, we oppose the most significant – and controversial – proposal, which would greatly erode protection for Oregon’s agricultural land.

Spikes-Spiders and the Tao of tire traction devices

Finding a way to safely drive around on snow and ice needs to be based on a basic Taoist principle of the universe: everything has an opposite.

Put otherwise, there's no free lunch. Both personal experience with traction devices and considerable Internet browsing on this subject has convinced me of that fact.

Example: I used to have a front wheel drive Volvo 850 wagon. Great car, but not super in our Oregon snow until I put Blizzak winter tires on it. They're made of a special rubber that stays flexible in cold temperatures and have a mud/snow tread design.

One day I'd driven to Portland in a heavy rain. I was cruising along the freeway at 55 or 60 and realized that I was no longer in contact with the pavement. Super scary feeling.

My brain remembered, "If you start to hydroplane, don't do anything sudden. Just gently reduce pressure on the gas pedal and slow down until you're back in control."

Which I did.

That lesson taught me that winter tires are excellent on snow or ice, but they suck big time when it comes to wet or dry traction. Tire reviews I've read in Consumer Reports support that conclusion.

So here my wife and I are in Oregon's Willamette Valley, where we usually get snow/ice no more than several times a year. It generally doesn't last long, though recently we had over a week of wintry weather.

What to do, traction device-wise? We live about six miles out in the country from the Salem city limits. Getting to town means driving up and over the south Salem hills.

Often our local roads are covered with ice, while in town the streets have been plowed and sanded -- another traction device complication, because I don't like to put tire chains on and off (who does?).

So last December I found myself driving around Salem on mostly clear pavement with chains on our all wheel drive Toyota Highlander. I needed the chains only for the first couple of miles, yet I didn't want to go through the trouble of removing them and putting them back on for the trip home.

And returning to the Blizzak (or similar winter tire) option didn't thrill me either, given my bad experience with hydroplaning.

Since most winter driving in our part of Oregon is on wet or, less frequently, dry roads, why give up so much tire safety for a few days a year of snow tire convenience? And on a hill covered with ice, even all wheel drive and snow tires isn't going to cut it.

Unless you use studs, which are legal in this state. But they're noisy, damage pavement, and aren't a good tire choice for wet or dry braking/handling.

Which gets me to Spikes-Spider. These are a type of chain that, once a drive wheel adapter is fitted, can be put on or taken off a tire in about a minute. (Check out these videos to see how it's done.)

After considerable Taoist tire traction pondering, I concluded that a set of Spikes-Spiders would be a nice fit for our Toyota Prius Touring, which I mostly drive.

It's front wheel drive with traction control. All it needs is better tire traction, and I should be able to get around great on snow or ice. I didn't drive it all in our recent wintry weather, because I only wanted to put chains on our all wheel drive Highlander.

I finished installing the Spikes-Spiders a few days ago.

As noted above, you have to put an hub assembly on each drive wheel. A locking ring then fits on the adapter. This keeps the chains secured without any need to get down on the ground or reach around the back of a tire (as is necessary even with top of the line easy-fit chains).

With Spikes-Spiders, the time-consuming part comes at the beginning, in the comfort of your garage, car port, or driveway.

This needs to be remembered by a buyer of the product, because the installation directions aren't crystal clear and it may take some experimenting to get the right spacers added to the hub assembly so the chains fit properly on the tire.

In addition, the chains themselves can be adjusted, as they have outer and inner links that allow fine-tuning of their tightness.

Spikes-Spiders aren't designed to be put on for the first time by the side of a road as the snow is falling. This positive review describes what can happen if you don't test the fit of the chains before you need them.

Now that they're (seemingly) properly installed on our Prius, I'm ready for some snow or ice. They appear to be a great traction device option, offering the advantages of chains without the on-and-off hassle, and letting regular tires do their thing in wet and dry conditions.

The reviewer gets it right, from the way I see Spikes-Spiders so far.

Of course, the real test is how they performed as snow chains. The Spike-Spiders were extremely effective. The Swiss-made contraptions bit well on the snow and ice. In fact, in test panic stops, the SRX came to a halt nearly as well as it does on dry pavement. We climbed steep hills without slipping, with better control than the four wheel-drive vehicle we followed up one particularly steep snowy road.

When properly installed, the Spike-Spiders are a well-designed product that provide an effective solution for tough winter driving. The only negatives are the price, the lame-ass instructions, and the major geek factor the mounting plates project. Otherwise, you're good to snow.

They're manufactured in Switzerland and have a European feel of quality to them. You can see a British-accented commercial here, but I found a German version more enticing. (The video shows the Compact style; I got the Sport style, which have actual chains and are billed as better in deep snow and on hills.)

Ustream shows inauguration live on iPhone

Oooh! So cool.

Both Obama's inauguration and Ustream's new video player for the iPhone that is streaming live coverage.

I just turned on my new iPhone, clicked on the App Store, and downloaded it via a "Ustream" search.

On my phone it wants a wi-fi connection. We don't have 3G coverage at our house, so I don't know if it will stream video over 3G.

