Lexus Pioneers New "All Grille" Technology

PLANO, Texas (April. 01, 2022) – Lexus has released its innovative 2023 LX 700 Sport SUV with its pioneering new "All Grille" technology.

View post on imgur.com

This new tech replaces the entire front of the vehicle with an exciting new unique feature that is Lexus exclusive: All Grille. "Customers were clamoring for more grille than the competition" vaped Lexus product designer Simon Humphries, "and the 2023 LX 700 is here to give it to them."

With the debut of this new technology, Lexus customers can expect to have the biggest grille on the block. Lexus engineering had to overcome some rather massive hurdles while launching this new feature. Namely, the rather annoying fact that the driver and passengers would not be able to see out of the front of the vehicle. Still, persistence paid off, and the 2023 LX 700 is here to blaze a trail no other automaker dared to tread.

Every new tech brings with it new opportunities for change, and this new Grille design is no exception. Humphries explains that this new Grille tech allows for new, more streamlined interior possibilities: "Since the driver no longer needs to see through the windscreen, and since our new self driving technology is so advanced, the opportunity for a massive center console screen was apparent." Industry insiders were quick to compare it to the sleek, elegant design of the Tesla Model X and Y. They also noted that the Lexus has a bigger screen than, well, yeah, the Tesla.

View post on imgur.com

"And it's bigger than the one in a Tesla" Humphries quipped. "Much Bigger" he added.

With the bold new proportions of the Grille and this Massive screen, car buyers can sit back and let Lexus do the driving, confident that the destination is near and enjoying their favorite Disney and Netflix content along the way.

For more information, visit https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/66666666.html. ~

The Hidden and Killer Tesla Feature that Any Car Maker Could Copy

As I write this, I'm about to acquire my second Tesla. The media seems to love Tesla and Elon Musk -- they talk a great game about their electric cars at every turn. This amazes me! All that press for a company that lacks a PR department? It's almost as if trying to influence public perception is a waste of time if your products suck... And indeed that's a big part of Tesla's mojo. Make a car that no one else is making with killer features and don't bother to tell anyone -- the buying public will find the features and then make a million YouTube/Twitter/Instagram posts about it themselves.

That's not the only important part of Tesla' mojo. In my not so humble opinion, a bigger part of the equation is the buying experience. Those of us that have been through it with Tesla can attest to this -- it's not like any traditional experience at any typical American car dealer. I suspect strongly that Ford knows this and it's very likely the biggest reason behind Ford recently splitting into two distinct companies. One will be the traditional ICE dealer, selling your traditional gas and hybrid cars. The other will be "Model E" -- selling electric cars. I suspect that this new "Model E" company will break every NADA rule on the books today against selling vehicles directly to the public.

See, that's the problem with the traditional American car dealer -- Ford really doesn't have any control over them. Dealers get to mark things up, treat customers like dog shit, and make the buying experience into a veritable crap shoot. It's so bad, some people would literally rather have root canal than buy a new car at a dealership. For real, that's actually a survey result...

Back to my Tesla buying experience. I'm going to cover it in grueling detail here:

1. Ordered the car on-line,
2. Went to the dealership when the car was ready,
3. Filled out the paperwork, and
4. 15 minutes later, drove off in the car.

I know what a lot of you are thinking: this is too simplified. Had to be harder than that? Nope -- that was it. No bullshit about the price, lemme talk to my manager, try and sell you floor mats, haggling, attempts to sell extended warranty -- none of that crap. Just as described. My only complaint was that the kid (sorry man -- not sure his age, probably about 25) who handed the "keys" over to us took a grand total of about 5 minutes to show us the interior of the car before we took off in what was basically a space age replacement to the prior car we had just turned in off of its lease at Ford.

Yeah, we could have used a bit more instruction, is all I'm saying. Pretty minor complaint, actually. Overall, I give Tesla 5 out of 5 anyway, because compared to every other experience buying a new car in an American car dealership, this was as painless as it gets.

There are a few things going on here. For starters, Electric cars have far fewer moving parts. They're not going to wear out like traditional ICE cars. Disclaimer: In the past I've been on record saying that BMW will figure out how to make an unreliable electric car. I stand by those words, and add that Cadillac will find a way to be as much like BMW as they can be in this regard. Tesla cars will last hundreds of thousands of miles without any of the traditional break points at a dealer. Things like transmission fluid changes, brake jobs, oil changes and so on -- they're simply not part of the equation. Since 60 to 80 percent of a traditional car dealer's income is tied to this kind of "service", most car dealers are going to have to find a way to adapt to a completely different profit model.

And at the core of my argument here: this profit model helps fuel a lot of this buying insanity. Something has to foot the bill for all the conman staff on hand at these places. Part of it is the dealership placement in the buying stream, part of it is the horrible service problems with traditional cars.

This is the real core of the problem. It's not the charging station stuff -- everyone else will build charging infrastructure at incredible speed in attempts to catch up with Tesla. We're going to see that happen in the next couple of years. In 2026 I'm betting you won't even hear people talking about a lack of charging infrastructure. There will be some grid issues that will be solved along the way. We're going to need some powerwalls installed for example. But the real elephant in the room is still going to be there for all of the traditional (read: not Tesla) auto maker sales people -- and more importantly, their crappy sales culture -- to deal with.

The Buying Experience -- The Elephant in the Room

The traditional American car buying experience sucks. As my friend Scott is fond of saying, it "sucks martian canal water". It's not only bad, it's so baked into the DNA of most auto dealers and salesman that I'm betting it's going to take a really long time to die. Possibly going to be with us through 2100 -- yeah, that bad. These people are going to be passing their bad sales habits to their kids and grand-kids long after it's no longer relevant and profitable. I know this is cynical and I can't help it, I simply can't ignore the inertia of these teams of Dealer Morons.

And the reason that this elephant grew so big in the first place is that the American dealer network was given a cemented position in the buying experience long ago. I understand why this was granted by the way. For an example, way back in time, like over 100 years ago, Henry Ford decided to force all of his dealers to pre-purchase some model Ts or lose their dealer license. He took the money and built a factory. He was going to get the loan from a bank from what I remember, but why do that when you can effectively hold up your dealers for a zero interest loan instead? Back in the day, automakers apparently owned some of the dealers so there was a need to effectively dealer unionize, and that's what happened. Every state got these laws passed and here we are.

