Frank, Interrupted

"There are cemeteries that are lonely,
graves full of bones that do not make a sound,
the heart moving through a tunnel,
in it darkness, darkness, darkness,
like a shipwreck we die going into ourselves,
as though we were drowning inside our hearts,
as though we lived falling out of the skin into the soul."

- Pablo Neruda, Nothing But Death


I've been gone for while: by my count, it's been 362 days – just short of year – since I last put text to screen. I'd like to say I've been busy with some fulfilling new project, or pursuing some long-delayed dream; but in fact, dear readers, my blogging – indeed my life – was interrupted by the thing Neruda is talking about above. Not long after I wrote my last post, I, your humble narrator (with props to Anthony Burgess and the parlance of Alex DeLarge), nearly shuffled off this mortal coil, in a series of events that were real horrowshow. In the aftermath of that, I haven't had the inkling, energy, or fortitude to write anything. I've been surviving. And without going deeply philosophical, things start to look different when you viddy your own expected-but-untimely end. Writing this blog takes a chunk of my spirit that I simply haven't had to give. I don't really have that spirit now, but as I approach the one-year mark with nothing but silence here, I thought I should at least take a moment to mark it, and give those of you who read me a brief explanation-cum-apology. I hope it's enough.

I'd also like to thank those who've continued to check back, or stumbled upon me through Google, or through other sites to which I've posted; especially those who've taken the time to comment. I created this place to share my philosophy and views, and to invoke yours. I'm always glad when someone joins the dialogue. That said, I've spent the last week perusing new comments, and without trying to spin it – or even be particularly open-minded – I've realized anew that there are too many people out there who love to comment without speaking to the specific issues in a post, and who dodge every actual question at the core of a debate, and who do both with malice and aggression. For those people, I have a special condemnation, courtesy of my yearlong odyssey, and the scar it has etched into my drive to become enlightened:

YOU are the people I rail against: you are the people that ruin the world. You, with your prefab, narrow-minded, unshakable ideas, who don't engage in a conversation, but try to overpower it; you, who attack under the guise of contributing, and think bullying is akin to sharing; you, who lambaste others for not seeing things your way, or for having the audacity to publish thoughts or pursue agendas that run counter to yours; you, who litter the world with shameful nonsense, and claim that those who do not agree are willfully ignorant, stupid, or lazy; you, who breed hate, contempt, and intolerance, all while ignoring the rules of kind society, and the basest needs of your fellow man; you, who thwart humanity's evolution and enlightenment by turning the world into an ideal- and soul-crushing meat grinder; you, who spread hate, and take without giving, and consume to the point of wastefulness; you, who want to be heard and have the world change to suit you, but who would never suffer the same for others; you, who can't muster enough guilt or regret to even contemplate an apology, much less work to change for the better. You are the people who, even when my spirit is strong, make it hard for me write here. And make it hard for me to do more than survive.

The Future of the FrankSpot

So, is there still a blog here? I just don't know. As I said above, there's a lack of spirit in me now. And although there's a lot to blog about – including many interesting tidbits I'd love to share about the sorry state of doctors and medicine in this country – I'm barely treading water in my quest to provide for those I love, and lamenting much of what I've lost this past year. So, for now, I think the FrankSpot is still on hiatus. But:

My best to all the good people out there. I hope you find what you're looking for.


The List – Volume Two

A few months back, I published The List – my unabashed, profanity-laced diatribe on all things irritating. It was a fantastically satisfying exercise – an anger-releasing orgasm that left me with a month-long afterglow of self-satisfaction and general sense of rightness in the world. It felt so good, that by the time I wrote my closing, I was fairly certain there’d be more volumes. The many visitors who grokked what I put to page only fed my certainty, and I immediately started a new cache of hastily scribbled post-it notes detailing my daily frustrations. So, even though there are plenty of real issues I could devote my fingers to typing, I’m taking a detour back to The List with hopes of another teeth-rattling release. So here we are, with the second volume of things that really tick me off; a proverbial beatdown of minor irritants which, when added together, make my life suck more than it should.

And another disclaimer:

Warning: (Really) Adult Language Ahead

In my last post, I issued a semi-adult language warning. Then I used the f-word about 900 times, often accounting (in some form) for 40-50% of any sentence’s content. So, clearly, there was nothing semi there. With that in mind, I amend my warning: I intend to swear at least as much in this volume. My profanity will be in noun, verb, adverb, and adjective forms, and will spew unapologetically across the page. If you don’t like that kind of harsh language, stop at the end of this paragraph and go look at my Goulash Recipe. The rest of you: welcome back, and I hope you enjoy. And I hope you’ll add more of your own world gripes. Misery likes company, and my blog LOVES comments.

See you on the other side.

The List (continued, and in no particular order)

Who/What: The Cancel Button on any Printer
Why: Oh, my fucking God! When I press cancel, don't print another thing. Don’t print the whole document, don’t print half a page and then stop, and for the love of God and all that is holy, don’t print 400 one-line-of-garbage-at-the-top-of-each-page pages. Stop immediately! That means right fucking now! Whoever designed this button should be strapped to the paddle wheel on a river boat and churned from New Orleans to Japan.

Who/What: Ronald D. Moore (Warning: Spoilers ahead!)
Why: Battlestar Galactica’s last episode. Are you kidding me with this shit? That was your idea for a good ending? The bad guy gives up and shoots himself, the main character vanishes without any explanation of what the fuck she was, and the last remnants of the human race discard their technology and wander off to mate with cavemen? Forget the freakin’ plot holes you never closed – some of which were big enough to drive the Galactica itself through – this was just bad writing. I wanted to drive to your house and slap you. Seriously. I’m glad your next pilot flopped. I bet you pissed off the network executives as much as you did me.