Still, it's neat to be able to watch CNN on both our TV and my iPhone. Now I can go to the bathroom and not miss a live moment of history.

Thanks, Ustream.

Last chance for some Bush bashing

Starting tomorrow, everything in the United States (heck, the whole world!) is going to change.

Change, change, change. Obama's inauguration is going to bring some wonderful a'changin (just like his campaign did).

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

So I've got to get in my last Bush bashing today.

Because soon I'm going to be caught up in the Wonderful World of Obama where everything is going to be so much better, I might forget how much I disliked what Bush did to the country the past eight years.

Stephen Colbert is fond of saying, "Bush, a great president...or the greatest president?"

Whenever I hear that I translate it into, "Bush, a bad president...or the worst president?" There's good reason to choose the latter.

He's been a disaster for this country, aside from a few small semi-successes like No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and increased AIDS prevention funding.

Remember the good economic times Bush inherited at the end of Clinton's presidency? The budget surpluses? The respect America had around the world? The pride people took in having a national leader who could speak eloquently and wisely?

Bush flushed all that down the drain.

Looking back, it was totally predictable. Bush is a fool. An intelligent fool, yes, but a decent IQ and an Ivy League education doesn't prevent someone from being a functional imbecile when it comes to managing a country.

When I see Bush on television these days he looks just like Alfred E. Neuman to me. Clueless. Especially about how clueless he is. What? Me worry?

Oh dear God, yes. We clear-thinking, left-leaning Americans worried. From November 2000 right up until now. We were correct.

Not about everything that Bush would screw up, but pretty darn close. If you're one of the few Bush-defenders left in this country, keep this in mind if my ranting seems overblown.

Progressives feel like they've been shouting "Fire, fire!" for eight long years while pointing to flames shooting out of a building.

A majority of voters heard the call in 2000, but one judge on the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush. He got an actual majority in 2004, which simply goes to show that you can fool most of the people some of the time.

Now, finally, Americans have woken up, largely because of Barack Obama -- with a lot of help from a loud economic meltdown alarm clock.

I was pleased to read today that even "In McCain Country, Obama Acceptance Grows." I'm confident that he's going to turn out to be a genuinely great president. Maybe even the greatest. (Colbert is going to have to find a new joke.)

Obama is going to bring this country together in a way that Bush was incapable of, given his cluelessness and incapacity to string together words into a coherent thought.

In that warm spirit, I'll end with some George Bush positivity. Hmmmm. Let's see...

I'll give Bush credit for doing a decent job on preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. We haven't had one, so he did something right here. Yes, Bush and Cheney trampled on the Constitution in the process, but this doesn't take away from the fact that another 9/11, though anticipated, never occurred.

What else? Well, I just learned that Bush likes fart jokes. So do I. Hey, we've got something in common.

Hopefully he'll get an iPhone loaded with iFart as a leaving-office gift. I like the idea of him sitting at home in Texas laughing hysterically to electronic farts.

He's so much better suited for that than being president of the United States.

"Slumdog Millionaire" puts financial meltdown in perspective

We here in the United States, who think we're going through tough economic times, need to put Slumdog Millionaire at the top of our movie-watching list.

Laurel and I saw it last night at Salem Cinema. Aside from the film's entertainment value (off the charts!) I came away with a fresh appreciation of how good the lifestyle of most Americans is compared with how Indians live in the Mumbai slums.

Many scenes are incredibly powerful, showing how children and adults alike live perpetually on the edge of existence, eating meal to meal, not being sure whether the bed they sleep in one night will be theirs tomorrow.

And here I am, fretting over whether I should switch to grande vanilla lattes, from venti, in a minimalist money-saving effort.

I've been to India twice, in 1977 and 1998. I didn't travel around much, but I saw enough to realize that Slumdog Millionaire captures both the inward spirit and the outward appearance of the country beautifully.

Watching the movie, I kept wondering how Indians themselves would react to it.

Slumdog Millionaire isn't exactly the India Tourist Bureau's dream. Much of the film shows the gritty, dirty, poverty-stricken, crime-filled side of India. And it definitely makes you want to stay out of the hands of the Mumbai Police Department.

It appears, though, that Slumdog Millionaire is being heartily embraced by India. Ditto for Indians living in Britain, according to this story.

In the cinema, when the first flashes of Boyle's Mumbai unroll across the screen - drawing in the fields of garbage, rivers of excrement and the constant grasp in the city - there are no angry mutterings.

In fact, although Amitabh Bachchan, India's biggest Bollywood star, has blasted Danny Boyle for portraying India in a poor light, most British Asians are relieved that, finally, a slice of the real India is out there on display, warts and all.

Jaspreet Pandohar, 35, a freelance writer, says she feels the film portrayed the city and its people in a truthful, dignified manner. "India's commercial capital may be booming but there's a dark underbelly of crime, deprivation and poverty that is often ignored or misrepresented by Indian cinema and the government."