So how has Tesla gotten away with skirting the laws on the books to prevent them from selling direct to consumer? By basically ignoring the laws on the books and doing it their way anyway. I am a bit conflicted here, as I clearly understand why these laws exist. The irony is that they exist in the name of protecting the consumer and creating a healthy dealership network. Over time the artificial barrier created between the consumer and the manufacturer have unfortunately created serious opportunities for abuse.

That abuse needs to die. It's well on its way as I write this: Tesla is definitely blazing this trail, but when Ford starts doing it I suspect there will be very large and noticeable nails in the crappy sales conman coffin. We're long overdue for this buying experience change. Why can't you just go on-line and dial in the car you want to buy? Why can't that price you see there on the web site be the price you pay when you pick up your ride? Why does anyone need to sit between the screen you're ordering from and the keys to the car you just ordered?

In the meantime, any vendor that cannot assimilate this new experience is at a disadvantage to Tesla. Word of mouth about this experience will continue to be a thing that spreads beyond any amount of press / hype and dealer flier advertising.

Turning the Tesla Killer into the Killer Tesla

The crazy thing to me is that the formula is pretty simple: Just offer a product at a known price without a bunch of bullshit. The traditional auto manufacturers could make this a huge priority right now and make the world a better place -- but that would involve removing a ton of dealership tricks. These "tricks" are the true focal point of what I'm talking about here. Like never talking about the retail price of the product, and instead focusing upon monthly payments. Hiding the cost of the interest or lease rates. Selling useless add-ons -- especially extended warranties. All this shit needs to die. Yesterday.

This stuff doesn't just turn people off, it turns them away. In the near future, it's going to turn them to Tesla.

This is a huge "hidden feature" of the Tesla experience. The thing that amazes me is how silent the media has been in contrast to all of the stupid "Tesla Killer" articles, for example. I suspect that a lot of people can't even imagine a different world where all cars are sold this way -- but mark my words, it's happening right now before your very eyes.

The main complaint I have is that the words "Tesla Killer" are being used far too frequently in article headlines.
Clearly those words need to be reversed.

Joe Rogan and the Death of Art Bell

On the 13th of April 2018 I awoke to hear that we lost Art Bell.

Those of you that know me personally know that I was a huge fan of his show. Note: This isn't a ringing endorsement of his guests, a multitude of which were fairly "out there". Some were obvious crackpots, some had clearly stepped over the edge -- but here's the deal, that's not what was amazing about his show.

Art had a way of talking to everyone that brought out real discussion. Deep topics like who we are as a species and what is the basis of our conscious conundrum -- stuff that everyone wants to know. Aliens? Sure, why not! UFOs? Bring it on. Y2K! Magic Mushrooms. Autonomous self driving cars. Faces on Mars. Predictions for the future (some of my favorites there -- almost all of them are hilariously wrong looking back over 30 years or so of insanity). Ghost stories.

At the bottom of it all Art explored our humanity in a way that few, if ever, have. He did it with a huge audience that he amassed over the course of a decade or so as he built an underground radio network called Coast to Coast AM. The listeners were waitresses and truck drivers I'm sure, but as his audience grew wider and more intellectual, it was hard to argue that what he was doing was unprecedented.

The biggest differentiator, In My Humble Opinion: It was a long form show

Art's shows typically lasted hours (often 3 hours). Art would bring people on, talk to them about these crazy subjects, and people listened. People that don't have 5 minutes to watch the news or possibly eat a meal would listen for hours. That's the part I think a lot of people missed: In an age when things were speeding up, attention spans were shortening, Art had a show that lasted hours and captivated a huge number of people.

Arguably, the content was nuts on most occasions. I've listed to a lot of it, and I'm here to tell you I'm 100% certain Art didn't believe in most of what his guests were bringing him (the occasional scientist or astrophysicist is the exception here). You listen to a lot of noise to get some signal here.

But, as I said, Art is no longer with us. His radio show still can be heard using a multitude of media. Android users can load the paranormal radio app for example and listen to hours of these shows. Halloween is coming -- any of his ghost shows are great entertainment. It's a legacy now, and still entertaining.

But Art's gone. Which brings me to Joe Rogan

Interestingly enough, Art is gone but the torch has been picked up by Joe. Joe has improved on what Art was trying to do in a host of ways. For starters, Joe asks a lot more skeptical questions. Where he and Art align is in being able to keep an interesting conversation going for hours at a time and to keep his audience glued to the topic. This isn't easy as I've said here -- but it's part of why his show is the spiritual successor to Art's.

If you haven't checked out his podcast you're probably dead or can't stand the most basic of new ideas being brought in front of you. I recommend the youtube version. You get to see more of the visuals that his assistant brings along (note: Art Bell had a webmaster that he relied upon -- he was an early adopter of internet technology as well). Joe also seems to read a lot more and seriously brings in some interesting people.

Joe tries to balance his podcast with conservative and liberal guests. He brings interesting people and I'm going to warn you that some are going to have different views from your own. But the conversation will still be good. If you dig around a bit, you will find that Art actually interviewed Joe on his show a few years ago about Joe's podcast. Art was a fan it appears. Says a lot. Check it out if you have the time. If you don't, hey I understand. Guessing you wouldn't have made it this far into my blog though to read this if that were the case anyway ;)

-=FeriCyde=-

The Stupid Concept of the Tesla "Killer"...

It's 2020 and I'm a Tesla owner and Fan, suddenly.

If you haven't taken the time to drive one or to ask a friend that has one for a ride, I'm here to tell you that nothing can describe what Tesla has done. This, coming from a fan of the sound of a well-tuned engine, an automotive freak and a Mechanical Engineer. Elon Musk has done what Detroit and for that matter, no one else in the world, thought possible.

He's created a successor to the combustion engine automobile, all the while changing damn near every rule of the automotive market along the way.