Who/What: The Folks Who Loved and/or Defended the Aforementioned Finale.
Why: Well, you’re either stupid suck-ups or pretentious pricks, or both. Line up behind Moore, assholes, the slaps are coming your way next.

Who/What: Bands that Release CDs Without Lyrics in the Liner Notes
Why: It’s 2009! How do you not get this? People want to know what you’re saying. So much so that there are entire web sites devoted to translating your drunken, mushmouthed ramblings into readable text. Save us the hassle, and the embarrassment that comes when we sing the wrong lyrics around someone who knows the right ones. I’m giving you $15 for 15 songs. Spend the 1/10 of a cent on ink and print the freakin' words.

Who/What: Ron Livingston (Actor – Band of Brothers, Office Space)
Why: Put your fucking eyebrow down, jerkwad. Jeez.

Who/What: RoadRunner Web Mail
Why: Where is the Goddammed Empty Trash button? Are you telling me that nobody has mentioned that it’s missing from your interface? I shouldn’t have to delete messages from a folder, then go to the Deleted Items folder and delete them again. Every other fucking mail client on the planet has an Empty Trash feature. Get with the freakin' program, jerkholes!

Who/What: Joss Whedon, Screenwriter of Alien 4
Why: I know Ripley was being kind putting all of those other half-formed/mutant clones out of their interminable misery, but shooting them with a flamethrower is not the best or most humane way to do it. Yeah, it’ll end their suffering...with excruciating pain (a proverbial cherry on top!). "Hey, mutants! You thought you were in agony before, and it couldn’t be any worse? How about bathing in 1400 degree napalm for a few minutes as you die?" Writing a flamethrower-based mercy killing is just plain wrong. Shame on you, Joss.

Who/What: People my Pants Size
Why: You fuckers have been thwarting me for 25 years now, and I’m tired of having to shop for two fucking weeks in 17 freakin' stores to find one pair of jeans in my size. I mean come on – when I was a 30/30, I could only find 28/30 or 32/30. When I was 32/30, all I could find are the 30/30s I always needed. It’s like you’re following me through my exact nutrition/exercise/weight gain pattern, but just happen to leave the house five minutes before me. Stop it, Goddamn it! I need some freakin' pants!

Who/What: Unclear Windows System Messages (No matter what software makes them pop up)
Why: Here's another Oh, My Fucking God! I don’t know what SVCHOST or RUNDLL32 are, so how the fuck do I know whether they should have access to the internet through my firewall, or whether I should force quit them when they stop responding? How about telling me something useful, like which program is using those things? I’m not sure who to blame for this one, but who ever you are: fuck you, and your grandchildren, pets, neighbors, and anyone who serves you spit-free food in a restaurant.

Who/What: Elevator "Close Door" Buttons
Why: What the fuck? There weren’t any more jobs in the printer cancel button business, so you moved on to elevators? Don’t give me a button that doesn’t work, dickwads, or that only works in some elevators. Go back to every elevator you ever designed and make them work. In fact, just to pay me back, I want an additional Turbo Close button that will bisect a 700 pound man in less than a second, and get me to my floor before the bloody torso stops twitching.

Who/What: Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats (also good for any other flavor-coated foods or snacks)
Why: Listen to me very carefully, brain trust: if the wheat biscuit comes through without frosting, it isn’t a fucking Frosted Mini-Wheat. Send it back and spray it again. That includes the ones that were on their side, or went under the clogged nozzle. If you didn’t know, eating an un-frosted Mini Wheat is akin to eating a fucking Brillo pad. It’s called quality control, jerkwads. Do some.

Who/What: The Fucking NY State Lottery/Mega Millions
Why: Pay attention, stingy lottery gods: I’m tired of going to work, missing every sunny day, and never having enough cash to rent a fucking DVD. And I’m especially tired of seeing other people win. It’s my turn. No more “I never play the lottery, but I grabbed a ticket when I went to buy myself some Skoal and a Diet Mountain Dew on the way back to my mobile home” winners. In fact, no more fucking wins for other people at all until I win – they’re probably all pedophiles and atheists, and should never, never have access to big money.

Who/What: Democrats Who Know How to Comment on the Internet
Why: What a whiny bunch of know-it-all childish pukes you are. You make us all look bad. So just shut the fuck up. And when you do have something to say, try using good grammar, proper spelling, the correct fucking words, and some punctuation. The only thing worse than an obnoxious computer-savvy Dem, is one who writes like a retarded 5th grader. In fact, I bet it was you who designed all those cancel and close buttons. Fuckers...

Who/What: Sam’s Club
Why: What kind of sadistic mother fuckers sell me something for six months, get me hooked on it, and then NEVER FUCKING SELL IT AGAIN? Oh, there’s a special place in Hell for you, my friends – and I guarantee you it will be a place where the close and cancel buttons don’t work, and every Windows message is too obscure to be of any use.

Who/What: Television Stations
Why: Stop putting extraneous promotional shit on the screen when I’m watching a show. I want to see the entirety of the image, not clever graphics for other shit I’m never going to watch. And I already know what show I’m watching, and what channel it’s on. Stop telling me, “You’re watching 24 on Fox.” Really? I thought I was watching fucking Madagascar on PLEX! And another thing: let me see the fucking credits. I waited 45 minutes to find out who played that hot freakin' waitress or who sang that great song – don’t scrunch up the screen, run the credits at turbo speed, or tilt the whole thing to one side. And don’t fucking talk over the music/end jokes/epilogues/previews. Wow, that’s annoying.