This evening I talked about Slumdog Millionaire with my daughter, Celeste, who lives in Hollywood and makes her living selling high-priced designer eyewear. She agreed that Americans need to put our current financial difficulities in global perspective.

Celeste said that a friend had just returned from Jamaica and spoke about how people there sometimes wear two different kinds of shoes (shoes, and the lack of them, also come in for quite a bit of attention in Slumdog Millionaire). And children trudge along carrying heavy containers of water.

So, yes, times are tough. But our tough times would be viewed by most of the world's population as extravagant beyond belief.

Let's be grateful for what we have, and generous toward those who have so much less.

Final comment: I loved the final scene, upbeat Bollywoodish and jarringly unlike the rest of the movie that it was. Guess I'm not cut out to be a sophisticated movie reviewer like Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who said:

There is a mismatch here. Boyle and his team, headed by the director of photography, Anthony Dod Mantle, clearly believe that a city like Mumbai, with its shifting skyline and a population of more than fifteen million, is as ripe for storytelling as Dickens’s London, and they may be right; hence the need to get their lenses dirty on its clogged streets.

At the same time, the story they chose is sheer fantasy, not in its glancing details but in its emotional momentum. How else could Boyle get away with assembling his cast for a Bollywood dance number, at a railroad station, over the closing credits? You can either chide the film, at this point, for relinquishing any claim to realism or you can go with the flow—surely the wiser choice. After all, to make an old-fashioned crowd-pleaser is no mean task, requiring both folly and verve; and right now, I suspect, the crowd is ready to be pleased.

Salem is a tourist draw? Only for bland lovers.

Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper. Especially if it's a front page story in the Salem Statesman Journal with the headline, "Is Salem a tourist draw? Absolutely, bureau says."
Download Salem, a tourist draw?

I'm a long time Salem resident (I moved there 31 years ago, but now live about five miles south of the city limits). I know Salem well, obviously.

When family or friends come to visit for the first time, Laurel and I start to panic. "What are we going to do? Where are we going to take them? There's nowhere interesting to go."

So I guess we're not going to be spokespeople for Travel Salem, the snazzier name of what formerly was the Salem Convention and Visitor's Association, which has introduced its new "Absolutely Oregon" catch phrase.

We like Salem -- but mostly for reasons such as the vast expanse of free on-street parking spaces downtown (because there's not much to draw people there).

In this regard, as I've documented, Salem is better than Portland.

But otherwise my blog posts on the subject of Oregon's yawn-inducing capital city have been along the lines of Salem sinks further into mediocrity and Here's why Salem is so depressing.

That said, I've no doubt that Travel Salem will be able to attract conventioneers to the area.

Groups such as the Bland Lovers Association and People for the Abolition of Excitement will come here like moths drawn to gray. Also, the Watching Paint Dry discussion circle.

If I sound critical, it's because Salem deserves to be criticized.

Along with every resident whose tastes are so strip mall, big box store, and fast food'ish, the rest of us are doomed to mediocrity when cool businesses reject the area after a marketing study.

That's what I've been told turns Trader Joes off when they considered coming to Salem: the lack of cultural creatives -- who are willing to spend money on healthy, organic, cutting-edge, innovative items.

Recently we ate at the P.F. Changs restaurant in Bridgeport Village south of Portland. There's nothing like it in Salem. Great atmosphere. Excellent food. Reasonable prices.

We begged the server to tell her bosses that Salem needs a P.F. Changs. Badly. Her reply started off sounding encouraging.

"I've heard that we're thinking of opening up a new store in...Bend. But not Salem."

Laurel and I were shocked.

"But Bend has like one third the population of Salem. Come on, we don't have a Trader Joes; we don't have a Whole Foods. There's plenty of good locations in south Salem, where the greatest enclave of P.F. Changs-friendly people live."

She said she'd pass on our request to management, noting that she hears similar pleas from the many Salemites who frequent P.F. Changs. I won't hold my breath for a restaurant here.

The most amusing quote in the Statesman Journal story came at the end, from the executive director of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, Mike McLaran.

Salem, as a whole, is unified in absolutely the greatest place to be -- to live, work, and do business.

Wow, that's hilarious. My wife and I both cracked up when we read that. Mike has a sideline waiting for him in ironic stand-up comedy.

Digital TV changeover will hurt many rural viewers

Since we watch television via satellite (DISH network now, DirecTV soon), the February 17 changeover from analog to digital won't affect us -- since satellite already uses a 100% digital signal.

However, quite a few rural viewers are going to find favorite stations disappearing in a few weeks, even if they've gotten a converter box that allows an old television to tune in digital TV (new televisions have a built-in digital tuner).

Harry, a HinesSight regular who, like me, lives in rural Oregon, made me aware of this problem recently via email. He wanted me to complain about the changeover.

Digital reception sucks the dripping bag around here. Where we could watch a so-so quality analog signal; with digital, its either go or no go.I would like to know how many folks are just simply going to lose the ability to watch TV.

