The Terminator Is Talking on the Phone

I'm in a job transition right now, working 50% of the time in two separate locations.  Nobody bothered to get me a phone at my new location, and I hope nobody notices so that I don't have to get one.

I HATE THE TELEPHONE!

I know I'm not alone in this.  It is a characteristic of many people on the introverted side of the bell curve.  When I see people sauntering down the sidewalk yakking on the phone, or driving down the interstate doing the same, I'm almost baffled by this.  I would actually find it more understandable to see a person lick road kill off of the road, as that has about on the same level of revulsion as chit-chat on the phone.
Maybe that is a slight exaggeration; there are times at work where a 5 minute conversation can take the place of awful email chains or long-winded instant messages.  But that is often just making up for incompetence.  The only thing that is worse than a phone call is a conference call as it amplifies the negatives of telephone conversation.  The awkward pauses.  The repeated attempts for multiple people to start talking at once.  The reality of the best interrupter being the most prominent, sometimes only, voice on the phone.

Part of my distaste for phone conversations is that it does not allow for thinking before speaking, and the world already has entirely too much talking without thinking.  The phone takes away facial and body cues that are so important to real communication.  Video telephony somehow makes this worse, not better.  I think this is because there is still latency in the speech, and the video and audio are always slightly asynchronous.

Even worse than the phone conversation is talking to a fucking computer on the phone.  I understand the automated call menus.  Humans are expensive and automating the route to (hopefully) the right place makes sense.  I'm not sure why I have to answer the same questions if I do finally end up with a human on the other end of the phone, yet I'll accept that.  But ... and this is a big But ... while I'm perfectly happy to interact with the computer on the other end by pressing touch-tone buttons, my skin crawls when I must speak to the computer on the other end.  It is creepy.  It is dehumanizing in an Orwellian way.  It is A Brave New World's baby in a jar.  If I could find a way, I would get these automated systems to talk to each other in an endless loop so as not to be subjected to them.  One of the reasons I was exceedingly happy to dump DirecTV was that the only way to get help that was not available online was by starting the phone call talking to a DirecTV computer; there was no button pushing option.  Please, just give me the road kill to lick.
If the promise of artificial intelligence is heading in the direction of more speaking to computers, sign me up for a shack in the middle of nowhere in Montana.  Some time ago I was in a casino and saw one of those automated and full-body animated blackjack systems.  I watched it for a few minutes as the Barbie-esque cartoon character stood there forlornly with no one to deal to.  Her come-hither look and repetitive animated gestures promised the dystopian future that was imagined by every 1980s action movie.  We have arrived and the Terminator is a here - she is conquering the world, apparently gamblers first.

I recognize some people hate email, but at least it allows for thought before communicating.  Once I de-emoticonned my life, I realized the few extra minutes it takes to write clearly and succinctly is time well spent.
Text messages and Instant Messaging are great for informal conversations or short information.

But at some point the reality will have to be addressed, when did all these supposed advances in communication technology begin to take away what they tried to deliver?

What Started It All

The company I work for makes me use any of the previous year's leftover vacation by the end of April.  This normally means I have some time off at the end of April.  In  addition to getting things done around the house for spring, I often use this time for a quick motorcycle trip somewhere.  This year is one of the first in a long time where I don't have that "forced" time off, and I kind of miss it.  But I'm happier still that this means I've used (at least) more of my 2015 vacation.

The leftover vacation from 2015 was used going to Hawaii.  Of the many things done while there, I rented a motorcycle, completing a goal to ride through all 50 states.
It may be wrong, but I see riding a motorcycle through all 50 states as an accomplishment.  I won't look down on anyone who trailers their bike, but trailers are for broken bikes; tugging a bike to a location to ride is a vacation with bike.  "To and Through" is a motorcycle tour.  This does, of course, mean Hawaii will always have an asterisk after it since I chose the practical route of renting a bike there.
I sometimes look back and laugh at my first year of motorcycle touring now.  My first trip was short and very wet, and I really didn't know what I was in for.