Who/What: Town/County Tax Assessors
Why: $189,000? For my house? In 2009? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you pull that number out of your ass while you were sucking down martinis in Boca? Have you ever actually seen my house? Have you read about the economy? Are you fucking blind, deaf, and stupid? And don’t tell me I have to prove my house value is down. Is my house in some kind of magical fucking bubble where it’s unaffected by everything else that’s happening in the world? Of course it’s down, you prick. Pick up the paper, turn on the TV or the radio, or talk to any person in earshot. Know what they’ll tell you? Housing values are down, you pig-headed moron! Start cutting people’s assessments.

Who/What: Cottonwood Trees (and the people who own them)
Why: Holy fucking Christ! Does my entire ½ acre have dandruff? Why does anyone even have these freakin' trees? And I’m not just talking about my neighbor who has a forty foot tall cottonwood that hangs over my yard and craps so much white fluffy shit that it looks like ten flocks of birds got sucked into a jet engine 30 feet above my house (Karma will get you one day, my friend; if not karma, then Ripley with her flamethrower). No! In fact, it snowed cotton for a month in my town. Rise up, comrades! Burn those fucking trees down! Every one of them! I don’t care if the species goes extinct. It’s time to take back our lawns!

Who/What: Smokers
Why: Hey, assholes! The can is right there! It’s less then three feet away. What kind of lazy motherfucker are you that you can’t walk three feet to the can? Stop throwing your still-smoldering butts on the ground. And for those of you who smoke in your car: first, close your fucking windows – you wanted smoke, why are you letting it out? And second, there’s a place in your car to throw your ash and butts, dicklicks - use it! What’s that? You don’t want it in you car? Oh, I see. Then what the fuck makes you think I want it on my lawn, or bouncing off my car while I drive behind you? I’m a non-smoker for a reason, dipshits. And a special shout out for those bonus-sized assholes who bury their butts in the sand in the beach. You are absolute gems among human beings – I’m gonna tell Ripley to use a lower heat setting when she puts you down with her flamethrower.

Who/What: Advocates of Pretty Much Anything that isn’t Yet Mainstream or Legal
Why: What a self-important, self-serving, blind bunch of assholes you are. I know I speak for the majority when I say, "Oh, my God, shut the fuck up!" We don’t agree with you, and we don’t want to hear it. And what’s more, even if we don’t have strong feelings about your cause, I guarantee that your obnoxiousness will turn us against you. So to be clear: shut up and go fuck yourselves sideways in whichever holes make you most uncomfortable and have the highest risk of bruising.

Epilogue

Well, that’s it. I burned like 10,000 calories worth of angst and anger there; and yes, the language was pretty strong, and awfully harsh. I’m not usually an “in for a penny, in for a pound” guy, but this is a pretty faithful example of that. I’ll be writing a serious post at some point in the near future, so look for it.

Peace out, y’all.

SpotShot: { frank } Takes on the Retail Industry (Part 1)

If you read The List in February, you’ll know I take issue with bad retail practices (among many other things!). As I consider our failing economy – and specifically, the frothing nightmare that is now the retail industry – I can’t help but make one obvious observation:

American retail sucks.

Now I know that last word is kind of harsh, and unsophisticated, but every other word I typed at the end of that sentence couldn’t capture the overall “suckiness” I’m here to describe. So, I stand by it, and ask your indulgence as I write on...

So far this year, I've read more than two dozen stories (and countless more headlines) about the state of the retail industry and its effect on the flagging economy. Retail businesses are failing at an alarming rate, and consumer confidence is at a near-historic low. Economists know that a healthy retail industry is a key component in any kind of national economic recovery, but they rarely address issues in the industry itself. Instead, they talk about broad economic and employment trends that only factor slightly into the health of the industry: rising unemployment and gas prices, failing lenders and credit card companies, sudden inflation, and people saving for rainy days (or downright hoarding). They never – well, I should probably say, almost never – fix the blame where it belongs: on the shoulders of the many retailers and manufacturers who just don’t “get it.” You know – the businesses that suck. If you want to understand why consumer confidence is so low, perhaps it's time to look more closely at them. That's what I'm doing here.

To make it easy, I’m going to focus on three personal retail nightmares: replacing a worn-out cell phone battery; buying replacement supplies for two of my daughter’s toys; and trying to buy some strawberry ice cream. I have hundreds that I could write about, but I thought I’d start with a small, recent cross-section. As you can probably tell from the title, I expect this to be the first in a series of retail-critical posts. Not only do I have a huge backlog of nightmares to share, but I’m still shopping, which means plenty of new opportunities for retail suckiness and future posts.

Oh, and if you’re wondering what the heck a SpotShot is, it’s something I’ve been toying with for a while. It’s a play on “pot shot” that I've decided to use whenever I want to rant about a minor (or semi-minor) thing, and want to do it in a not-completely-serious way. The health and well-being of the retail industry isn’t exactly minor, but my concerns don’t necessarily speak to some greater purpose or philosophical truth. It’s gears-grinding with a message. So let’s get to it!