And no, I am not going to pay. We got our converter box and erected the biggest TV antenna you have ever seen. We get Ch 22. Period. Even channels that are REALLY sharp in analog; nothing. "No signal"

Will you consider ripping on this subject? I would like to see a 2 year extension on analog.

Glad to oblige. Didn't Descartes say I blog, therefore I rant (or something like that)?

First, since Harry wasn't an Obama supporter I can't resist pointing out that here's an issue he and Barack agree on. The Obama transition team is calling for a delay in switching from analog to digital TV transmission.

Before writing this post I had to educate myself some on the issue through the University of Google.

I learned that the digital go-or-no-go Harry mentioned is called the "cliff effect." Because your reception falls off a sharp cliff into unwatchable land if you live quite a ways from a digital transmission, or are in a valley beyond a TV tower's line of sight.

With analog signals you can have a sort-of-watchable signal. I remember this from my childhood days, since we lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains and got a fuzzy picture at best.

But you could watch it. With digital, though, the picture is either there or it isn't, as Consumers Union points out.

The all-or-nothing nature of digital broadcasts also comes into play. With analog stations, a weak signal can still yield a watchable picture—it might be snowy or have ghosts, but you'll get a continuous picture and uninterrupted sound.

If you're getting marginal reception of digital signals, both the picture and sound might freeze or break up to the point that it's not watchable. If you're really on the fringes—either too far from a tower or with too many obstacles in the way—you'll see a black screen that says "Weak or no signal."

Apparently this is happening with Harry. I feel for him.

And for millions of other Americans, many of them low-income, who are going to get screwed over when the digital changeover happens and they suddenly find themselves watching a big blank nothing on TV.

I'd been under the impression that the main problem was the feds running out of money to fund the coupon program that lowered the cost of getting a conversion box. (People now are being put on a waiting list to get the coupons.)

I hadn't realized that some rural residents won't be able to get a watchable digital signal even if they've gotten a box and upgraded their antenna, as Harry has.

Over the air digital TV doesn't travel as far, or as well, as analog TV. There are resources that help a person choose the best antenna for their location. But if you live in a digital broadcast desert, no antenna is going to bring in the analog stations that you used to enjoy watching.

Unfortunately, there's a chance no antenna will work for you. Recent reports indicate that some households are in fringe areas with poor reception, and for them, off-air digital TV might not be a good option.

That leaves them with an expensive "let them eat cake" (cable or satellite service) option. Or to go television hungry.

I don't know what the solution is. Seemingly nobody does. So it seems reasonable to do as Obama suggests: put the digital changeover on hold for a while.

Study the situation some more. Give rural and low-income people more time to adjust to digital over the air broadcasting.

If you've lost your job, the last thing you need is to lose your free TV also.

Reasons to love a 3G, GPS'ized iPhone

After extolling in a quasi-philosophical manner why spending money on an iPhone brings legitimate happiness, a commenter on my other blog asked me to explain why I'm so enamored of this piece of technology.

Glad to oblige.

Tonight I got around to recording my voice mail greeting in which I used the phrase "dearly beloved iPhone."

So just as I was eager to tell people about how wonderful my wife-to-be Laurel was after I met her, it's a pleasure to share what -- after five days of togetherness -- I find so enticing about the 3G iPhone.

(Note: obviously I'm an iPhone newbie. My technical knowledge of the gadget is limited. And I haven't explored all it can do yet. So take this as one man's first impressions of his new love.)

I'll begin with a bit of additional philosophy...

Today I discussed my now consummated lust for the iPhone with some friends. We agreed that only one reason is needed for getting one. Or anything else for that matter.

Pleasure. If it feels good, buy it. No explanation required.

Most of us tend toward Protestant ethics sorts of explanations for stuff that we want. That's socially acceptable, especially in these tough economic times. "I need it to get my work emails." "It'll keep us in touch if an emergency arises." And such.

Well, the iPhone is a useful tool. But for me, it's akin to the Mini Cooper. When I see and touch it, I want it.

Badly. The reasons come later, explanatory add-ons intended to justify my instant non-rational intuitive Oh, baby, you're so beautiful!

OK. With that out of the way, let's move on to some specifics -- what the iPhone does that makes me adore her so much.

This CNET video of the top 5 reasons to love the iPhone gets it mostly right for me (though since I don't access a Microsoft Exchange server, that reason is moot).

#1 on the list was the GPS capability. Right on.

I've been obsessed with firing up the Maps feature, clicking on the button that locates my current position, and then watching satellite images (from Google Earth, I believe) fill the screen as I drive along.

I took a one-mile walk with our dog around a nearby lake yesterday.

The blue current position dot on the iPhone faithfully followed my every step with great accuracy. When I was standing in front of the dock the satellite image showed a blue dot in front of that very place.

You also can have the map show only roads, or a hybrid of satellite image and roads. So the iPhone is a reasonable subsitute for a dedicated GPS device such as the Garmin Nuvi that I also own and love.

Except you need a cell phone signal to use the iPhone GPS capabilities, and it doesn't speak turn by turn directions; but in most cases it'll get you to where you want to go.