I sold my Harley Davidson 1200 Sportster and bought a Superglide T-Sport specifically because I wanted to start touring.  I promptly hit a deer with it, but this didn't change any of my resolve to try touring.  That next spring the planning started to take the T-Sport to a rafting trip to West Virginia's New River.  Compared to today, there was a copious amount of planning for such a short bike trip, all of 300 miles.  And I was nervous; maybe nervous isn't the right word - anxious, aware, apprehensive excited...

As the weekend of the trip approached, the weather forecast looked bleak, and continued to deteriorate.  A cold front was coming through bringing rain and rain with some rain.  On the morning to depart, the weather radar painted a wide swath of green over much of the area.  Knowing I was deluding myself, I decided it looked like it wasn't too bad and would probably clear up sooner than meteorologists were predicting.
The T-Sport was a great bike, but the bags were only slightly weather resistant, and the T-Bag I used on the luggage rack didn't even pretend to keep water out.  While we had motorcycle rain gear, our overall preparedness for heavy weather was lacking.
Still, reality be damned, off we went.

We left in light rain and got around the first big city.  Exiting the interstate, the rain picked up quickly.  After an hour or so of riding in heavy rain, I was tense; I had the death grip on the motorcycle's grips and my back muscles ached.
The rain continued.
By this point we were in rural Ohio, but every small town seemed like an obstacle course.  For all my planning, I didn't have clear-lens glasses and I couldn't see well with the dark clouds and obscuring water.  Cars and trucks threw huge volumes of water all over everything.  My boots were not waterproof and my feet were freezing.
The rain continued.
Water was ponding in the low lying areas and I wasn't sure how much was too much for my bike's tires.  I pulled over a few times to let cars pass, knowing I was going slower than many car drivers wanted to.  It was too wet to pull out my photocopied maps (this was pre-GPS), so I was unsure if I was even on the right road some of the time.
The rain continued.

Somewhere around the half way point, I pulled into a parking area at the Shawnee State Forest.  This was a largely unimproved area, but there was a very small shelter there - with several inches of water covering the paved floor.  I felt absolutely defeated; I wondered if I was not cut out for the adventure of touring on two wheels.  We were too far to turn around and go home, but I just couldn't imagine continuing on through the relentless rain to the destination.
I noticed something under the water and pulled a large plug of leaves from a drain in the paved floor, water quickly started running down the drain, at least freeing us from standing in water.  If ever so slightly, our situation had improved.  Walking back to the bike and pulling out the damp maps, I made a plan:  Continue on across the Ohio River into West Virginia, find a hotel and get up early the next morning to get to the rafting camp.
Getting back on the bike was not an enticing option, but it was the only choice.
I didn't realize it at the time, but lessons were being learned about touring by motorcycle.
Be flexible.
Every piece of gear matters.
Be prepared to ride in ANY weather.

We continued on through the rain, and crossed the state line into West Virginia.  As we did so, something unexpectedly amazing happened.  The skies dramatically cleared to big puffy clouds and blue sky and it was much warmer.  Rather than stopping or staying on 2-lane roads, I took advantage of the break in the weather and jumped on the interstate, high-tailing it to the campground.
The weather remained blessedly good for the remainder of the day.  There were friends and beer waiting at the campground.  I think it rained again that night, but by that point I was drunk and in a relatively dry tent.

Rafting the next day was fun, although more fun in retrospect than it was at the time.  Our rafting guide nearly flipped us at the first big rapids and I got thrown from the boat.  I wasn't worried about drowning, but after getting back into the raft, I was terrified of something happening that would prevent a safe return home on two wheels.  If I had gotten twisted up on a rock and suffered even a mild sprained ankle, getting both myself and the bike home could become a near impossibility.

Leaving early the next morning, it was cold.  It was cold, cold.  And SO didn't have cold weather gloves.  We ended up stopping at a gas station convenience store and purchasing leather work gloves, which worked for the trip home ... sort of.  We occasionally look back and laugh about those grey work gloves.
Despite the cold, the trip home was wonderful and began to cement my love of motorcycle touring.  Clear skies and riding through some of the most wonderful early summer scenery on little-traveled rural roads was amazing.  At some point I realized that the trip home was all the more extraordinary because of the difficult trip into West Virginia two days previous.

Later that summer, we took another motorcycle trip - this one a multi-day trip through several states.  It was also during a very wet period, but we were slightly better prepared, thanks to lessons during our first trip to West Virginia.