LG Electronics: The Cell Phone Battery Debacle

Let’s talk cell phone batteries. Back in summer 2007 – just under 2 years ago – I renewed my family's Cingular contract, and bought three brand new cell phones. It was time to upgrade phones, and since I was already planning to keep my existing service provider, it seemed a minor inconvenience to sign a new three-year contract – especially since it would secure three below-retail-price cell phones (one for me, one for my wife, and one for my mom). I shopped hard, and finally settled on the LG CU500. It’s an amazing phone: does lots of cool stuff, sounds good, looks mod, easy to use. Overall, a pleasing purchase. And with the signup discount, they cost me about $50 apiece, much lower than the $350 price for a non-contract-upgrade-related purchase. I walked away quite satisfied.

Fast forward fifteen months:

My phone battery started losing its charge. Or, more precisely, it started burning through its charge in an unusually short period of time. When it was new, the phone would stay charged for three or four days with moderate call volume, a few picture snaps, and a couple hours of MP3 playback. Pretty good performance, and one that was duplicated on my wife’s and mother’s sibling phones. (And remember, these are three identical phones – so the comparisons in performance and expectation is appropriate.) I thought it was odd, but I wasn’t that concerned. Batteries age, and manufacturing differences can affect the life of any specific battery. But when the problem got to be – well, problematic – I decided it was time to buy a new battery. (This is a key point of my story – I wasn’t looking for warranty replacement, or reimbursement, or any kind of compensation. I just wanted to buy a new battery.) So, I went to Best Buy, where I bought the phone, and learned that since the phone was fifteen months old, replacement batteries weren’t going to be an off-the-shelf thing. Apparently cell phones turn over quickly, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to stock them, or their parts, for very long. Not a big deal, especially when the salesman told me that batteries usually outlasted their phones. Fine. So I went to Radio Shack, then the Cingular store. Still, nothing – same set of reasons too. But again, I was okay with it. The Cingular rep suggested going online to buy one, so I headed home and fired up my browser. My first stops? My favorite shopping sites: Amazon, NewEgg, Buy.com, Overstock. These four sites came up blank. No such thing as a replacement battery for this phone. Curious… Next stop: the Cingular site. Again, nothing. Also odd. Final stop: LG. They’ll obviously have one, right? They make and sell the darn phone. But the result was surprising: a stunning, inexplicable nothing! What’s this? The folks who make the phone don’t have replacement batteries for sale? Huh? Headsets…cases…solar chargers? But no batteries? How can that be? Where’s that “contact us” link?

Even after all this, I still wasn’t annoyed. I was baffled that I could buy a solar charger for my existing battery, but not a new battery. So I wrote a quick note to customer service (fully expecting some marginally helpful, if broken-English, reply) and waited for them to send me a link to the correct product page. I got a response in 36 hours. Wow, talk about service! Except...the response told me to go the LG web site to buy a battery – the same website I used to click the contact us link. Okay, fine. I wrote back and explained that it wasn’t there, and asked for some real help. The next response: "Sorry, we don’t have a replacement battery for that phone." Chagrined and confused, I wrote back for clarification: were they out of batteries, or didn’t they offer one? I couldn’t get a straight answer. And that finally did it; I was peeved, and more than a little.

What followed was a confounding string of emails with "David G" at LG. He was about as unhelpful as any person I’ve ever dealt with. Not only didn't he ever answer any of my questions with clear, definitive language, he couldn’t even grok the fact that I wanted to buy a new battery for my expensive, not-so-old phone. Again, let’s revisit the proposed transaction: I (customer) wished to pay money to them (vendor) to purchase a product (battery) for a currently produced and sold phone. Simple right? Nope. And there was no information on why my proposed transaction was un-completable. I confirmed that they do still make the battery – although getting to that fact took months, especially because it was obscured behind David’s poor language skills and obvious mental deficiencies – they just didn’t have one to sell me.

(I took a little side trip just then, back to my favorite online shopping sites. Suddenly, Buy.com had an “OEM” replacement battery through one of their “marketplace” vendors. I was saved! I paid and waited, and I finally received…a cheap Korean knock off that didn’t fit my phone, and clearly wasn’t made by LG. A few emails later, the marketplace vendor assured me it had been an honest mistake, and offered me a full refund if I returned the product. I did so, and still haven’t received an acknowledgment or refund…but that’s another story. Back to LG…)

Finally angry (no longer just peeved) I contact David G one last time, and reminded him of the entire four-month odyssey. His otherworldly response was perfectly in line with all his previous responses, and it was undeniably clear that he still didn’t understand the purpose of our long and unfortunate correspondence, or the transaction I was proposing. My next message to him would likely look something like this.
David –

You are idiot. Me want give you money. You sell me battery.

Signed: Dissatisfied Customer You Not Helped in MONTHS and MONTHS
Of course, this little LG experience wouldn’t be enough to spawn a whole blog post on its own, even though it scored the top spot here. But, it was one of a large patchwork of similarly fruitless and vexing retail experiences. Thus, the first SpotShot was born.

(And for those of you wondering, I did lots of at-home troubleshooting, including changing batteries and chargers between the three phones. The performance issue always followed the battery. That said, let’s move on to the next one...)

Toys R Us, Crayola, and Imaginarium

My daughter is 4. This past Christmas, we bought her some cool new toys from our local Toys R Us: a sidewalk paint sprayer, and a spin art toy. Fantastic toys, simply fantastic. Spin art was the first one opened – it was winter, and sidewalk painting is more of a summer thing. So spin we did, and the splattered toddler art flowed beautifully. I was quite happy. She was quite happy. All was right with the world. But – the replacement demons were waiting just out of sight! After one particularly spin-ful February day, we were suddenly out of supplies. No more fancy spinnable paper, no more glitter paint. No big deal, right? We packed up and took a trip to Toys R Us for supplies. They sold the thing, so they should have the refills, right? Wrong! (And to make matters worse, the shelves were a lot more bare than you’d expect for a major retailer – but more on that in my closing…) Since I’m sure you can divine what happened next from the cell phone story, I’ll just say this: it’s June, and we still haven’t found replacement supplies. Not from the retailer, or the manufacturer, or the countless online stores that sell knockoffs and universal refills.