Dealerships? Forget dealerships, price haggling and all the lame bullshit that you put up with attempting to buy a car. It's gone. In its place, you walk in and sign the paperwork at a Tesla store before you drive off in a new car. Gas? Gas stations? Oil Changes? Transmission fluid changes? Exhaust system problems? Hell, most regular maintenance. Juice the car up at home and go. Model changes just to get people interested in a new car? Nah, we don't need that, we just continue to make the beautiful cars we've made but with better batteries and software upgrades. This is a new game for ... everyone in the automotive business.

This Wasn't Supposed to Happen

A few years ago a friend of mine let me drive his 2010 Tesla roaster, and I thought it was cool but it wasn't going to change the world anytime soon. I thought "Maybe someday I'll buy an electric Mustang, that'd be cool -- and a novelty". The automotive press spit on Mr Musk and his stupid, fancy idea of making an electric car affordable and popular. They pointed at the 2nd electric car he made, the Model S, and basically said it proved their point. The Model S was expensive. It was fast, sure, but again, a rich man's novelty. I checked one out a few years ago. I'd own one right now but the price was off the charts. I could have afforded one, sure, but I would have had to give up a couple Mustangs and just didn't see the thing fitting in my life.

Then the model 3 rolled into view and again the automotive press made fun of Tesla. The car was less expensive but they wouldn't sell (said the press). Musk wouldn't be able to make enough of them to catch up with pre-orders. All along the way they joked, not noticing that a metric ton of buyers had signed up to own one. It's kind of an interesting journalistic oxymoron: Deriding a company for not being able to catch up with demand when at the same time being hell bent on deriding that same company by saying it won't ever make any money.

And then Mr Musk made expansions to his assembly line and surprised everyone. Suddenly he was caught up. Suddenly there was a lot less laughter in the automotive press. All the people short selling Tesla stock got tight sphincters as not only did he catch up with demand, but continued to sell Model 3s like hotcakes. Musk built a couple more battery factories. I mean, what the hell was he doing with Panasonic there making all those batteries, they had joked. Now that started to look like a brilliant move.

Then in the short space of a year or so, Tesla started making Model 3's in China.

And Ford, Toyota, VW, BMW and Porsche continued to work on crap electric cars whilst whistling in the dark. Actually, that's not totally accurate. See, they were working on stuff but it was probably not at the highest priority. Ford has a ton of lame, bland SUVs (and some exciting trucks) to sell you. Why bother making sedans? Thanks to Ford's stupidity, the rest of the American market started singing the same tune. No one is buying sedans, let's just exit the market!

Except Tesla sold over 300,000 model 3's (did you notice -- it's a sedan?) in 2019 alone. Ford sold about half that number of Fusions in 2018. This hit home for me. When it came time to end the lease on my wife's 2016 Fusion, we looked around the market and decided it was high time to do something different. My wife and I loved that sedan. Ford -- a company that makes my favorite brand car since the beginning of time, continues to make stupid brand decisions. Great move Ford! Just throw away an entire market. You think Toyota is going to quit making the Camry or Honda is going to stop making the Accord? Or in our case, that no one else makes an attractive, exciting Sedan? You think sedan buyers aren't going to forget what you did or how they felt when you stopped making a car they loved?

Well, it's been a few months. I can't speak enough good things about that Model 3. Everyone that rides in the thing emerges changed. The future is electric and anyone saying different is whistling in the dark. Suddenly the automotive press is realizing that the word is getting out.

Wall Street Has Started to Notice

.
Now everyone is wondering what's going to be left of the traditional automotive market in a couple of years. And still, every so often on my news feed some moron writes a piece about an upcoming "Tesla killer". Maybe they haven't noticed, but there has been a fundamental shift in the marketplace. Suddenly, everything is going a different direction and if a company is lucky, they're going to be able to be mentioned in the same sentence along with a Tesla product.

Case in point, the Porsche Taycan "Turbo" S or whatever the hell confusing name they've given the thing. They're hoping to be mentioned in the same sentence with the Tesla Model S. Try and find an article that doesn't mention the Model S at the same time for that matter. There are a few notable differences between the two cars. One is range. Before you go all technical on me, bear in mind I've been driving an electric car a lot these days. 100 miles (or more) of range -- that's a pretty big difference. Sure, supposedly you can track the Porsche but not the Model S. While I'm not totally sure if the new Model S is going to be as good or better on the track, I'm here to tell you one thing for sure, most people are going to want another 100 miles of range while they drive to the grocery store and around town. They're likely not going to spend damn near double the money for something that's a wannabe instead of the real thing.

Unless you're Bill Gates. Then you're going to buy the Porsche and have range anxiety. In public.

But I gotta hand it to Porsche -- everyone is now mentioning the Taycan in the same sentence as a Tesla Model S. Good job! Not sure they're going to be selling a lot of them but it's definitely got the automotive press all worked up about who's electrical number is longer. Always fun reading. Let's do it again: "The Porsche Taycan, for almost twice the cash, is someday hoping to be as good as the Tesla Model S." This crap makes great headlines.

But again, is it a Tesla "killer"? Yeah, not gonna happen.

What is going to happen? Let's talk Daimler Chrysler Fiat or whatever the heck that's left there. Before you go off on how Daimler no longer owns Chrysler or some other nonsense, keep in mind that the 300, Charger and Challenger are still running on old German running gear (The chassis my Mopar friends, as good as it is, it's still based on Mercedes tech even as I write this). I point this out because almost everything Dodge and Chrysler branded is extremely long in the tooth. Very little of it is hybrid and nothing remotely electric. My view, this entire thing is running on fumes and probably going to merge with something before it goes down the toilet. They tried last year for that matter and failed to do so. All the Hellcats and Hemi's in the world aren't going to save this ship, it's only going to get worse before it gets worse. I don't see them having the cash to pull off anything electric. If they have plans or are working on anything fired by electrons, it's not apparent.

Nissan, while not as lame as Chrysler, suffers from similar lack of innovation. I'm going to mention Mazda in the same sentence : Mazda and Nissan. There. Not totally accurate, but in a few years it's not going to make much difference.