I didn't realize it at the time, but that much rain has actually been rare in the many tens of thousands of miles traveled by motorcycle since.  There have been all-day rains and periods of torrentially bad weather, but a steady improvement in gear and abilities makes inclement weather more tolerable, sometimes even a fun interlude during a trip.

That first trip will always be special.  A trip of that length now would be done with very little planning.  But I miss the anxious excitement and nervous anticipation, paradoxically enjoying motorcycle touring more than ever.
I would never have believed during that first summer that a very wet one-day trip would eventually lead to adventures traveling through all 50 states.

In Search of Type B (Trump and Clinton are the same)

My last post ended up being more political than I originally planned, and since I've rung that bell, I'll continue to let it ring, briefly, before quelling it.

The race for the nomination for the White House is still in full swing.  On the Right, Donald Trump pretty much has the votes locked up.  Ted Cruz is tripping over himself chasing after him, with John Kasich very distant and hopeless third.
On the right, Hillary Clinton pretty much has the votes to be the Democratic nominee over Bernie Sanders.
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - Hillary Clinton, circa 1993
          Can you imagine the outrage if Bill Clinton says the same thing?

The political class Republicans hate Donald Trump, and they are looking for a reason, any reason, to deny him the nomination.  This is somewhat understandable since he has not really been a Republican and many of his historic social views have been pretty far left.  Having come up in private industry with his political role mostly as a donor, the Republican elite see him as distasteful, he hasn't paid his dues.  This is probably something the left should pay attention to.  It would not be impossible for Trump to continue his wild-card streak and govern from a viewpoint left of Clinton if elected.

I'm personally convinced Hillary Clinton is being handed the nomination on a server platter by the Democratic political elite.  The idea that in an open-year election, there was so little interest in becoming the Democratic nominee is absolutely ludicrous.  Bernie Sanders serves as a good, never-win opponent; a self-described Democratic Socialist never had a chance.  He also serves the role of making Hillary Clinton appear to be a moderate, despite being left of a Democratic Socialist on some issues.  Nice planning.  The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is only shows the real problem the public has with Clinton.

The press, the left and many on the right were quick to blow Donald Trump off as a blow-hard, reality-TV candidate ... until he started to win.  His base is still being written off as "just a bunch of white uneducated males."  In a world where every minority is a protected class, the only group that can be rounded up and ridiculed, written off and ignored is the boring middle class.  Trump has definitely tapped into something here.  And deciding that it is a voice that doesn't matter is quite sad.  It is hard to see Donald Trump ever being elected in a general election, but that shouldn't discount the voice of people who see something wrong, even if it is an unfashionable wrong or the blow-hard solutions are unrealistic.  The fact that Donald Trump thinks his election will be a steam roller in November, shows the fantasy land he lives in.

The Democratic nomination process is rigged to avoid a Donald Trump (or a Bernie Sanders).  The Democratic Superdelegates are party insiders who can vote any way they wish and serve as a safety valve against the wrong kind of candidate - ie the candidate the people might choose if given a real choice.  In a more normal year, with several viable candidates that the politico glitterati can smile at, their role is minimized, but in a year with a lot of broken rules, Bernie has even less of a chance.  Sadly, this situation seems to be accepted by the voting left.  Sayeth the Superdelegates:  Don't worry, no matter how you vote, dear voter, we know better.  Democratic Superdelegates like to claim that their role is largely symbolic, so why not get rid of them???

Even with all this, I'm surprised at the number of people who will vote for Donald Trump; I'm equally surprised at the number of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton.

The reality is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are exactly the same person.  For the past 30 years as their feet hit the floor every morning they both have said, "What can I do to promote myself today."  Donald Trump is actually pretty honest about this; he has no problem telling people how rich he is and how years of capitalist behavior has been to his favor.
Hillary Clinton has hidden behind a facade of working for the everywoman, while becoming fabulously wealthy in the process (and sometimes claiming poverty, despite being in the upper 0.1% of wealth holders in the Country).  This can be best illustrated by what happened after Bill Clinton left office in 2001.  Instead of going home to Arkansas, and there probably would have been respect if Hillary decided to represent her actual home state, she moved to New York, claimed to always be a New Yorker.  New York is a much bigger, more powerful, left-leaning state than Arkansas.  New York voting for a carpet bagger with a famous name says something about New York, and it is merely further evidence of the Democratic machine, and how much of that machine is controlled by so few.