Luckily, it got warm/dry early this year, and it was time to spray paint on the front walk and driveway. Another great toy. Effective, easy, creative, and my daughter loved it. Twice! Why twice? Because the supplies run out fast for creative kids, and my daughter has creativity in abundance. But I was fine with it: of course the supplies run out fast – they want to sell you frequent replacements to keep your money flowing. I get it. I’m good with it. Retail 101. Except – can you guess it? NO replacement supplies at Toys R Us. None online. None directly from the manufacturer. A favorite toy, basically dead because nobody wants to make or stock replacement supplies. Ugh, I say. Ugh!

(For the curious: local craft stores are going to be our last hope for both of these toys, but I’m not betting on a positive outcome. Let’s hope my daughter forgets both these toys before she needs therapy…)

Next Up: Wegman’s – the Store that Shuns Strawberry Ice Cream

This past Saturday, I wanted ice cream. It’s summer, it’s hot, I like sweet stuff…kinda makes sense, right? But Wegman’s, our local mega-supermarket chain, threw a wobbly curve ball at me. Seven major brands of ice cream, one store brand, and not one half gallon of Strawberry, That’s right. Two full coolers – probably 1000 gallons of ice cream – and no Strawberry. Now I know what you’re thinking: not everyone likes Strawberry…what’s the big deal? You could be right. Except, Strawberry is one of the ruling class flavors of ice cream – a member of the original ice cream triumvirate of Vanilla-Chocolate-Strawberry. A flavor that’s pretty much as old as ice cream. And yet it’s not part of Wegman’s plan-o-gram. (And yes, if you’re wondering, I confirmed with a department manager that they were no longer carrying the flavor…) Let me draw an analogy: you just bought your first box of crayons, the one that has the original seven colors (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet), and Crayola decided that it didn’t need to include Green. That would make me nuts. I wouldn’t be upset if burnt sienna or pumpkin was missing – those are more on the cusp of specialty colors – but green is a standard. Just like Strawberry. So the weekend math looks like this:

Wegman’s – strawberry ice cream = unhappy and hot consumer { frank }

Fix It! (Or: Fix it, Dammit!)

Now what’s the consequence here, and in fact with all these stories? Simple: I have money; in my wallet; that I’m actively trying to give to several different retailers; and I can’t. Get it? I can't buy four things that I want and can afford, because every company I deal with doesn’t have them to sell me. And it’s not because they’re hot sellers and hard to keep in stock. It’s a deliberate decision of the manufacturers and retailers not to have them for me to buy. That’s key mistake, and a boldface knock of the folks who make the manufacturing/stocking decisions. I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure that having a product for me to buy is a crucial element of retail success. When I do the math, it looks something like this:

Their product + my money = their profit + my consumer happiness

And the best part of this equation is that it leaves a remainder of healthy economy. It's a simple lesson: it doesn’t matter if it’s ice cream, a replacement battery, sparkly paint, or winter gloves and hats in January (again, see The List). If you don’t have the product, I won’t give you my money. And let me add a stern warning to the “marketing genius” who thinks, “well, they’ll just buy something else if they can’t find what they’re looking for.” You need to go back to school, buddy! Not only won’t I buy something else from your store/company – because I still intend to buy exactly what I’m looking for, and I need my money to do it – but I’ll be angry. And petty. I’ll visit your competitor, and tell everyone I know why I think you suck. And I’ll post stories like this in my blog.

Folks, this is not rocket science. This is basic supply and demand. I mentioned above that Toys R Us was remarkably empty. They aren’t the only ones. Store after store – in my town, at least – have empty shelves: signs and shelf tags for products they don’t stock, with unrelated products faced out in bulk – mainly, I suspect, to try and hide the basic lack of product variety which is the actual meat of a successful retail strategy. Like selling products that practically guarantee repeat business (in the parents who file in dutifully to resupply their child’s beloved toys), and actually selling the refills. Or selling common, expected products, like basic ice cream flavors, popular deodorant scents, potato chip varieties, or national brands! Otherwise, my consumer mind boils over with slews of uncomplimentary words and phrases, including a favorite that my daughter is starting to pick up: “Hellooooo? Duh!”

Want to fix the economy, or at least the retail portion of it? Here’s The FrankSpot recipe (the main ingredients, anyway):

Recipe for Better Retail

2 Cups Stock Your Shelves (Empty shelves mean empty cash registers.)
2 Cups Sell Replacement Parts/Supplies (If you sell me a product that needs replacement stuff, but don’t sell the replacement stuff, I won’t be back. I’ll shop at a competitor, and say bad things about you in the church bulletin.)
1 Cup Provide Good Customer Service (Good customer service means fast, efficient, and productive. I don’t want you to commiserate with me, I want you to help me in a material way. And if you can manage it, speak my native language as well as I do…)
1 Tbsp Let Me Give you Some Money (Of course, this is really more of a serving suggestion than ingredient, but the point is solid.)

I’d say it’s a pretty simple recipe, but stay tuned, FrankSpot readers. Since I have no real pull in the world, I expect that exactly nobody will cook this meal. In fact, I’d be surprised if, even after a forced feeding of this essay, any retailer could even see the problems I’ve described. I'd expect the typical follow-up thought to be: “I bet people will buy Worcestershire Sauce Ice Cream – let’s stop selling Chocolate.” Thus, there will be more volumes in my war against retail. David Horowitz, meet your successor.