Toyota has been making electric cars for a really long time and might pull off a few really great quarters as they transition to full electric. Yeah, I know what a hybrid is, and though it's not a full electric, the Prius is pretty much a combustion engine car with an electric car superimposed upon it. The fact that they pulled this off and made one of the most reliable cars at the same time is a serious feat of engineering. This is going to save them as they continue to make even more Prius models and other great hybrid cars along the way. Prediction: they're going to own the inexpensive, boring electric market like no one else. Sure, they'll have some exciting models here or there, but the electric Corolla of future is going to sell like hotcakes. And it'll be dependable as the sunrise. It'll also be boring as paint, but no one will care. Toyota will succeed at doing something the rest of the automotive world failed to do: make an electric car that sells and isn't mentioned in the same sentence with a similar Tesla product.

Ford. Ford's been working on electric and hybrid vehicles for almost as long as Toyota. They just suck at making dependable stuff that people know much about. They're going to launch their Tesla Model Y competitor, er Mustang Mach E to great fanfare and people are going to buy them -- I'm 100% certain of it. They're going to survive. Too bad their marketing people are such idiots. Look for a Mustang F-150 minivan or station wagon model in the near future at a dealership near you. Confused buyers will pick up a few, even. It'll probably be electric and Ford will confuse all the buyers of the new vehicle when it gets canceled a couple of years after launch. The Mustang will eventually emerge as a terrific electric model. People will yawn by then, sadly. Ford will still be in business. The Whatever they're going to call the Mach E by then will compete nicely with the Tesla Model Y. Maybe they'll even make a sedan again and put the number three in the name so that the market doesn't get confused. Don't bank on it though.

Chevy/GM. What can you say about a company that proved that electric cars were practical and fun? Yeah, that's GM. Then as usual, they tossed it all in the trash and spent all their R&D dollars trying to do what ever everyone else was doing. Only for some stupid reason they hired styling people that had the best set of tilted rear-view mirrors on the planet. Oh, and for whatever reason, these people made pretty sad looking imitations of what they had seen while they were at it. GM's present answer to every question? What market, when we pull out of it, will make us more profitable (appearing, to Wall Street)? Let's pull out of Europe! Then Australia. Let's do what Ford is doing and pull out of the sedan marketplace! Maybe soon they're pull their heads out of their asses, but that would surprise me. They are making the Bolt -- I've ridden in one -- it's not bad at all. I can't mention it in the same sentence as a Tesla product though. Wait, I just did that. It didn't make sense though, which is why nothing exciting is going to happen. The Bolt is not bad but it's not selling at all. Look for them to discontinue it for not selling as much as they thought it would. Elon Musk burped more about electric cars after drinking his beer last year than has been written about the Bolt EV. Maybe they're going to make a great electric vehicle like Tesla's just after they pull out of the US car market.

Honda. Not sure what's going on with them. I know they're putting some R&D dollars into making fuel cell vehicles. I saw one last year driving down the road and had to do a double-take. I even captured a blurry picture of it on my cell phone, which makes it a rare sighting. BTW, there were more pictures of Bigfoot taken last year, because there's more of them on the road than Honda fuel cell cars. I have my worries but Honda will likely find a way to correct their ship before it sinks.

There Will Be Killing

If you're paying attention this long I think you can notice a trend -- no one is going to be "killing" Tesla anytime soon. Sure, you can point out that there's not a lot of electric cars on the road and that the wife and I are in a massive minority while we silently buzz by everything else around us.

For now.

But Detroit, Japan and the European car makers know the real score. They're all (well, most of them anyway) running scared. They're working furiously at making as many models as they can muster to match Tesla's lineup.
They're hoping to do this before the lights begin to go out for their futures. You see, they know, for real, that there is some killing on the way.

It's just not Tesla that's the vulnerable one here. But mark my words -- there's killing on the way for sure.

On the heals of a previous idea about putting body cameras on entertainment agents, I feel compelled to suggest another fix -- although this one is more of a social fix for a social problem, thus providing a much needed "balance". Yeah, that's supposed to be funny to those who know me all too well...

What To Do About Russian Election Meddling Using Fake News?

There's a lot of hand-wringing about this subject. In my opinion, part of the solution here is really simple.

Here's a proposed solution, using Facebook as a hypothetical example. The idea centers around reversing the flow of social influence that the peddlers of this propaganda intended.

Facebook and the US Intelligence community, acting on data that is by the day becoming clearer, have the fake news ads and memes. Specifically, they know what ads and fake news stories that were shipped with the intention of swaying opinions in the election. They have also got another treasure trove -- a whole bank of real US citizens that still have the lingering "shares" in the history of their feed.

So what's to stop Facebook from hijacking a user's feed, and putting up an un-deletable, Facebook-driven "post"? One that says, in effect: "NOTE: User John Doe shared the following Fake News ad on their feed on September of 2016. This Post has been traced to a hostile foreign entity." It should appear for at least 2-3 days and after that until they delete the actual post off of their feed. There should be tools visible to the user, such that they can easily delete the fake news post. Again, in either case, this post will appear to all of the users friends for at least 2-3 days. And yes, commenting on the post should be allowed. It should be group commenting, such that all users that were exposed across multiple people will see the commentary.

They should appear in serial fashion in my opinion. Once the user has had the blow of 2-3 days of one fake ad NOTE, the next NOTE will appear. It should happen over and over, in other words, for the special type of repeat offender that got away with sharing propaganda in our last election.

No doubt, this will lead to some people deleting their accounts. In that case, Facebook should continue to leave up the NOTEs for that user, with the added caption "John Doe has since deleted his account.", leaving off the unsaid portion "in shame". No doubt, facebook itself will face a serious backwash of unpopularity. To those that would wring their hands about this hit on facebook's popularity, the simple point that our democracy is being hijacked by a foreign entity should be provided as balance.

In the case of Twitter -- the same thing. The account will "tweet" out an apology text indicating what was linked to their feed.

Reddit is a bit more complex. There are users and there are sub-reddits. For Reddit, whole sub-reddits that were hijacked will do penance, and the user accounts that posted them will be called out in the text. The moderators will not have control -- any post traced to a foreign government will get exposure. It will appear on the feed for that sub, and no moderation tools will be able to remove it.

No doubt, this will make sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter a bit more somber. No doubt, some idiots will cry foul of "free speech" -- no one is not saying you can't share fake news. We're just saying that when that news has been traced to a hostile government, you might end up with egg on your face.