There are voices of reason chirping in from the mayhem of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but the reality is far too squalid.
Much like Bill Richardson never had a chance in 2008, despite likely being the candidate who had accomplished much with little fanfare, John Kasich is all but sidelined at this point, his quiet demeanor hidden behind the Trump private jets and screeching of Hillary Clinton.
And that is what is missing from politics in the United States.  There are no shortage of Uber-Type-A people screaming they are right and everyone else is wrong.  This isn't exclusive to politics, the same situation exists anywhere Uber-As scream and yell above everyone else - basically everywhere.  Nixon's Great Silent Majority still exists, and will always be the great silent majority; the listeners and doers who will continue on continuing on, no matter which self-promoting, dishonest narcissist is eventually elected.

Liberty and Fish

A few weeks ago, I saw a diatribe written by a raving, sanctimonious left-winger on how conservatives are destroying liberty.  This was a fringe viewpoint that was so far left, it was almost a right-wing viewpoint.  I didn't search this out, but it would have been just as possible that a similar diatribe could be been keyed by a raving, sanctimonious right-winger.

"It is interesting how, once one edits justifications for violence down to a length suitable for T-shirt slogans, political distinctions between left and right disappear." - Sarah Vowell

The raving, sanctimonious liberal mentioned the distinction between Freedom From versus Freedom To.  Ignoring the writer after the first couple paragraphs was easy, but this started quite a bit of thinking on the distinction between Freedom From and Freedom To.

The father of this concept is probably Isaiah Berlin who talked about Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty in the 1950's.  This is a seemingly simple concept that is actually less straight forward than it appears at first glance.  As it is a concept in the political realm, it is sadly claimed by both the political left and right in haughty fashion.  Ideologues in both camps claim to own moral superiority here.
I've read a little more about Isaiah Berlin, who was an admitted liberal, but at a different political time than today.  I do wish I could have a picture of me that is as menacingly smart as this one of him...

Negative and Positive Liberty should not be thought of as bad vs. good or wrong vs. right.  In simplest forms, Negative Liberty is the absence of external barriers to freedom, Positive Liberty is the ability to act without barriers to freedom.  A simplified example is in order.
I am going to the store to buy soap.
If there is no soap to buy, I have neither negative, nor positive freedom.
If there are three bars of soap and I can buy any of them, I have both positive and negative freedom.  There is a choice (Negative Liberty) and I can choose freely (Positive Liberty).
If there are three bars of soap, and one costs $1, another $7 and the third $45, but I only have $2, I have negative freedom (I can buy any bar I choose), but not positive (my money constraints mean I can only buy the $1 bar).  Money or internal limits do not have to be the only constraint on Positive Liberty; if a large, vicious dog is snarling over one bar of soap, my Positive Liberty is constrained since I also value my hands.

Conceptually, Negative Liberty is a precondition for Positive Liberty.  If there is no soap, or only one bar of soap, my choice is limited.  It doesn't matter how much money I have, my Positive Liberty is constrained by my Negative Liberty.

How liberals like to twist the concept into their favor:
Everyone should have at least enough money to choose between two kinds of soap, so we'll take $6 from the rich, give it to the poor to allow them positive freedom.
How conservatives like to twist the concept into their favor:
By taking $6 from the rich, you may have deprived the rich of being able to buy the $45 soap, or being able to spend that money on other things where the rich had Positive Liberty.
The conservative argument gets a little difficult if the rich has $238,922 - there is almost no reduction to the Positive Liberty of the rich in this case.  However, if the rich has $12 (still substantially more than my $2), the Positive Liberty of the rich is greatly affected.  If the rich has $238,922, but $156,223 is taken in small increments to increase the Positive Liberty of the poor for a myriad of things, it is arguable that the Positive Liberty of the rich person has now been negatively affected.  Where this is in reality, is a matter of perspective.