See you soon.

Torture in America – Law and Subjectivity in Action

Prologue: Writing the Unwritable Post

So let's talk about torture.

It's been in the news for a while now, and has quickly become a defining issue of the last 9 years: legally, politically, and ethically. It fairly clogs the news cycles on some days – the media trots out questions and talking points, which ripple into the morning shows, local papers, and countless web sites:

  • Is it right or wrong?
  • Who authorized what?
  • Who knew or didn’t know, and how much?
  • Republicans versus Democrats.
  • Which religious demographics support it or don’t.
  • How America + Torture = Nazi Germany.
Tough stuff. And I’ve been ruminating on it the entire time; trying to decide if I could blog about it. I mean, it’s obviously a provocative topic – it riles and offends people, and triggers family-event-destroying blowouts – but it's dense, and impenetrably gray. I want to weigh in; I want to entice others to the public debate, and I want to enrich the public dialog. But it's a window that's hard to see through. Even in the brightest light of human outrage, the image beyond the glass is shadowy, and indistinct. How do we define torture? Is this it, or is that it? Why is it being used? Does it work? Look as I might, I can't get to a clear picture. And if there's one thing I like when I start a post, it's a clear picture.

When we discuss things like racism, or gun violence, or whether drugs should be legalized, there are plenty of folks with first-hand knowledge, and even more with second- or third-hand knowledge. Mention torture, and suddenly almost no one is an expert (even if they have an opinion). The folks “in the know” are people most of us will never meet. Many are deliberately hidden from the world, so even if you do know them, you don't know you know them. This makes torture a unique consideration to the common man. How do you genuinely contemplate something that you know nothing about? If you're a FrankSpot reader, you know that I lament that people generally opine (and take up fortified positions) in relative ignorance, but this topic is unique in that there really isn't any way for the average person to contemplate it with a foundation of experience. By default (and lucky for all of us), we lack the ability to speak on the topic from place of knowledge. Everything we think we know is anecdotal. That's one of the things that made it so hard for me to put words around this topic. What do I really know about torture?

But the story is still very much in the minds and in the media, and I’m drawn to it because it speaks to our fundamental humanity. I want to explore the philosophical notions that underpin the outrage, and the real world considerations of torture’s application and efficacy. Unfortunately, it more and more seems that every measuring stick is insufficient, and there’s a good chance that the only thing likely to be borne of the debate…is more debate. That poses a special and significant challenge for me: what do philosophers do with a conundrum like this? What if there is no final answer? No absolute right or wrong? No way to build true consensus? What if we just can’t solve this one?

These questions dogged me every time I tried to put words to page. What follows is my wholehearted attempt to make sense of it all.

Defining the Indefinable

What is torture?

As I mentioned above, the main problem with this discussion is that torture isn't one easily definable thing. It's a word open wider to interpretation and semantics than most in our language. Sure, there's a dictionary entry, but as I survey the outrage of everyone touched by the topic, it’s clear that that the “official definition” has barely informed the debate. It turns out, instead, that the notion of torture is as personal and subjective a thing as anything out there. People define it through a combination of religious, moral, and ethical beliefs, political affiliations, gut reactions, and their own sense of place in the world. So the dictionary entry doesn’t add any meaningful text to the discussion. What is torture? It’s whatever the debaters – the observer, the victim, the state enemy, the foreign government, the special interest group – want it to be. If we were discussing torture as a philosophical exercise, or a re-examination of unfortunate history, we could stop there. And it wouldn’t matter that we couldn’t reach a consensus. But the debate has changed: it is no longer a lukewarm ethics discussion, but an urgent legal issue. That brings us to the second problem:

The Legal Definition

In a society of laws (which I’m glad I live in, despite the sometimes rickety condition of our legal system), we classify specific behaviors as illegal. It makes sense if we want to surround ourselves with safety and order. But, there’s a catch, and it’s the same one that makes the torture debate so hard to resolve: what measuring stick do we use? This is an important consideration in any debate, and doubly so in this one. Laws require both a proverbial watermark as a starting point – a consensus-based standard to be used any time we perceive a transgression – and very specific wording. Like it or not, laws aren’t meant to be flexible; and well-written ones don’t leave much room for interpretation (even if they are dense with legalese and abstraction). That’s an important protection for us as citizens. (And yes, that creates a host of other issues, but I’ll save that for another blog entry.) Laws need to be specific if they are to be understood and enforced fairly. This applies to simple stuff – don’t take something from a store without paying for it – and deep, unwieldy stuff like torture. So, regardless of your personal feelings, torture needs a legal definition if we’re going to address it as a society. That means specifics, examples – dictionary entries. It means a legal consensus even when there is no philosophical one. And to be clear: it can’t be a moving target.

Let’s stop on that for a second, just to make sure we’re all on the same page. Torture – from a legal standpoint – has to be strictly defined. That means one clearly stated description of what constitutes torture. It can include a laundry list of citations and examples, but the definition has to be finite. It has to end. If you look to the law, you’ll find that there’s already a legal definition in place. That’s a key problem with the current debate: people keep forgetting (or ignoring) that definition in favor of their personal outrage, and want to categorize as torture treatments that currently fall outside the legal definition. In itself, that’s a noble pursuit. Something has rankled us, and we want the law to be rewritten so that thing can’t happen again. But, the problem is further complicated here by the public's need to punish someone: it’s not good enough to rewrite the law for tomorrow. People want to bend the law to create a retroactive illegality. An interesting idea, I suppose, but impractical at best, a path to absolute ruin at worst. As a rule, we don’t criminalize past behavior, only future behavior. Call it a conceit to the linear, forward-only nature of time’s passage – and to our basic inability to predict which of today’s legal behaviors would land us in the electric chair tomorrow. It’s a basic protection we have to embrace: what you did yesterday might become illegal tomorrow, but you won’t be prosecuted because it was legal when you did it.