Next love reason: all the applications that can be downloaded.

Some are free, some cost 99 cents or more. Many make use of GPS, such as Urbanspoon (which finds nearby restaurants of various types) and AccuWeather (which offers up detailed forecasts and current conditions for your present location).

My overall all-encompassing maxi-reason for getting an iPhone is that it connects you via the Internet, email, text messaging, and (naturally) phone to the big wide world wherever you have an AT&T cellular connection.

Or, for Internet and email wherever you have a wi-fi connection (that's what my iPhone connects to at home, since it is much faster than AT&T wireless).

So basically you've got a mini-featured computer in your pocket or purse. In most areas you'll be able to access the Internet wherever you are, rather than having to find a coffee shop with wi-fi.

Lastly, the iPhone simply works. In a fun fashion.

In the same way as my Apple MacBook laptop is hugely more enjoyable to use than my IBM ThinkPad, so the iPhone is vastly more user-friendly than the LG flip phones that my wife and I have been using.

Whether it's selecting a ringtone, accessing voice mail, adding in new contact info, or simply making a phone call, the iPhone makes it easy to do whatever you want without having to search for a manual to figure out where, in a maze of incomprehensible menus, a particular function resides.

I used to assume that when someone was hunched over a cell phone, fingers tapping away, they were communicating with friends, family, or business associates via text messages or email, or were playing a game.

With the iPhone, though, people like me (retirees who aren't hugely sociable) can sit down, turn the thing on, and have the whole world of the Internet open up through the Safari web browser and cool iPhone applications.

Like a technologically turned-on and tuned-in relative told me recently, "Brian, the iPhone isn't only about making phone calls; it's so much more."

So true.

(Here's another guy's five reasons to love the iPhone.)

iPhone shows money can buy happiness

Jeez, here I am, sixty years old, and only now realizing that I've had it wrong for most of my philosophically-inclined life: notwithstanding the oft-heard adage, money really can buy happiness.

I know this, because I've become increasingly blissful the more dollars I send in Apple's direction.

Like a drug dealer that gets you hooked on cheap highs before bringing out the expensive good stuff, my first taste of the modern Apple offerings was the iPod Touch.

It was cool. So easy to use. Such an elegant interface. I eagerly transferred my favorite CDs into iTunes, and thence to my new best friend, iPod'y.

After a while (just as Apple's nefarious marketing plan intended) the contrast between my eager-to-please iPod Touch and my often-cranky Windows laptop became too obvious to ignore.

So rather than indulging myself on my sixth decade birthday with a high-powered Suzuki scooter, I changed gears and found myself at Salem's Apple store handing over my VISA card in exchange for a newly released aluminum MacBook.

The past few months with Mac'y have been one long extended honeymoon.

Like iPod'y, she almost always does just what I want. And even when she doesn't, my MacBook is so cute, I don't get mad at her.

Deep in my heart, I knew what was coming next.

I'd spend time with people addicted to the really strong Apple stuff and get a contact high from them. I lusted after what they had, but tried my best to resist their entreaties.

"Come on, Brian, what's holding you back? Give it a try. You know you want to. I just love it. You wlll too. Why not feel as good as I do?"

A few days ago I surrendered to the inevitable. And a sign from Tao.

I'd been looking at iPhones on the Internet, fruitlessly trying to find a discounted rate plan. After my Tai Chi class I noticed that Dave, who didn't seem like a techno-freak, was holding one.

I asked him how he liked it. A lot, he said, just like every other iPhone owner I'd ever talked to. He showed me some favorite features. That pushed me over the edge.

And, the next day, through the door of south Salem's AT&T store, where I picked up two iPhones for my wife and me. 

Ever since -- it's been a bit over forty-eight hours now -- if I start to feel slightly down, I just think "iPhone!" and pull out my newest Apple lover, who, like iPod'y and Mac'y, treats me so fine.

Even with only two-bar reception on the basic AT&T network at our home in the south Salem hills cellular wilderness. Almost everywhere else iPhon'y connects on the higher speed 3G network.

I love the GPS capabilities. Yesterday, after going to the dentist, I pulled over when I got to downtown and pretended that I didn't know how to find my Tai Chi class.

Typing in "Pacific Martial Arts," it just took a few seconds for the iPhone to come up with driving directions for the few blocks that separated me from Court Street. Complete with Google satellite imagery of the area, in addition to the street map.

Later, as I laid in bed, playing around with iPhon'y one last time before going to sleep, I went to the App(lication) Store.

Touching "Top 25" I saw that the #1 iPhone best "seller" (many apps are free) was iFart Mobile. Knew I had to have it, just from the title.

Best 99 cents I've ever spent.

I laughed hysterically for the next five minutes, listening to various farts, realizing that while comedy comes in many guises, there's nothing as satisfying as fart humor. I felt young again, like I was back in fourth grade (where most men spend a good share of their emotional lives).

Tonight I elevated my iPhone application purchases with another wise 99 cent outlay, for Koi Pond. Another marvelous bit of software. I love to shake iPhon'y, see fish food fall into the water, and watch my koi eat it.