The concept can be taken to the extreme.  This can be instructive, or it can be what the ideologues on both the political left and right like to do to try to make a point.  The limits of total Negative Liberty is anarchy - no limits at all.  I can take any soap I want and do anything I want to get the soap I want, Total Negative Liberty!
The limits of Positive Liberty is Communism - no choice since everyone must be completely equal in Positive Liberty.  I have one soap, we all have one soap, and we will all like it!

And so, much like EVERYTHING else in life, there is a balance.  And where this balance lies is dependent on the political wing.  Sadly, these choices toward both the left or right are end up being coercive.
Conservative:  I should be able to buy guns.
Liberal:  I should be able to walk down the street in even the worst neighborhood without fear of getting shot (never mind knives, clubs, etc.).
Conservative:  I agree, so buy a gun and protect your liberal-ass self.
But this is coercive.  The liberal may be afraid of guns; the liberal may be of limited means and so can not afford the gun or the training to use it properly, etc.  And taxes are already paying for police to provide for the general good of the community.

Liberal:  In order to have any liberty, I need to be healthy and so health care must be available.
Conservative:  I'm 24 and very healthy, I don't want to buy health care insurance, besides, I just finished college so I'd rather spend that money on beer.
Liberal:  You don't have to buy it.
But this is coercive, since not buying health care now comes with a punitive tax!
<slight rant>  In reality, the 24-year-old will be covered by his parents policy which is the most coercive part of Obamacare.  This is coercive to the parent's employer.  CUT THE UMBILICAL CHORD ALREADY!!!  At 24, the beer drinker should be able to take care of himself!!! <end slight rant>

Golly Jeepers, this post is turning politically negative which was not the intent, since I'm mostly a political agnostic, I'll go back to soap...

We might want to look at why I have limited Positive Liberty.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I decided to buy a very expensive shampoo?  Not much sympathy there - I've purposefully limited my Positive Liberty with respect to soap, by choosing to buy something else.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I worked for a poorly run company and lost my job - maybe being helped out to buy good soap for a short time will help with my future employment prospects by smelling better?  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I'm in college - maybe I should suck it up with cheap soap and plan that some day, I may be able to buy $7 soap.  Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I quit high school and now make very little money - maybe I need help for a little while, but ultimately I should be able to work toward opportunities to correct my poor past decisions and buy better soap in the future.

Lets take the issue of soap a bit further.  Sometimes, Positive Liberty can and should limit Negative Liberty.  But the line can get quite grey.
Let's say that we've had new companies come into the soap market and now there are 5 soaps to choose from.  Choice and competition brings down the price of the expensive ones, but raises the cost of the cheap ones a bit since the supply of soap raw materials is now more limited.  (Oops, by having more Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty may be decreased for some.  So free market forces can actually decrease freedom.)
Now, it is determined that one of the soaps is really bad for the environment, so it is forced to be taken off the market.  This is bad for Negative Liberty - one less soap to choose from.  But may be good overall - people are free from the tyranny of dead fish.  But who decides that the soap in question is bad?  Science can determine this, but scientific understanding evolves over time.  And are all scientists devoid of soap preferences and investment in the soap companies?  Does a soap study funded by the soap industry mean it is axiomatically flawed?  And what if all soap is a little bad and the one soap is proven to be only slightly worse for the environment, but I can use much, much less of it, so it has a net positive - should it be banned?  But if it isn't banned, then that frees another person to use a lot more of it than is really needed and kill fish.  And if all soap is a little bad, should it all be banned, thus freeing people from the tyranny of dead fish, but subjecting everyone to the tyranny of stinky people?
Nope, the fish are telling us that there are no simple answers, just degrees of dead fish.

The entire concept of liberty is a political, or at least authoritative, construct - so I guess this post had to become political.

But the sad thing is, we don't really have that much liberty, positive or negative, in politics.
In theory, I can vote for anyone I wish this coming November, I have a lot of Negative Liberty with respect to my vote.  I can even write myself in on the ballot.  My Positive Liberty is restricted in that there will likely only be two realistic choices in November for president.  My Positive Liberty is further restricted in that we appear to be heading toward a situation where both of those choices are really, really bad.  Even worse, my Negative Liberty isn't even all that good, since most of the listed choices are not as different as they would like to pretend that they are.  Both are more interested in their own Positive and Negative Liberty, and people like them, than they are in the Positive or Negative Liberty of the average voter.
So in the end, I guess I'm just a dead fish.  A very soapy dead fish.