Now some people argue here that the Bush administration’s lawyers deliberately exploited the finite nature of legal language to “get away with” treatments that don’t violate the letter of the law – but still cross into unethical/philosophically shaky behaviors we’ve retroactively classified as torture. They’re right, but skirting the law isn’t actually illegal. As despicable as it seems in this context, “going around the law” is just another part of the legal process. Those lawyers aren’t the first or only ones to do it. It happens every day, sometimes in our favor, sometimes to our detriment. That is a conceit to the vagaries of our language, and a basic fact of life. I recently wrote a post about the drive to legalize drugs in America, and I posited that every regulation (or law) breeds loopholes. This is the same problem. If you don’t list smacking someone in the head with a rolled up magazine as torture – or have intersecting laws that constrain any of the constituents of that treatment – then it’s legally not torture. And guess what – it’s not just lawyers and government officials who exploit that fact. Almost everyone you know does too (in some form), and so do you. It’s obviously not in the same vein as torture, but the principle is the same. We have imperfect language, so we have imperfect laws. The best – and some would say smartest – thing we can do, is use history and better language to help us redraw ineffective and incomplete laws. In this case, we can rewrite torture laws to include what was done to those alleged terrorists; add as many new clauses and behaviors as we like – dig into history books, and even popular fiction, and litter the legal definition with examples. We’ll be behind the curve, but we can be assured that those specific tactics will be illegal the next time they are used.

Which brings us to:

The Three Killer Questions: Efficacy, Intent, and Degree

Despite the basic disagreements about what specifically constitutes torture, there is one common belief that seems to resonate throughout the national debate, and across many international borders: torture itself is bad. It's something only bad people or bad countries do. Proof of that belief is found in treaties and pledges, and in the outspoken condemnation of those who torture. But just below the surface, beneath the philosophical condemnation of the act, lies the tricky question of efficacy. Does torture ever work? If you follow the national headlines, or read books like Daniel P. Maddix’s The History of Torture, you probably get the idea that it doesn’t. And if the national uproar is an indication, we don’t want it to work.

But there’s an important question that lingers, even if it’s fully obscured by the shining spotlight: what if it does work?

I know that’s a scary question. It sets people’s hair on end, and makes people reach for antacids, or their bibles, or the television remote. But, what if torture isn't the ineffective black hole of the popular belief? Sure, you can point to what happens when you torture an ignorant someone for information: they’ll say anything to stop the torture, and none of it is worth the breath it arrived on. But what happens when you torture a person who actually has the information you need? This is an interesting point that comes out of the Bush administration: they say that “harsh interrogation” produced actionable intelligence. Regardless of your personal feelings, if it’s true, then it’s a fact that counts in the reality of the world, and has to count in our debate. And it begs the larger question: how much is a life, or a handful of lives, or a way of life worth? How far would/should we go to secure something important for ourselves? What happens when talking simply doesn’t work, and when the clock is already ticking? I know this is dangerous water, but aren’t these questions valid parts of the debate? Some people argue that the loss we stand to suffer (personally or nationally) is insubstantial compared to the moral breach we commit when we abandon talking in favor of inflicting pain. They could be right. I think it's probably a question for the ages, and certainly for the people that have already lost something or someone because of our adherence to principle over the need for positive results.

Lets focus on that for a moment: why does anyone use torture? I’ve been exploring the efficacy question, but I haven’t really touched on the purpose question. Like efficacy, it’s an important thing to explore.

As I’ve absorbed the national commentary, I’ve noticed that there are lots of different ideas about why we used those interrogation techniques in the first place. A good portion of people accept that they were used to obtain information – some about yesterday, but most about tomorrow. Some people think it was to extract confessions – like the Viet Cong used, a way to demoralize the prisoner’s parent nation – or to exact punishment, or gleefully inflict pain on inferior races. They evoke images of World War 2 Japan and Nazi Germany. Provocative stuff, to be sure; more importantly, a prompt to discuss intent – to examine if and how the intent of the torturer factors into our considerations. Does a lack of sadistic intent count in the torturer’s favor? Is it a more acceptable practice if torture is used strictly to garner information, and not applied with malice or hatred? If it’s an unfortunate escalation, in situations where gentler methods don’t produce the needed results? If it’s applied clinically, dispassionately?

And what about degrees? As we build our new legal and national definition of torture, does degree count for something? Should we compare types of harsh treatments? Is that informative as we draw our lines? Is a slap as bad as genital electrocution? Is a flushed holy book as bad as pliers-based fingernail extraction? Is being forced into a naked human pyramid, or being deprived of sleep, as bad as being beaten lame with batons and 2x4s? If we take degrees into consideration, don’t we run the risk of more unethical treatments slipping through the legal cracks? If we ignore degrees, aren’t we opening the doors of interpretation so wide that our “enemies” can complain that restricting access to cable TV and alcohol in prison is just as harsh as crushing their fingers in drill presses? How do we factor in the common sense comparisons without opening the door too wide, or shutting it too tightly, and without ignoring something key? Is there even an answer?