It would be a form of digital penance for the sites that helped Russia sway the election. I'm saying it would be extremely easy to implement. I'm thinking sooner rather than later, as the Russians are all to willing to have another go at this.

-=FeriCyde=-

There's a simple technological fix for the Weinstein's of this world, but it ain't pretty...

Often as a tech guy I slide into seeing problems as having fixes rooted in circuitry and software. I'm aware of this internal bias -- more than most people like me. I reflexively laugh now when I think about a tech solution to a social problem, as often I'm so engrossed with the nifty tech being suggested that I miss the silliness of the idea. On rare occasion though, I get to see someone actually implement the idea (better than what I was thinking in all cases).

So bear with me here, while I suggest a technological fix to the Weinstein's of this world.

We are increasingly using police body cameras to keep everyone honest as it pertains to law enforcement. I don't have a good gauge of the interaction, but I'm guessing that more often than not, the perpetrators of crime get caught on police body camera doing stupid stuff at a much higher ratio than the police. We just get to see the law enforcment mistakes more often because it is more newsworthy when it happens. The exception here: The TV show "COPS". There we get to see what a typical cop goes through. I don't know if you watch the show, but the more I watch it, the less faith I have in general humanity. I pity the long hours of mostly thankless work those men and women in uniform have to endure. It's informative, but depressing. I can only watch so much, honestly, before I turn it off and thank God there are people willing to do the work like that because I'd have a lot less patience, I'm certain.

The main point I'm making here is this -- police sit in a valuable service to our society and their actions being recorded, good bad or indifferent, add value. We, as a society, are able to review and improve. I.E., weed out the people that shouldn't have a badge and exonerate the ones that were simply executing their duty when perpetrators attempt to falsely accuse them. The simple truth is that the recordings give us more faith that the right thing is going to happen. It keeps people more honest. It provides a valuable record of activities that might have gone otherwise, ... South ...

Body cameras are proven technology and fairly easy to deploy. And yes, I'm suggesting that if you're an agent, working with people in the movie or TV or related entertainment industries, and you have a modicum of power, you're going to have to register as a particular kind of worker and you're going to have to wear the same stuff we ask the police to wear. Everything you're doing and saying needs to be recorded when it involves vulnerable people. It needs to be stored somewhere in a registered archive that can only be accessed by a governing body when any accusations are made. Any interaction with actors will have to be recorded by your body camera. It will be on at all times and turning it off while in the company of an actor will be taken as a sign of guilt by omission of evidence.

Like I said before, I'm not a huge fan of tech being used to solve problems that are rooted in human or social behaviors. This is a bit of an exception though. I've thought about it, and it makes sense. Just read the headlines -- a lot of people are throwing up their hands like there isn't anything that can be done with this kind of systemic abuse. Well, here's something fairly easy to deploy and honestly I can't see a reason not to do it.

I'm sure some agents out there are balking at the idea, but take a trip through a few abuse stories -- maybe it won't sound like such a crazy idea after all.

-=Fericyde=-

A shot of truth from the mouth of a dead man

You should know that I'm going to start this post with a quote from an atheist:

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or 
grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a 
service and information economy; when nearly all the 
key manufacturing industries have slipped away to 
other countries; when awesome technological powers 
are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing 
the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the 
people have lost the ability to set their own agendas 
or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, 
clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our 
horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable 
to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, 
we slide, almost without noticing, 
back into superstition and darkness.

Hits pretty hard these days. Here's some more frightening text, from an article posted just last week:

This Is How Your Fear and Outrage Are Being Sold for Profit

Our cable news driven "Sound Bite" mentality is starting to wear thin -- right through what might have at one time been the logic circuits of our brains.

Chances are you are not aware of your own tilt towards some kind of internal bias. Maybe you think all people of a particular party are wholesome while the rest are enemies of the state. Or of your own belief in Christianity for example. Maybe you stupidly think that everyone who professes a leaning toward say being a democrat is somehow totally in favor of all regulation, no matter how bloated or stupid that regulation is. Spoiler alert -- I lean left, I'm for more regulation of our financial / wall street institutions. Yet still, I'm not about to believe something stupid like "all regulations are great!". I'll leave that judgement for the idiots that have to simplify everything without getting a close look at the real problems.

I have a bias -- you have a bias. Sadly, our biases are not necessarily equal. Let's take science for example. I was describing the general theory of relativity to a Christian acquaintance one day and he interrupted me -- "I don't believe that." His bias toward accepting the general theory of relativity came from an inherent belief that things must be as described to him in the Bible or -- who the heck knows? I sure didn't have the ability to reach into his cranium and force his puny mental faculties into order. I tried though.

Me: Did you use GPS today to navigate anywhere?

Relativity Disbeliever Yeah, why?

Me: Good thing your GPS "believes in the theory of relativity", because it's kinda core science behind how it works...

The point is this -- a bias against scientific discoveries or science in general is forming in our country. People in power are able to set real policy regardless of what is being measured, and Sagan was right on with his prediction. Our biases are being used to build real political action, and it's not good. It's not good for our world today and it sure as heck isn't good for the world our grandchildren are growing up in.

I urge you to find more diverse news sources if you don't understand just how bad it is to "not believe" in things like Climate science -- hell, how about birth control for crying out loud? What just went down in Texas is a harbinger here -- they cut funding for teen pregnancy programs and -- guess what? Yeah, teen pregnancy is higher in Texas. The only good news out of this is that overall the nationwide trend is toward lower teenage pregnancy -- hardly comforting in the context of the desire for some to cut the funding though. So maybe you think people that make immoral decisions like having sex out of wedlock need to be punished? You think you're morally superior by forcing a new kid into the world with a teenage mom? Does that make sense to anyone?

Oh, that's right, we were talking about how the inability to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, weren't we?

Carry on.

-=FeriCycde=-

Peril Sensitive Sunglasses...

Long ago, there was this guy -- Douglas Adams was his name.

Don't Panic!

I learned about Douglas from my brother Dan. He talked about this crazy story called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (HG2G) I remember him telling me about it -- a story where the world ends and this one remaining human, Arthur Dent, has to hitchhike his way from there on out. He's one of only two remaining humans in the universe. Read the book (don't watch any of the movies, BTW -- just my opinion).

