Way back in 1980, my dad started working as the Sports Information Director at Illinois State University (yes, that's the same one I am attending). Today was his final day in that position. After almost 26 years, he finally decided it was time to take up fishing and bothering his kids more. Actually, he doesn't really like to fish. But anyway, now that retirement time is here, he is going to kick back, relax, teach some, and chat it up on the radio about sports and such.

I just wanted to give a shout out to my Dad and tell him that I am really, freakishly impressed with him and all the work he has put into his job while still having time to deal with a problem child such as myself.

Anyone else who wants to say something nice about my dad (if you know him) (or even if you don't), just drop a comment and I will be sure to pass it along.

On a side note, the Pantagraph wrote a really nice article about my dad. You can check it out here.

Check it out:

It took just shy of 2 months, over 20 phone calls, 4 attempts to contact a supervisior, and more then 3 hours on hold. But I did it. I got my money back. I beat the man.

Amazingly, MLB.com decided that they were really happy to talk to me once they actually got my money back. I got no fewer then 3 phone calls telling me my refund had been processed. And each phone call came from someone who thought they were the first to tell me. It was amazing.

Anyway, that took way too much effort. I suppose that I have heard the last from MLB.com. I was promised a 1 month subscription to MLB.tv for my trouble, but I haven't heard from Alan (the guy who promised me that) since I got my money back. I am not really going to seek it out.

So ends that epic adventure. <Insert Heroic Speech Here>

So with sites popping up all over and even TV commercials about "Net Neutrality", it is amazing how much people hear about the issue without really knowing anything about it. So I am going to do what I can to try and simplify this issue.

Simplifying net neutrality is a difficult thing to do because it is a very complex debate with 2 legitimate sides to it. The reason it is so complex is that, being a big-business hating democrat, I find it hard to take a stance on a subject that puts Microsoft against AT&T. It is like watching the Cardinals play the Yankees and deciding which team to root for.

Basically, here is the deal. The internet is complicated. But I am sure you knew that. What makes the 'net interesting is that no one really "owns" it. The 'net is made up a bunch of small ISP's, a few large telecommunications companies (telcos) and a bunch of universities and other mid-sized network structures. When it comes down to it, the 'net is all about something called "bandwidth". Bandwidth is a measure of how much data you can pump through a cable. The internet "backbone", which handles the bulk of the information transfer on the 'net is owned by several large telcos such as AT&T. The large telcos make their money by selling bandwidth on the backbone to smaller ISPs who then sell it to customers. So your internet bill is paying for the backbone's operation.

Companies such as Google or Microsoft also pay for their internet connections. Google spends millions of dollars a year for the bandwidth to send data to you.

Now lets say that Google gets their internet connection through Verizon and I get my internet connection through AT&T. When I visit Google's website, I send AT&T a request for the site, AT&T asks Verizon for the site, Verizon asks Google, and Google sends it to Verizon, who sends it to AT&T who sends it to me. Now here's where AT&T starts complaining. They talk about how Google is sending me all this information, and Google isn't paying them for it. Google is advertising to me using AT&T's network and Google isn't paying them for the pleasure. Now don't think AT&T isn't making money. I am paying AT&T for my connection, so that entire transfer was handled by my bill.

So when you hear AT&T complaining that they aren't getting paid for Google's web traffic. Remember, they are really complaining that they are not getting paid twice for the bandwidth!

The other aspect of this argument about net neutrality is even more complicated. Basically, in order to get more money from companies like Google, AT&T and other large telcos want to start charging fees for "premium connections" over their network. This is quite simply the telcos extorting money out of the internet giants.

Back to my example, lets say AT&T got together with Google and said, pay us $1,000,000 a month for preferred network access. Google tells AT&T to go to hell. Now when I bring up Google on my computer, I notice that it runs veeerrrryyy sllllooooowwwlllyyy. It takes me 15 seconds to load the main Google page. Why? because AT&T is slowing down Google's data (reducing their bandwidth) because Google isn't paying them. Nevermind that I am paying out the ear for my broadband internet connection.

Now the telcos will tell you that this has only happened a couple times. But as internet connections grow faster and streaming HD video becomes a reality, people will start making more use of these fast internet connections that and the telcos margins will go down unless they find another way to make money.

There is one more problem that is brought up by the telcos. This problem is that by creating net neutrality legislation, we are conceeding that the US government can regulate the internet. I have news for them. The US government already regulates the internet. The internet was created by the US government with funds supplied by the US government and the US government still controls ICANN, which controls the top level domains (basically ICANN assigns people .com's, .net's, .gov's, etc.). Plus, the idea of net neutrality is basically a "bill of rights" for internet users. It says that bandwidth is bandwidth, whether it comes from Google.com or Code-Freak.com.