The MGB and the Ferrari

Something disturbing happened a few days ago.

I had an appointment that I was early for, and the person I was meeting with was tied up with someone else, so I flopped down in a chair to wait.  Picking up an outdated, random car magazine on the small table next to me, I opened it to the Contents page.

Prominently on the contents page was a picture of the Ferrari 488, below it was a listing for a comparison of small cross-over utility vehicles.
I turned to the mud-bug article!

A group of us around, primarily-pre, driving age lusted after exotics of all kinds; this is a natural and required part of moving into the driving age for most guys.  There were three basic camps:  The Lamborghini Countach guys (show over go), The Porsche guys (really just one guy and his dad had a 928 - a car that Porsche engineers lauded as superior to the 911), and Ferrari guys.  We really didn't know jack about cars, and I was in the Ferrari camp.  There was also one Pantera guy, but, well, he was a Pantera guy...

The Testarossa was an impressive vehicle, but I always thought the side vents were odd - almost comical, boy-racerish.  The F40, on the other had, was a gritty no-bones speed machine, with the 308 an every-mans Ferrari by comparison.  In retrospect, the Porsche guy was probably correct that the 959 was a better car than the F40 in comparison, since it was nearly as quick and had creature comforts as well - but the Porsche 959 just did not inspire the same visceral reaction as the F40, sans radio and all.

Reality eventually does catch up with all of us, and my first car was an MG Midget - a decision I am convinced started a critical chain of events leading to who and where I am now.
Still, while grossly out of the realm of reality, any Ferrari continued to elicit awe, envy, and desire.

And now, some twenty-odd years later, I turn to the article on practical, fuel-efficient utility vehicles over one of the first modern turbo Ferraris.  I keep wondering when I'm going to go over that old-age hump, and this is yet another sign that I may already have.
I still probably lust after the Ferrari 308/328 more than the modern ones.  Partially because they are more attainable, but also as some terrible nostalgia.  While modern exotics are more purposeful, I can't believe form has taken too high a place over function.  These cars are actually somewhat pointless to own unless they are also going to get some track time.  Porsche 911s are just wrong without a whale tail.  I think the Enzo is almost ugly.  And automotive design reached a zenith, at least a local maxima, with the Ferrari 328.  Amazing engineering, stunning looks, yet fuel injected and widely considered one of the most reliable Ferraris to this day.  I'm well aware that a V6 Honda Accord can probably give a Ferrari 328 a good run for its money and a new Mustang GT will make the 328 appear to be a wagon on the conestoga trail in comparison; people who make that comparison should shut up already and go back to watching Fast and Furious.

Ten to fifteen years ago, the Ferrari 328s were quite affordable (comparatively).  It was actually reasonable to be able to buy one for a few 10s of thousands of dollars, sometimes less, with some of the best examples below $100,000.  Today, $50,000 is probably the entry price for these cars that "real" Ferrari owners see as starter cars, with the best examples well into the six figures.

And yet, I turned to the article on cross-over utility vehicles.

In my defense, I'll probably be replacing my Taco within the next few years and a mud-bug is something I'm considering even though I'd probably miss the open bed.
Still, I'm at a point where I probably could afford a performance vehicle, maybe even an exotic without significantly affecting myself financially.  I saw one locally a few years ago that was a restored salvage-title vehicle and was subsequently quite reasonably priced.  But Doug DeMuro's excellent series on actually owning a Ferrari makes important considerations on both owning and selling one.
His comment on the Ferrari being a "Point A to Point A" car is a bigger factor.  I have two motorcycles in my garage so I'm not against having totally impractical and expensive vehicles, but while they may be impractical, they get used extensively.  My Goldwing has been in 49 states and never on a trailer.  My Triumph Trophy has been flogged through rain, heat snow, and impromptu trips to trivial destinations.  I just don't see that happening with a Ferrari 328 if I owned one.

After my first car, the MG Midget, my second car was a 1977 MGB.  Over the time I owned this car, I did all those things that late model MGBs needed.  I put dual carbs on it.  Reworked the front suspension.  I put in an electric overdrive gearbox.  It was a phenomenally reliable car and what I drove all through college.