I remember it distinctly, because at the time I thought: "What a depressing story". Amazingly though, I would eventually read the HG2G. Adams would become one of my favorite authors and his work would have a profound impact upon me. If you haven't read it by now, I sincerely must prod you. You see, it was written before the Internet -- and it supplies cultural beacons and jargon that we take for granted today -- stuff that underlies much of what you perceive as the Internet.

Stuff like universal translation, wireless transmission of data and complete mayhem related to an ever-changing world are so broadly outlined (And more importantly, lampooned) in HG2G.

And then there's the Glasses

One of the characters in the book has a really neat pair of glasses -- they're sensitive to peril. You read that right -- they can tell when danger is near. The character (and here the reference is both descriptive and formal), Zaphod Beeblebrox, wears the glasses because he doesn't want to freak out when peril is near.

So, what do they do? When danger is nearby, the glasses black out the lenses. That way the wearer can't be alarmed by the imminent peril approaching. This works wonders for Zaphod. You'll have to read the book for more on the subject. I can vouch that the story and dialog are legendary.

And then there's this thing today...

I find that there's a moral equivalent to these glasses today. That there's a whole section of the population that's been willingly blinded by obvious peril. That they're wearing these glasses, ignoring the obvious markers for eminent collision with reality.

I just finished watching "The Big Short", for reference. If you get a moment, it's on Netflix, and very much worth the time. The main takeaway from the movie is that there were a very small number of people that could see the eminent collapse of the housing bubble (and all of the derivative instruments attached). No one around them wanted to see what they saw. Very few listened to them. They talked a lot in the movie about how it's very hard to believe in a falacy when you don't want think that the obvious (and depressing) outcome is possible.

The population around them were wearing their glasses. They were willingly closing their eyes and effectively wishing the big money monster away -- all the while, some people with calculators and a willingness to stare ugly reality in the face were bracing themselves for the obvious collision. In the movie, they end up making some cash by the way -- although they portray them as reluctant heroes.

What you have today is similar. You have a group of people that won't face the obvious. They want to believe that somehow the ugly monster in the room is just going to get tamed at the last minute. That the moral deficiencies are somehow worth it in the context of the greater good (to be clear here -- for one brand of belief versus another brand). That the day of reckoning will not come.

These people haven't taken the time to do some simple research into the past track record. They have willingly put their glasses on, ignoring the obvious peril -- hopeful for some magic to make it all get leveled out before the plane crashes into the mountain.

The problem with Peril Sensitive Glasses: They Don't Work

Like the vast majority of the people in "The Big Short", people are going to find out that willful blindness can lead to an embarrassing and surprising failure. As comic as the analogy is, it breaks down rather badly when applied to real-world situations.

Zaphod's Peril-sensitive glasses are about to fail. The light of truth is slowly uncovering more and more things these days. The false narrative that many hoped to project is being exposed. For some, it was a beautiful lie. So much power and promise from something -- just a few minor issues could be overlooked if everyone would just hang onto those glasses! Mind you though -- the glasses are about to fail, still.

I find it ironic, still. I wouldn't know about those darn glasses were it not for some curiosity and some prodding by my brother. I gave up on the notion that the plot lines of the story would be depressing (as crazy as it sounds, HG2G is extremely funny, albeit in a rather dark and chaotic way). I was willing to look past my expectations and I'm richer for it.

I stomped my own pair of Zaphod's glasses, in other words, and never really looked back.

There's more irony here, but I've talked enough. The world is set to make it's own chaotic and darkly humorous story, and that's enough, don't you think?

Is the Pope Catholic and Is There Such A Thing As A Moderate?

I know this is a hard question for some of you to ponder, but imagine if there are more than two sides to an issue. Imagine if it's possible to understand different points of view. That, even in 2016, there are some of us that are moderate in our point of view?

Is the Pope Catholic?

A recent facebook post by one of my more conservative friends made a rather hilarious point -- it showed Hillary and Sanders in graphic form and then said, in a nutshell: How come the party that's for more diversity does not have an African American guy and Woman on the stage, like the Grand Ole' Party does?

Ah, so simple it seems. Let me explain what's going on here. Yeah, it's only my opinion, but after you read through it, I wager some of you will be nodding your heads.

The idea that's being presented here -- that the GOP is more diverse -- It's not a bad point were it not for the basic disingenuity, that the
biggest lump of supporters for the most popular GOP candidate are openly embracing racism and Muslim-o-phobia. And, while we're pointing that out, we may as well mention that the GOP is pretty much waging an open war on less advantaged women's access to health care.

Still, I'm sure my "conservative" friend felt really smug posting this idiocy. What gets under my skin here is that both parties have the tendency to simplify the discussion. Examples abound Dems: It's about race. It's about Wall Street vs Main Street. It's about the "Black Vote". Lets offer "College for everyone".

A lot of talk about making college free without addressing the simple truth that lately a lot of degrees are worthless. A lot of "politically correct" speech without addressing the obvious fact that the whole PC movement has gone way over the top. Face it, Donald Trump wouldn't be getting a lot of attention were it not for people being so tired of PC speech.

What's Wrong with Being Politically Correct?

People are tired of watching what they say. The general population wants someone who will "tell it like it is". Even if it means ignoring the basic reality that the speaker is a horrible person. More to the point, I really think Donald is speaking his mind -- and that his mind is unfortunately a maze of twisty passages that lead to racism and xenophobia.

Then, there's the so-called "other side" of the isle. The Clinton's are making outright shameful jabs at the Sanders' campaign that basically say he's trying to shame the Obama legacy. This is a great political stance -- by twisting Sanders' words on the subject, the veiled suggestion is that his complaints about the growing disparity between the poor, the shrinking middle class and the obviously glaring gap to the people in the top .1 percent -- those complaints are, like, dissing our "black" president. Without the PC movement, I suspect a lot of this would be spotted for what it is -- tripe.

The Pope as Anti-Trump

Then you have the "Anti-Trump" Pope comments.

Look, the first problem here is that for years the GOP has been courting the religious right as part of their voting strategy. This is extremely similar to the way the DNC courts the so-called minority and African-American vote. Similar, but way more dangerous as the following will lay bare.