I know it's confusing. Comment if you have questions.

The following is a letter I wrote to the editor of Fortune Magazine. It probably will not be published. But I want to post it so someone other then my mom might actually read it:

The article "Online scams create 'Yahoo! millionaires'", glorified young “Akin” as a new-age entrepreneur. It glorified this young man as some sort of local hero, who at 14, has already become a millionaire and is the primary provider for his family. It does inform the reader that Akin's scams are against Nigerian law, but it also refers to his crimes as a “national pastime.” Akin is a disruptive child who is committing international wire fraud and flaunting it to his neighbors and even the international press. The article does not mention that the victims of so-called “419 scams” are not always rich and don't just lose their own money. John W. Worley, whose story appeared in the May 15^th, 2006 issue of the New Yorker, was sentenced to jail time and owes more then $600,000 after his run-in with a 419 scammer like Akin. What Akin is doing amounts to nothing more then international, cybernetic burglary. If I were to break into a bank's computer system and steal $1,000,000, should I be praised for my entrepreneurial spirit and my family commitment? I could claim that Banks “are too gullible. They are rich, and whatever I gyp them out of is small change to them.” But of course I would be wrong. I would go to jail, because I committed a crime. Akin is committing a crime. We should not praise him, we should put him in jail.

I spoke to someone Friday who informed me that my "case" had been "elevated" to the "supervisor" and that I would receive a call within 48 hours. I waited 4 days. Today I called them back and sat on hold. I was told that a supervisor would call me within an hour. I waited 2 hours. I then called back, got put on hold, and finally -- GLORY BE TO GOD* -- I talked to the almighty supervisor.

So I talked to Alan** and he told me that my "case" must have "slipped through the cracks" and that he was sorry. Alan then gave me his "personal email address" (I am trying really hard not to post it here), and said that he would personally see that I got my money back ASAP. Not only that, but he would keep me up to date on the progress of my transaction. Also, after I told him my idea about turning my access on, he said that he didn't think that was a good idea, because it might "confuse the finance people". Apparently lots of things confuse their finance people, such as when folks ask for refunds.

Alan did, however, tell me that he would give me a free month of mlb.tv for my trouble. Hopefully this "free" month won't end up requiring a cancellation. It will be nice to watch the Cubs again.

We shall see.

*God has better things to do then get me in touch with a supervisor, but all the baseball players give him props for home runs, so I guess it can't hurt.

**I think that was his name. I was too excited to be talking to "the man" himself.

Yes, I am not lying. I am still trying to get my money back from these people. After more then 20 phone calls, a grand total of over 3 hours on hold and more then 6 weeks -- still no money. My latest quest is to get in contact with a supervisor. However, I have learned that there is only 1 supervisor and "she is very busy."

"How busy?" you ask? Well, at one point I was told there were 15 people in line ahead of me to talk to her. I am not kidding. This is in their cancellation department alone. I have had my "refund request" "resubmitted" 3 times at this point. Apparently there is a "backlog" for this kind of thing.

HONESTLY PEOPLE -- THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT. All they have to do is automate this process. The problem is that their service is expensive and for most people it isn't really worth it. So in order to combat their decline in sales and high cancellation rate, instead of combating the problem and improving their service, they just try to make it as difficult as possible to cancel. They automatically renew your subscription each year without your confirmation. Then, if you do try to cancel, they make you call them or email them. But don't try emailing them, because they don't actually read your emails, they just discard them. So the final word is that you have to call them. But if you do call them, be prepared to wait on hold for between 10 and 40 minutes. Then, once you talk to someone, they tell you to wait 7-10 business days. This gives them some time to play golf and ignore you before you call back again. Then they tell you 7-10 business days is an average, so you should wait another week. This gives them some fishing time. After that, they just leave you on hold for a while and say they will "resubmit your request".

If you feel like talking to a supervisor, you can ask for the privilege. However, talking to a supervisor involves waiting by the phone for them to call you. If you can't wait by the phone for 3 hours, tough, because they won't leave a voicemail or try again if they miss you. Sometimes they will just neglect you altogether. I mean, they already have your money, why should they take the time to call you?

My new goal in life (once I contact the almighty supervisor) is to get them to enable my service until they send me my refund. I figure that as long as they have my money, I should get to use their service, right? What does it matter that I am asking for the service for free? If they had sent my money already, they wouldn't be losing out, right?

There is nothing more American than baseball -- except maybe greed.

Media Center Extenders rule. Actually, I am going to back that up and say, Xbox 360's rule. I bought my 360 a while back and I think it is just about the coolest gaming system ever. I love to play games on it just to play them. The graphics are jaw-dropping, and if you haven't played a 360 on an HDTV, go buy one right now. Tell them Pete sent you. Then when they ask who Pete is, tell them to read my blog. Because I need a larger reader base.