The only people happier than iPhone owners are iPhone application developers, who are raking in the dough even in these tough economic times. People still have 99 cents to spend on essential items like iFart.

Which reportedly brought its developers $40,000 in two days, and hugely more since then.

Like a Newsweek story says, "There's Gold in Them iPhones."

Happiness too. Forget about seeking the meaning of life. Just buy the best stuff that Apple offers and let life take care of itself.

If you ever feel like there's something more that you're missing, fire up iFart and let

loose a big one (samples here). The void in your life will be filled with childish laughter.

Leaving you...fulfilled. Especially if you're of the male persuasion.

(When you get an iPhone, as most people on Earth eventually will, get this book also. It'll help you dive into the enervating iPhone pool much more smoothly.)

I'm done with DISH network after Fisher feud

Sorry, DISH Network, I've changed my mind. Your satellite dish on our roof soon will be replaced by a DirecTV model.

On January 1 I was planning to stick with DISH, even though turning off our local ABC affiliate, KATU (Channel 2) was deeply irritating.

Watching the 2009 Rose Bowl on a 4.5 inch laptop window wasn't nearly as much fun as seeing it on our new 42 inch LCD television would have been. And we're getting anxious about the new season of "Lost" starting in a few weeks on ABC.

Still, I was going to give DISH more time to work out a deal with Fisher Communications until I glanced at the cover of the February 2009 issue of Consumer Reports.

It said "We rate 27 phone, TV & web providers." I turned to page 22. Where I found this advice about bundled services:

Recommended
These carriers stand out for the reasons cited below

If TV is paramount and you can't get fiber service:
A hybrid bundle that includes DirecTV

This satellite TV provider scored significantly higher than the major cable companies and rival Dish Network for TV picture, sound, and channel selection, with 150 high-def channels at the latest count, compared with 75 or so for AT&T [which offers DISH] and 35 to 50 for most cable companies.

It's TV service is offered in hybrid bundles with DSL and phone service from some telephone providers. Combinations of Qwest Internet and phone services and DirecTV television service compare well against bundles from the best cable companies. Satellite requires a satellite dish and other equipment, usually free or at a discount in exchange for a contractual agreement.

That pushed me over the-get-rid-of-DISH edge. I researched DirecTV offerings, then called Qwest.

By dumping our AT&T long distance and going with Qwest, plus adding DirecTV, we ended up with a $20 a month bundle discount for having four services: local phone, long distance, DSL, and satellite television.

The HD Plus DirecTV package will end up costing us about the same, or a bit less, than our current roughly comparable DISH package. We'll get a HD DVR receiver at no extra cost.

I also was impressed by DirecTV's Scheduler service. It lets you schedule programs for recording via a mobile phone or computer, if you're not at home and suddenly realize that you're going to miss an important sports event or TV show.

Pretty cool. And not available on DISH.

One last benefit for switching to DirecTV: revenge. This will punish DISH Network for going back on its local channel commitment to us that it made when we signed up quite a few years ago.

Because so many people in our area are switching from DISH to DirecTV, our installation date isn't until January 22. That, I believe, is one day after the new season of Lost starts.

Well, we might have to watch the first show online. No problem.

I'll be feeling good about getting rid of DISH, which should have been able to negotiate a deal with Fisher Communications long before this.

"Return to the One" published under new imprint

In case you're wondering what happened to my best-selling book (in the admittedly narrow Greek philosophy: Plotinus category), "Return to the One" is still available on Amazon.

I've published it under my Adrasteia Publishing imprint, having gotten the rights back from Unlimited Publishing as of January 1, 2009.

So now the book is in a transition zone.

The old Amazon listing doesn't show any decently priced new copies available, because that edition is out of print. But the positive reader reviews are still there.

The new "Return to the One" listing lacks the reviews, which hopefully will be copied over by Amazon soon. Correction of a single typo is the only difference between the 2004 and 2009 editions, aside from changes to the title and copyright pages.

Remember: it's never too early to start your Christmas shopping.

That special someone in your life who has always wanted a book about the third century Greek mystic philosopher, Plotinus, would be thrilled to find "Return to the One" under the tree come December.

I'm pushing for increased sales because Amazon should give my book more visibility once the new edition starts selling as well as the first edition did.

Yet currently the Adrasteia Publishing version is still largely hidden from an Amazon "Plotinus" or "Brian Hines" search view. Amazon listings take a while to automatically update, but I suspect that books which sell better get more rapid Amazonian visibility.

Tai Chi African dancing...only in Salem

Well, that was different. And fun.

Doing Tai Chi to an African'ish drum beat. Learning a few Zambian dance steps from Mary, a visitor to our class who is finishing up a Ph.D. in fisheries science from Penn State.

Mary's education has been supported by the Elizabeth Bowers Zambia Education Fund. Gerry, a fellow Tai Chi student, and his wife started the Fund in memory of their daughter.