First, if you're going to go after the religious vote, you're going to have problems running a Mormon candidate. It's going to make things sticky, is what I'm saying. It was great to get the good old church bump when it got W Bush elected -- I'm sure it felt awesome.

The problems this caused though, when Romney entered the fray were many. For one, a lot of hardcore Christians don't consider Mormons as religious peers. (Source: I'm a Christian.) By pandering in this manner the GOP had hobbled itself in unexpected (and wildly strategic) ways.

The we have the problem Pope, he's got some bad things to say about Donald Trump. Now, a lot of American Christians are not Catholic -- but that hardly matters. The Pope, he's a pretty popular guy these days. Pope Francis has been a very charismatic figure and has garnered a lot of admiration that extends beyond your everyday Christian for that matter. When he directly slammed the Donald it was a
subject of ire for a host of the GOP faithful.

"The Pope shouldn't be so damn political" was the general consensus. I have to point this out to those who identify with the GOP: Your party has been pandering to the religious right as part of its political strategy. Because of this, you need to seriously consider any negative statements regarding the holy figure for half of the Christian coalition in the US. That he should suck it up when it comes to his political views, after the GOP has spent all that time "winning" the church vote -- think about the problems this caused. To be fair, the GOP officially didn't really do this -- just a lot of their members who don't seem to "get" the general political strategy as it pertains to their favorite GOP brand.

But hey, you can kind of discount this by talking about how you're really dependent upon the "Evangelical vote". Note that they didn't say
"non-Catholic", since that sounds much more inclusive.

The GOP was playing with fire, and it got burned. They can't control the Pope (or even Trump for that matter). They're kind of in-between a rock and a hard place. This wouldn't have happened were it not for the incongruous religious strategy they pursued for years.

Time to take the lumps and think hard about simply pandering to the public good instead of loading the vote via artificial means. "God Votes with the GOP!" Is the related phrase. Does he really? "God's Own Party" Is it? If so, then probably your thoughts on how the Pope should shut up about political ideas are kinda misplaced.

Maybe take some time to read the verses in the bible about the Good Samaritan, and the parts where Jesus talks about how the meek shall inherit the earth.

Similar idiocy: "The Hispanic vote." Is there such a thing? The assumption is that the Democratic party is pandering to "The Hispanics". This lumps people from Puerto Rico with Cubans, Mexicans and a host of others that speak Spanish. Talk to a few different "Hispanics" though and you may find yourself confused a bit. Turns out that lumping everyone together like this is really not good except for when you're doing exit polling. I'd argue that it's a veiled form of racism, in an oblique way.

Full disclosure here, My Mom is 100% American -- born in Puerto Rico. Before you embarrass yourself, and ask if she's been naturalized, bear in mind that Puerto Rico is a US Territory. That means that my Mom was a US citizen from birth. She, like everyone else born in the US and Puerto Rico, or Guam and other territories for that matter, is a natural born US citizen.

So am I part of the "The Hispanic vote"? -- ask the Dems, and I am. Ask me though, and I'm likely to shrug. I never really thought about it much until lately.

What is this thing called Moderation?!?

Ask how I identify myself and I'm more likely to point out that there used to be this thing in our country called "a moderate" -- a person that has a balanced view of things. Someone who carefully weighs facts. Someone who tries to see more than "both sides" of issues. Note: There are often
many sides to an issue. Ask the right or left, though, and you will get a simplified view of just about any major issue. Often, in the act of this
simplification, the idea gets distorted till it doesn't align with anything in reality.

I'm hardly compelled to vote one way or another. I'm going to make a choice. I will say that I sincerely doubt that Trump is getting my vote, but it's not related so much to the whole "Build a Wall" thing as the fact that I just can't see him being very presidential. He certainly doesn't share my values. I've been married now for going on 3 decades to the same woman.

More to the point, I hardly see how insulting your opposition proves anything but that you make a great reality TV star, and (I hope) not a president.

These days, I'm often seen less as a moderate, but it's hardly due to any change in my political stance. Since the Democrats and Republicans have
both been taking so much PAC and special interest money -- since the Dems have slid so far to the right -- I'm now a "liberal" from most people's point of view.

I've had many discussions with my hard-core Republican friends about this. They can only see one side of a problem (oddly enough, it's often from the perspective of most Fox news pundits). If I point out the obvious logical fallacy of an argument, I get push back like "I don't
know if I agree with that." (when I'm quoting some hard statistic). Or, worse, I get a confused stare. Like "how can that be". They know their talking points -- they simply don't have any real data to back it up.

Half of Americans Are Moochers. Really?

Let's revisit an example from 2012: the whole Half of Americans are the "moocher class". Go and look about this one if you doubt me -- the biggest chunk of this so-called "moocher class" -- retired people on social security. That's my Mom and Dad who worked all their lives, in case you didn't know. The next biggest slice of "moochers" -- people serving in the US military. Seems along the way to building the whole "moocher class" lie, they left out that it was really about who was not paying net positive taxes, which is a bad way to slice things -- unless you're
doing a smoke and mirrors lie job to the public. In that case, it's great to quote stats like this over and over until no one questions it.

And, here's the kicker -- you get people saying this to you, and when you point out the most obvious fallacy about it, they always fall back to ignorance. "I don't think those numbers are right, but I'm not all that familiar with the data.", is the condensed version of what I get to hear when I start to push back on this.

Look, if you don't know the "real numbers" then please do us all a favor and don't spout the repeated lies that you don't know for bullshit as well. If you're going to go on and on about how 50% of the people are not paying taxes and are mooching off the government, and you can't refute the reality behind the lie when it's presented, have the decency to apologize for being ignorant. And do me a favor, if you're in the military and quote this stat, have the decency to "admit" you're part of the "moocher class" you were complaining about. Note: I strongly don't think this to be the case, but then again, I wasn't the one spouting this lie -- a lie that most people now recognize was behind the last big GOP defeat. I say this because of the last few people to repeat this one to me, 3 of them were either in the military at the time or retired from it.

At least go back and study the reality of the numbers and either come back and argue with renewed vigor, or apologize for being wrong. It's called logic and reason -- we got really far as a race of people relying on this stuff for a long time. Maybe continuing the tradition will be a good thing for everyone is what I'm suggesting here.