I still own the 1977 MGB, but sadly, it will never be on the road again.  I retired it many years ago when the engine oil pressure was starting to drop into the worrisome range (no rod-knock yet, so I knew I could fix for not much money or time), but more critically, the rust on the car was approaching a level that appeared to compromise the structural integrity.
I do occasionally have thoughts of restoring it, but not actually restoring it at all - I would be better off buying another 1977 MGB and transferring all those parts to remake my car in newer form.  But I'm not sure I can do that either, since it would ultimately mean getting rid of a vehicle which at one time in my life was probably my best friend.

The car has no value, but I can't get rid of it.  And maybe this Ferrari episode reminds why it is a good thing to keep it.  That 1977 MGB reminds me of who I really was, or am, or both.  As long as it sits there, a car I won't drive, I can't possibly waste money on another car I won't drive.

I do sometimes search Ebay during dull moments at work, and I still can't look at a Ferrari 328 without thinking maybe...  But the rational me knows that if the weather is good enough to drive a Ferrari, I'll probably be on a motorcycle, and I can enjoy that without being worried about any pretense of it as an investment.
So maybe this is evidence that I have gone over that hump.
And maybe that is OK.
But my meeting was still delayed, and I did read the article on the Ferrari 488 a little later ... and it sounds incredible.

Amended Taxes

I don't remember when it was, but it was sometime over ten years ago when I first left the 20th century to file my taxes electronically.  The process was relatively easy, until the end.  On clicking the final button to file, I was given the an error that essentially said:  The IRS has received your filing but it can not be processed as your name and social security number do not match.  I'm quite sure I knew both of these.
I was at a dead stop without knowing if I was done filing or not.  There was no online help available other than a page saying that my name and social security number didn't match (Ahhhh that is what that means.  Helpful, NOT....).  Calling the IRS about this meant spending a looooonnnnggggg time on hold, meaning I never actually got help there either.
I returned to the 19th century and have stayed there.  I can hold a grudge forever so I don't see that changing.

This year was no different.  The forms don't change much year to year, so I only pull my hair out on any new things I've done to myself.  To be honest, I'm quite sure I sometimes get stuff in the wrong box or form, but often the intent in the background is clearer than the forms.  So as long as the final numbers work out, the IRS will leave me alone.

Unlike the Federal Government, the state has a very simple online filing system.  Why the IRS can't do this is controversial.  First, they could.  Tax preparation is big business with about $5Billion being spent at places like H&R Block.  Add in tax software like TurboTax and that amount can easily be doubled.  These industries lobby hard to keep the filing process difficult so they can keep making money.  It is quite scary, however, that people need help filling out the 1040EZ.  I'll end that commentary right there.
There has been talk for years about getting prefilled out forms from the IRS.  This is probably not as straight forward as it seems, and there is probably legitimate concerns that something will be missed resulting in paying too much, or too little.  But even if we could start with the single source of what has been sent to the IRS, the filing process could be much easier.

After filling out my paper forms, I quickly and easily finished my state taxes.  Only then did I find that one small 1099 form lurking in the pile of paper.
ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
Since my Fed filing was paper, fixing that was easy.  But now, the numbers don't match between the Federal and State.  Would the state come after me for that?  Would the state come after me for the trivial increase in my taxes.
As frustrated as it was to file amended taxes, it is much less frustrating than if I get called before The Man.  I figured out the increase to my state taxes, and completed an amendment to my taxes on paper forms.  Again, I may have gotten some numbers in the wrong boxes, but the end number was what it should have been.  If the state objects too much, they can fix it.
Then I faced another conundrum, I have a local tax which has numbers that do not match the Fed or State numbers, but the increase in tax from that one 1099 form was zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Still, unmatched numbers may be a horror to some bureaucrat.  I ended up amending my local filing for absolutely no change in the bottom line.  Since again some boxes might not be filled out correctly, I suspect this may create some head scratching for the bureaucrat.
The sad thing is, the amount of extra cost to the state and local entities will far exceed the trivial increase in taxes.  Not my problem.

The other outcome of this exercise was that it was very plainly laid out how much taxes were taken from this very, very small 1099 (with apologies for the double superlative).  Because of the way the tax tables work, the Fed took 39% of it.  This number actually could have been zero, if the starting point was near the bottom of the incremental tax table amount.  The state took 6% of it and the stamps to mail it took another few percent.  Obviously, this income was not worth it for any of us, my incompetence not withstanding...

