.:A Voice in the Crowd:.

This may be one of those rare times when I share the same goal as a Texas Republican, though for different reasons.  Seems some in the Senate want to investigate Apple’s exclusive deal with AT&T to distribute the iPhone, apparently as an antitrust violation of sorts.  NYTimes mentioned it, and PCMag picked up on FCC action to open an investigation.  According to the NYTimes brief, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) opposes the investigation, on the grounds that it could stifle private investment and job creation.

I have a different reason for completely agreeing that this investigation is a bad idea, and a misuse of antitrust laws.  Antitrust laws were enacted and are enforced to prevent the creation of monopolies, which just about every agrees are bad for consumers.  The problem is that in this particular situation, AT&T’s deal with Apple prevented Verizon from solidifying what was rapidly becoming an effective monopoly.  Verizon’s growth was outstripping Cingular/AT&T’s by magnitudes, boasted much better coverage (meaning AT&T’s prospects for recovery were slim), and Cingular was on the brink of going under (which is why they bought the AT&T name, to try to trade on the strength of AT&T’s brand to prevent more defections).

When Cingular/AT&T leveraged Apple’s brand power and loyalty with the iPhone deal, they attracted enough customers and grabbed enough market share to prevent Verizon from dealing the company a death blow, largely by raising enough capital from the new business to invest in expanding their network coverage to the point where they could actually compete with Verizon (I know, they’re still lagging behind in total coverage area, but not anywhere nearly as badly as they were a few years ago).

At the time, that exclusive deal was the only way Cingular/AT&T could compete with Verizon.  Ironic, I know, and probably a rare situation, but citing that particular deal is a bad reason to open an antitrust investigation because it’s extremely likely that it in fact PREVENTED the formation of a monopoly.  Now, if the deal had been between Verizon and Apple, and Cingular/AT&T recently filed for bankruptcy, I’d be on the other side of this issue.  But for now, with Verizon still strong, AT&T still rising, and Sprint making a strong push, I’m with the Republican from Texas.

CNN.com had a poll (as of 10:35am today, anyway) asking “Has the true meaning of Memorial Day been forgotten?”  I personally think it has not been forgotten, but this post is about what the other 71% of the 28,864 people who answered before me thought.  I realize this poll suffers from the usual statistical defects of online self-response polls - selection bias, small sample sizes (though 29,000 is pretty good), etc - but the result still says something quite poignant.

I’ll start with the good news, which is that according to the poll results, it cannot be true that a majority of people have in fact forgotten the true meaning of Memorial Day.  If 71% feel that the true meaning has been forgotten, they almost certainly believe that they know what the “true meaning” is.  After all, if you do not know what the “true meaning” of something is, how can you judge whether others have forgotten it?

The bad news, the sad news, is what this says about the mindset of our population (or at least, the population that responded to the poll).  It says that 71% of people apt to respond to that poll feel only they now remember the “true meaning” of Memorial Day, that there is only one correct meaning to attriubute to Memorial Day, and that they feel isolated from others on this day of rememberance.  It points to a feeling of solitary suffering, of a lack of comisseration or comeraderie, whether real or perceived.

This, in itself, seems to defy the history of Memorial Day.  Originally intended to honor those soldiers who were killed during the Civil War, by extension it also honored what they fought for - unity, solidarity, freedom and brotherhood.  After World War I, the scope of the holiday was expanded to honor all fallen US soldiers and again by extension, what they fought for.  The original Memorial Day Order (issued by the President in May of 1868) states “Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.”  The day was originally intended to honor both the fallen and what they fell for - a nation united in freedom.

If we suffer alone on this day, then perhaps we have indeed forgotten the true meaning of Memorial Day.  This qualifies what I said above was the good news - that statement assumed that those 71% of respondants do in fact know the “true meaning” of Memorial Day.  Their sentiment of solitude, as opposed to solidarity, suggests they do not.  It’s a bit of a conundrum, but also should remind us of what Memorial Day means in a broad sense.  It means that we cannot be coherent as people unless we believe ourselves to be united as a nation.  This was, I think, a central part of the past election (for both candidates, in different ways) - that we have become too divided by our beliefs, allowing ourselves to come to feel isolated from our fellow free citizens.

So it is my ferverent hope that next year at this time, this question can be asked again with very different results.  I hope that in the next year we can come to feel reconnected with and to our fellow citizens.  I hope that we can accept and appreciate our differences, for they neither can nor should be forgotten nor ignored, and they are what makes us a richly diverse people.  I hope that we can remember that in all wars, our soldiers fight and die not just for honor, or glory, or their families, but for the much larger family that is this country - OUR country.  I hope that we can remember the true meaning of a nation united.  Above all, I hope.  And I hope you do so with me.

First, I apologize for the previous post.  It was a bit over the top, so I password protected it (so it won’t automatically appear) - but it still makes what I think is a good point, so if you’re one of the no people that read this blog and aren’t bothered by some profanity, use my Contact page to request the password.  Moving on…

I’m starting to understand the importance of hobbies in the context of “work-life balance.”  I’m someone who needs a purpose, a goal, a target to work towards in pretty much everything I do.  Without a goal, without something to accomplish, I just feel lost, and tend to do nothing.  This is more than just feeling like I’m not accomplishing anything - I really will just sit around and do absolutely nothing.

This is further complicated by my desire to have considered every possible angle before engaging in something.  I know I need a goal, but don’t want to set one or start working towards one until I’m sure it’s worthwhile.  So while I’m figuring out whether every possible endeavor is worthwhile, I’m busy not doing anything at all, whether worthwhile or not.  Did that make sense to you?  Me neither.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I have to bring myself around to comparing potential hobbies/activities not to every other possible hobby/activity, but to what I’ll be doing instead if I don’t pick one.  Otherwise (here’s where “work-life balance” comes in) work will be my only source of a goal/target/purpose, which means I’ll naturally divert all of my attention and energy to that, leaving no attention or energy for my non-work life.

So if you’re anything like me, and feel like you’ve got too much work in your life, get a hobby.  Any hobby.