Another example-- the Iraq war. A lot of people want to talk about that war these days. How it was or was not a mistake for example. I'd like to focus on something very few people seem to care about -- how it was paid for.

The fact is that we ran up a huge debt to wage that war. We did it mostly on the Chinese credit card. This has no bearing on prior wars where the funding was often discussed along with the war. So, for example, war bonds during WW2. God forbid you point out that the Viet Nam war had a "war tax" to pay for it -- that sounds preposterous!

But it's true. Go and look if you don't believe me.

More to the point -- Tell me I'm wrong! Older people reading this will nod their heads -- they had to pay the tax, so they know. No one wants to hear this. They want magical thinking. Wars apparently are free. Building up the military -- that's also something you don't argue about. The money to do that? Must be free.

Fact: Funding the largest military in the world, hands down -- that's not free. (That's the US Military, just in case you had any doubts). It's a huge bill. One that no one seems to think about. Universal health care? Too expensive. War? Free. No one in the media challenges a statement about increased military spending being suggested by the candidates on the GOP fence.

But suggest that you want to finance college tuition (like Sanders has) -- and the questions come out. What a socialist, he wants the US to be like other countries -- I get it. But let's be serious here, the cost of education these days is tanking a lot of kids coming out of college. It's hobbling their real chances of ever building a middle class lifestyle.

By a similar token though, on the left, the idea that a public education is an end-all ticket to success is not questioned.

It should be, because obviously there's something really wrong with the focus of a lot of the institutions. Note: I strongly believe in higher education. What I don't believe: It's for everyone. Another thing I don't believe in -- Higher educational systems that don't produce people that can get a job with their degree. If the school is simply turning out people with 4 year degrees that end up working at the checkout counter at Walmart, it needs to be Shut Down. It certainly shouldn't be getting guaranteed loans for its "students" on the government/
student-indentured-servant dime.

While we're on the subject, I don't believe that politically correct speech is doing anyone any good in this country (something that a lot of Trump supporters are very happy to point out -- and they're right on that one). Also: I don't believe that a lot of the degrees people are going to school for are in alignment with the needs of the market or industry. Somehow things have gotten unhinged and there seems to be no talk of rebooting our educational system and making it functional again.

These are two very different views of the complex idea that is "higher education" -- and get this -- they reside alongside each other in my head!

What about all that Republican Diversity?

So back to the beginning here -- so why, if it's not in the name of diversity was the GOP running Fiorina and Carson? There must be some reason -- what could it be? I gotta note here, the fact that Rubio and Cruz were Cuban Hispanic didn't get mentioned, that would go against the other message of the party at this time. Spoiler alert -- the woman and the African American both drop out of the race, so regardless of how it might appear for debate consumption, the GOP is back to pretty much old white guys in the end.

Here's a thought: There are just some things that Carson can say about Obama (like he's not raised "black" so he just isn't genuine) that would sound really a lot more racist coming from the likes of Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. There are things that Fiorina could say about Hillary Clinton that would sound really sexist coming from anyone else. IMHO -- There's your real reason. I don't believe for a second either of those people could make it to the top seat in the Republican lineup. Not even runner up for that matter.

I certainly don't believe anyone in the GOP establishment thought so either.

But they sure can get away with some really crappy attack material while they are on the "campaign trail" to be president. I'll bet some strategists saw this potential and said "Let's include Carson and Fiorina -- they can run interference and say lies that can't easily be spouted by anyone else.

Will we ever truly see a candidate that could change Washington from the seat of the Oval office? I seriously doubt it's going to happen in our
lifetimes. I wish otherwise. I want my grand-kids to grow up in an America where the Middle Class is not only growing -- it's something to be admired (like it used to be). A bunch of people these days are worshiping money and power, forgetting what an honor it used to be to grow up here in the Middle. The oligarchy that has emerged is dangerous, and it's not going to be a country of opportunity like it was more-so when I was growing up.

I have different views than most these days. I don't think we're in good hands and I don't see how we're going to succeed until we get the money out of politics -- anything else that talks about any other issue is just political pandering. Whether it's to the African American, Hispanic or Women "vote", or whether it's to the idea that it's all about what God wants on the GOP side, our Democracy really isn't one when at the bottom of both parties all you find is a big stack of cash.

Again, two radically different views of our political system. Again, guess what, they're alongside each other (happily) in my head.

Why? Because I'm --get this-- moderate.

My liberal friends are shaking their heads. I've said things that offend them, I'll bet. I'll also wager that my conservative friends are shouting "No, you're a damn liberal!"

Sure. And the Pope's not Catholic -- he's a member of God's Own Party.

Whatever Happened to the 15 Hour Work Week?

I came across an interesting thought recently, and darned if it didn't hit home as to what's happened to up-end our society. The author basically talks a great deal about "meaningless" or "worthless" jobs and the impact on our social well-being. While I don't agree with the term "meaningless" in this context -- lesser value is more likely the term -- I can't help but agree on a fundamental level. Below is the paragraph that hits the nail pretty hard on the head:

Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it in Britain, when tabloids whip up resentment against transport workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that the workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilising resentment against schoolteachers or car workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or car industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It's as if they are being told: ''But you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and healthcare?''

The piece that you have to understand is that productivity has been on the rise for decades -- and yet middle class compensation and benefits have been on the decline. I can't put it as eloquently as the author (I really have to recommend that your read this one -- the link is at the bottom).

I work with a lot of people who at the end of the day do such meaningful work -- and I see this same group demonized as if somehow their getting paid to do this work at a reasonable rate is a burden to our country. The truth is that their work is some of the most worthwhile work -- like a school teacher or a car mechanic -- because if they didn't do it, our nation wouldn't be what it is today and certainly wouldn't be strong. I think of my friends from high school (one in particular, you know who you are) who ended up as school teachers and how they're certainly not compensated for the value they've brought our lives -- and the difference in pay compared to say, someone who's an investment banker.

While the author of this piece may have not chosen his words carefully enough, he's certainly hit home on the front of the mismatch in value our society has at its core. The end effect is demoralizing and insidious. I'm again thankful that I'm paid to do something I love.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/the-modern-phenomenon-of-nonsense-jobs-20130831-2sy3j.html#ixzz2j6X6Lt2d