It's a great cause that Laurel and I contribute to each year. A little $$$ goes a long way, when its helping Zambian girls get an education.

Mary gamely followed along with unfamiliar Tai Chi moves for the first part of the class. Then Warren, our instructor, asked her to show us some African movement. Mary said she needed music to dance.

No problem.

Warren's wife is a Taiko drummer (way cool). Drums are kept at the studio, so soon I was trying to mimic Mary's moves as Warren and a student kept up a beat.

I was kind of glad she had her back to me. This old Oregon white man doesn't move like a youthful Zambian black girl.

But really, who cares? That's a big part of what I've learned from the dance lessons Laurel and I have been taking the past few years.

You've got to dance as if no one is watching you.

Which, usually, nobody is -- though you may feel like a spotlight is focused on your unsteady steps. Dancing is largely about letting go...of ego, tension, anxiety, tentativeness.

I enjoyed thinking, "Wow, is there any other place in the world where Tai Chi is being practiced to an African rhythm right now?"

Almost surely not. Salem had a moment of uniqueness tonight.

After the class was over Connie, one of the most experienced Tai Chi'ers, showed me a story that was in the East Salem edition of the Statesman Journal.

Glancing at the photo that accompanied it, I recognized a good friend: me! Plus, the back of Laurel's head.

Someone had told us about the photo when the story came out on December 17. But since we don't get the East Salem version of the newspaper I'd given up hope on seeing what we looked like.

Not bad.

This was taken during our RJ Dance Studio basic swing class. I didn't expect to make it into the paper after I exhibited an excessive degree of enthusiasm for having my picture taken.

Lora, our dance instructor, began the class by introducing the photographer and saying, "If anyone doesn't want to be in a photo, just let him know."

I couldn't stop myself from blurting out, "Oh, no -- I love to be photographed, please, me, me, me."

When the class started I noticed that the guy seemed to be taking pictures of everybody but me and Laurel. I figured that my me, me, me had blown our chances for appearing in the newspaper.

Yet there we are (in the background, but hey, that still counts).

We're eager to take more dance lessons in 2009. So far we're the first to sign up for a beginning Salsa class.

Come on Salemites...get out and learn to dance! You'll be better prepared next time a Zambian girl shows you some moves in your Tai Chi class.

Warning: Buying a new TV can be dangerous to marital health

Whew! Laurel and I got out of Salem's Video Only store with our relationship intact.

But it was touch and go for a while, as choosing a new television has become an exercise that highlights male-female differences.

It used to be that you looked at a bunch of TVs lined up at a store and picked one that had a pleasing picture and was within your price range.

On the afternoon of New Year's Eve, though, Laurel and I found ourselves taking a crash course in HDTV technology as we tried to decide on a 42 inch LCD set to buy.

The impetus to dump our ancient Phillips 32 inch tube monstrosity came mostly from me. I've been irritated over DISH network's dropping of the local ABC station, but don't want to shift to DirecTV, a competing satellite service.

So I figured I'd drown my ABC-lacking (no Rose Bowl! maybe no Lost!) sorrow by being able to watch our remaining programming in high definition on a large screen.

Tuesday I'd gone into Video Only on my own to scope out the HDTV possibilities. One glance at the crystal clear football game displayed on a couple of dozen flat panels arrayed along a Video Only wall convinced me that it was time to get out of the television stone age.

But this had to be a shared marital decision. Hence, the next day I escorted Laurel over to the 42 inch LCD section and pointed out my preferred model.

Which soon turned out to be my unpreferred model, as I hadn't realized that the LG50 lacked some desirable features that the LG70 had.

Of course, I didn't really understand much about those features.

Such as four HDMI connectors rather than three, and TruMotion 120Hz instead of 60Hz. I simply felt deeply in my male bones that the more technological bells and whistles a TV had, the better.

Laurel, though, was fixated on comparing how the LG70 picture compared to the LG50. Her intuitional female self was, literally, looking at the big picture -- not analyzing the techie details of the sets like I was.

I began to feel sorry for Teresa, the Video Only salesperson who was helping us. She did her best to remain neutral as Laurel and I aired our differences.

L: The LG 50 picture looks brighter than the LG70.
B: That's because the set is adjusted differently. We can make the LG70 picture look however we want once we get home.
L: Well, the LG50 picture still looks better to me.
B: (more exasperated now) OK, I understand that. But like I said, there's lots of adjustments that can be made, and the LG70 has more of them.
L: Another thing... the LG70 has red trim on the sides. I don't like it.
B: Jeez! Trim doesn't affect how a TV works! Just don't look at the side of the set!

And so it went, until Teresa told us that she was going to do something else and we should let her know when we'd made a decision.

I felt like sending out for a marriage counselor. But then I remembered that I was married to a retired one.

I'm not sure what led to our HDTV impasse being broken.

Probably Laurel realized that I was so attached to getting the LG70s higher-tech features, we'd be arguing in the Video Only aisle until closing time if she didn't say "Fine, go ahead and get it."

When I heard those words I rocketed off to find Teresa. She was standing by the check-out counter.