Sudden Epilogue: A FrankSpot First

So, I’ve just asked a bunch of questions, and I know it seems like I have a lot more ground to cover. But I’m not going to cover it. As unlikely and abrupt as it seems, I’m going to end here – after two months, and 2500 difficult words. As I predicted in my prologue, I haven’t found any answers on this. Not for myself, not for my readers, and certainly not for the national debate. Instead, after all this time and typing, I’ve become exhausted by the topic. I’m truly at a loss to draw some profound overarching conclusion, or make any valid suggestions on how to address the ongoing issue. I can’t even answer most of the questions I’ve raised here. At least not definitively, and not in the space of a single post. The most I can do is ask my readers to keep this post in mind as they add their voices to the debate. I hope they’ll remember that religion, ethnicity, age, political belief, and level of education impact how people feel about torture; so do being touched by loss, or war, or terrorism, or fearing for the lives of people loved. I hope they’ll remember that the law is an important tool – especially in this debate – but one that shouldn’t be used for revenge, or to apply retroactive justice. And I hope they’ll remember that – even without one we can see from here – the pursuit of an answer is still important. As we strive, we grow; and as we learn, we change. Hopefully, all for the better.

Peace.

The Gay Marriage Debate: A Lesson in (Im)Patience

Sometimes, I just can’t believe the world around me. Every day, I see people who just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter the topic, there are people who have the wrong idea. Or are too self-involved to notice the bigger picture, or see what’s really important in the world. Today, those people are the folks who are fighting for gay marriage.

I’ve been working on a tough blog entry for a few weeks now. It’s about torture, and all that goes with it – the national focus, the moral and ethical debate, the legal considerations. Truly, one of the hardest things I’ve ever tried to write about. And certainly an issue that deserves our attention. But every time I look up from torture, I get smacked by someone waving the gay marriage flag, and trying to push that issue into the center of the table.

I’m here to push back.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m not writing to opine on the subject of gay marriage. I’m writing because I’m irritated by the debate. The country is in serious trouble – right now! – and gay marriage isn’t any of the reasons why. I know it’s an all-important issue for the gay community, and equally so for those who oppose it. But it’s not an issue that deserves center stage today. Frankly, no matter how important the gay community and its activists claim it is, it’s an issue that barely registers when viewed alongside (pay attention here!) staggering unemployment, foreclosures and homelessness, foreign wars, the pervasive use of state-sanctioned torture, international nuclear proliferation, and the human misery we call Darfur and the Middle East. Considering those things, I have a hard time conceiving a top five priority list that includes even a passing hallway conversation about the rights of gay people to marry. In fact, I’d be mortified if our new president spent any time at all on the issue right now. Yet, the gay marriage advocates keep pushing it into the spotlight: “The President isn’t working fast enough on this. He’s had almost 100 days and he hasn’t fixed it yet! Let’s go picket and protest! Let’s get on the nightly news! Let’s force the issue NOW!”

Did I mention that I’m appalled?

Okay, so they want their time at the top of the issue heap, and on the president’s calendar. I get that. But which other issue of the day should take a back seat to theirs? Which humanitarian or national crisis is less important than gay marriage? That’s really the question here. How does a gay marriage advocate see fit to elevate this issue above – well – pretty much anything that has the President’s attention? Every time someone steps into national view with an urgent gay marriage agenda, all I can see is a kind of blind selfishness and self-importance: “Hey, America – I need the President to stop working on everything else so my friends, Bill and Steve, can get married next week!” Yikes. Perspective, anyone?

Here’s some: Shut the Hell up and wait your freakin’ turn!

Sorry. I know that’s not very nice (and not very FrankSpot-ly), but it’s a pretty apt way to express my feelings on this. We’re trying desperately to crawl away from the brink of absolute national ruin, and we’re being snared and diverted by people without an ounce of perspective, or an ability to understand priority. People who clearly don’t know the difference between “no” and “not yet;” people who say they voted for Obama, but don’t trust him to address the issue like he promised; people who forget that there are only so many hours in a day, and only so much that can be addressed in those hours. That in itself is almost unbelievable. And it pushes me away from sympathy for their cause, and leaves me in a coarse mood. The notion that the Prez should forego ending wars, saving our houses, and creating jobs, so two women in Muncie, Indiana can have rice thrown at them next Saturday, is ridiculous. The ground of our society is still crumbling beneath us like a landslide – so fast that every time I pull into my driveway, I wonder where I’m going to put the For Sale sign that already seems a tangible part of my inevitably unemployed future, and where I’m going to park when my daughter and I are living in my car. How can anyone expect gay marriage to trump the issues that give life to that kind of hopelessness? Why would anyone want it to? What kind of person pushes marriage rights to the top of the pile when children are living in hatchbacks? Or when friends and family are dying in distant deserts and mountain ranges? Or when race and religion are justifying torture in dark, wet rooms? How can anyone champion that kind of selfishness? How can anyone be that blind?

The truth of the day is this: the gay marriage battle will continue – be assured of that. (And it won’t be won or lost quickly. So even if the president takes it up tomorrow, you shouldn’t plan on catching a bouquet anytime soon.) But, as a wise man once said: “Only a fool fights in a burning house.” Look around, folks: America is on fire. America is the burning house. You knew that when you voted last year. So instead of trumpeting how unfair the world is because your idea of marriage hasn’t been legally validated, grab a bucket and help. If you can’t do that because you’re too full of yourself and your cause, at least step back from the counter, and wait until someone calls your number.

I’m out.