I suppose it is an academic question at this point, but I wonder if any of the tax entities would have come after me for the error of a very small missed 1099.  It certainly wouldn't be worth their time, but the principle might  be.
If nothing else, this year will be a good test of my theory that I'll be left alone as long as the bottom line is right.

See you at the audit.

Belated Edit:
I ended up using the wrong form for the amended state taxes.  They sent me the correct form, with very incomplete instructions as to how the already paid additional tax will be applied to the resent amendment.  I can only hope their records will tie this all together.
They also included some of the worst photocopies I have ever seen of the correct form.  I suggest they apply any additional tax I am paying towards a photocopier that creates legible copies.  I suspect that the trivial increase in the amended tax is already consumed in the filing and now refiling of it.
Bureaucracy at its finest!

The Comfort of Free TV

Several years ago, I donated to my local NPR station.  I do listen to NPR often and the local affiliate was at risk of disappearing, so I thought this was the right thing to do.  There were two outcomes to this.  One, the station was taken over by another NPR affiliate - while this did keep the station with similar programming, the truly local segments were no longer.  Two, that donation created voluminous junk mail asking for donations - I know this is the source since my name was misspelled and that misspelling now shows up on the resultant instant-recycling.
I once looked online to see what some of the NPR voices looked like as people - they look absolutely nothing like their on-air personalities and it has greatly affected my listening.  You just can't unsee that.

I don't currently pay for TV.  The cost is really hard to justify with the fact that, even when I did have satellite, I only watched a small number of the channels that I paid for.
I live in an area without any good options for unlimited internet access; streaming TV is also out of the question.  This leaves me with over-the-air television which means I am somewhat destined to know of many cultural phenomena only second hand.  I'll live with that.
Over-the-air television means I watch a lot of PBS.  Interesting shows will often show up while flipping, but there are only a few shows I target to watch.  My normal TV routine is currently being disrupted by the pledge week.
What I find most curious about the PBS pledge weeks - I think they happen about four times a year - is that PBS seems to get rid of their usual good and predictable programming, replacing it with a redundant clutter of rehash.  The strategy seems to be one of, "If you don't donate, we'll put more of this crap on..."
I don't know how many times I've flipped past Suze Orman oversimplifying personal finances during pledge week, or shuddered at the horror of The Big Band Years.
There is another possibility - I may not really be in PBS's market.  They want money from someone other than me.
PBS claims to be commercial free.  This is disingenuous.  You can call Subaru an underwriter of Globe Trekker, but Subaru is not handing out cash out of the goodness of their corporate soul - they want to sell more Foresters.

I still believe digital TV was a ploy by Michael Powell to kill free TV by limiting who has access to over-the-air channels.  It was possible to watch a fuzzy analog The Simpsons episode; it is impossible to watch a massively pixelated episode.  Mr. Powell's evil ploy was thwarted, largely because he did not envision what would happen in streaming media.
For those of us who can get a decent antenna TV signal, the result is more digital channels than we had analog ... sort of.

Many of these digital channels are quite redundant.  But they are often playing reruns from the late 70's to the 90's.  I'm surprised how some of these shows hold up after so many years.  Early Hunter (a show I loved in the mid-80's) is fun to watch when I'm in the right mood, but gosh did that show get bad in the later years.

Miami Vice is still good, but only in the context that, it in many ways, defined TV for several years.  The dialog is as over-the-top as the pastels are.  I was quite depressed that after watching a recent episode start-to-finish, the Ferrari never made an appearance once.  It is sad when the true star of a show is absent.

It is refreshing to see long lost episodes of Night Court.  Bull Shannon (Richard Moll) makes that show as much as Harry Anderson does.  I can only hope we'll get to see reruns of It's Your Move, but I won't hold my breath.

A few of the shows demonstrate absolute genius.  Newhart is as good as anything on TV now and I can't help but find the opening theme be unquestionably comforting.

I guess I should probably donate to PBS, but I really don't want the increased mail to recycle.  Maybe I'll just by a Subaru instead.  Do they still make the Baja?