"Teresa, hurry! Write up a LG70 order before my wife changes her mind!"

As she was typing into the computer terminal I asked her if it was common for couples to have so much difficulty agreeing on a TV. "Oh, yes," Teresa told me, "It happens all the time."

I can believe it.

I suspect a large part of the problem is that men can visualize themselves playing around with a bigger and badder remote control that now not only can change channels and volume, but also manipulate intricate details of how the high-definition picture looks.

Women, on the other hand, seem to believe that watching television is the point of having a television.

No, not at all, says my remote-control obsessed mind, which has had an outrageous amount of fun the past few days playing around with the multitudinous combinations of picture-altering options offered by the LG70.

I tune in a football game. Try out "Sport," "Vivid," "Standard," and other pre-set viewing options. I also turn TruMotion to high, low, and off, observing how this changes the look of the action.

Haven't even begun to delve into the "Expert" options, which I'm assuming allow for more customized fine-tuning of the picture. Then, next week DISH will be delivering a HD DVR receiver upgrade and turning on an expanded range of HD channels.

Who needs to watch TV? I'm having a great time fiddling with the remote control. Actually watching televison is going to be kind of a let-down.

How I see the DISH vs. Fisher dispute

Wow, it sure was fun to watch the Rose Bowl on a 4.5 inch screen this afternoon.

That's the only way I could see the game -- via the Internet -- thanks to the hugely frustrating standoff between the DISH satellite TV network and Fisher Communications, which owns several ABC stations in the northwest, including Portland's KATU.

Like I said before, curses on both DISH and Fisher. And I know a lot of other DISH subscribers feel the same way.

I've asked representatives of both companies to give me the details of this contract dispute. How much was DISH paying previously to rebroadcast local ABC stations? How much is DISH willing to pay now? How much is Fisher asking? 

George left a seemingly knowledgeable comment on my first post which said in part:

what Dish network is not saying is that Fisher wants a new contract that will last years by the way, where compensation will be raised from 8 cents a subscriber to 15 cents a subscriber...a 80% increase, dish only pays right now your locals 8 cents a subscriber and charge you $5 bucks a month for the locals which in some areas is only 4 channels so 8x4 = 32 cents and then they charge you 5 bucks again who's being greedy here.

This has a ring of truth to it. But when I wrote the KATU general manager (John Tamerlano), asking the questions above, all I got emailed to me was a form letter. Excerpt:

It's important to know that while the specific terms of our negotiation with Dish Network cannot be divulged, we are not asking for anything more than many much less significantly viewed cable networks are receiving. The increase that is being reported has been grossly exaggerated and is comparable to other broadcast stations.

OK, that also sounds believable. So I've come to be more pissed off at DISH than Fisher.

I've told the head guy at DISH that I'd be happy to send him a couple of bucks to pay for a year's worth of getting KATU at a higher rate if he'd get a contract approved. For less than the cost of a latte, I'd like to be able to watch Lost, Dancing With the Stars, and other favorite ABC shows.

For a while I seriously considered switching to DirecTV. But then I realized that while I'd be making a point to DISH, I'd also be causing myself television-watching grief.

It's complicated to switch satellite services. We've got over fifty hours of saved-up shows to watch on our DISH DVR. I like the DISH equipment (especially the 30 second skip feature) and the programming.

The only thing I don't like is not getting our local ABC station.

However, we've found that the KGW news is more enjoyable to watch than KATU's, so that's no loss. And if KATU is still off the DISH lineup when the new season of Lost starts, we can watch via the Internet (and probably on our television set, once I figure out how to connect my MacBook to it).

So I've decided to stick with DISH. There's no guarantee that DirecTV won't get into a similar contract pissing match and cut off some other channel that we like.

That almost happened recently with the Time Warner Cable system. Viacom was on the verge of pulling the plug on a bunch of channels, including (gasp!) Comedy Central.

If we lost The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, our lives would barely be worth living. Fortunately for Time Warner subscribers, the shutoff was averted at the last moment.

I still think DISH owes me something, though, for making me watch the Rose Bowl on a 4.5 inch laptop window rather than the 42 inch LCD television we got recently.

Tomorrow I'm going to try to suck a HD DVR receiver upgrade out of DISH's greedy little hands. Having them waive the $10 a month fee for getting a bunch more HD channels on our current programming package also would be a nice gesture.

How to watch 2009 Rose Bowl live on internet

I'm one of the disgruntled DISH network subscribers who just realized that the Rose Bowl is on ABC today, and our local affiliate (KATU) no longer is on DISH due to a ridiculous contract dispute.

After having done some quick Google research on how to see the Rose Bowl for free over the Internet, here's the best option I've come up with.

This site has a list of feeds around the world. I tried a few. Not wanting to download additional software I found that this feed opened even on my MacBook.

At the moment I'm seeing a live feed of the Capitol One Bowl, which precedes the Rose Bowl on ABC. Kind of fuzzy and a bit jerky on our 1.2 mbps DSL connection.

But sure better than nothing.