Anyway, for obvious reasons, I had my 360 connected to my HDTV for a while. I have been pretty absorbed in playing WoW lately so I haven't been playing my 360 as much (or really at all in the last couple weeks...) so I decided to move the 360 into my bedroom and hook it up to the TV provided by my employer. I had been having trouble with the media center extender part of the 360 when it was in the living room, but I really wanted to be able to watch recorded TV, have time shifting, and be able to access HBO and Showtime in my bedroom (I only have 1 cable box, and I am too cheap to get another one). So anyway, I hooked it up, started it up, and it works fantastic. I am not sure what happened to the issues I was having before, but I was able to watch David Blaine attempt to drown himself while sitting in bed, complete with time-shifting functionality, in case I wanted to watch it again.

Speaking of David Blaine. He ranks very high on my BullSh*t list. Right up there with Rush "Pill Popper" Limbaugh. David Blaine is overrated. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of magicians like David Copperfield and the like, but David Blaine is a different kind of magician. He puts way too much emphasis on the "Trick" part of "Magic Trick". He likes to trick people into thinking he is more then what he is.

Let me put it this way, when David Copperfield did his flying trick, I never saw a news story proclaiming that he planned on breaking the world record for distance jumping. Ever since Blaine stuck himself in a fishbowl, I have heard nothing but, "David Blaine plans on holding his breath for 9 minutes, breaking the current world record." The problem with this is that people forget that Blaine is a magician.

Now, I understand that he "only" went 7 minutes (don't get me wrong, holding your breath for 7 minutes is an amazing feat), and that he probably really did spend a week in his fishbowl (a really spectacular feat of endurance). But you cannot take him at face value. No one believes David Copperfield can just fly around like a bird at will, and no one should believe that David Blaine, a magician with very little experience free diving and no physical aptitude for the sport, could hold his breath for 9 minutes.

I guess this wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't run into this on CNN. It is this kind of crap that explains why most Americans seem to lack any sort of critical thinking skills.

If you want to know how Blane could possibly "cheat" in his "world record freedive" check this link out. At least the Brits think before they report.

I always got a huge kick out of those PSAs on television that talk about not smoking marijuana. While the PSAs do a reasonable job at showing smoking marijuana is bad, they do just as good of a job at showing drinking, smoking (tobacco) and eating candy are bad. "Eating candy?" you ask? Yes, eating candy. The argument goes like this:

If you abuse X, that is bad. Therefore, X is bad.

Well, obviously, if you abuse tobacco, it has some pretty nasty long term effects. If you abuse alcohol, you are a danger to yourself and possibly others. If you abuse candy, your teeth will rot and your dentist will yell at you. Amazingly, from what these PSAs say, all I can really ascertain is that if you abuse marijuana, you get lazy. Of all the above consequences, I would say the least harmful one is the pot (marijuana is long and hard to spell, so I am going to refer to it as "pot" from now on).

Now I am not saying that smoking pot is good for you, there are probably consequences to long term heavy use, but I don't really understand why it is illegal. Honestly, I haven't heard any realistic studies that show any long-term health problems, aside from those associated with smoking, well, anything. In fact, I have a fun time replacing all references to pot in those PSAs with alcohol, and all references to getting high with getting drunk. What I came up with was a nice set of anti-drinking commercials. I would really appreciate someone coming up with a good solid argument for why pot is illegal and alcohol and tobacco are legalized.

Oh yeah, and don't use the "gateway drug" argument. In fact, I think that "gateway" is a very good name for it. For most people, actions are determined by barriers. One major barrier for people is the use of legal vs. illegal drugs. Many people are content using alcohol and tobacco, as there is no real social taboo against them. However, there are a whole host of other, illegal, drugs. People don't use the illegal drugs because, well, they are illegal. However the arguments against smoking pot are so pathetic, that I am not surprised that people try it. Once they start smoking pot, some of them probably figure that since they've already done one illegal drug, what's the harm in doing others? Of course there is lots of actual, real, scientific evidence that cocaine, crystal meth, and other drugs are really bad for you, but the line has already been crossed, via the "gateway" of pot. If pot were legal, people would use it without having to cross that line, and it would lose its "gateway" aspect.

So anyway, I got a wonderful idea this morning (yes, at 5am) to go to the "the anti-drug" website. When I got there, I discovered that the site was just as bad as the commercials. In fact, it is worse then the commercials. For instance, they "discovered" in "a study" (there is no citation or anything, just "a study showed") that "Compared to the [participants who smoked very little marijuana], [those who smoked a great deal of marijuana] users made more errors (on a standardized test) and had more difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing, and using information." You can read more yourself here, but the problem is that there is no reference as to whether the participants had been drug users before or not. Basically, people who decide to do illegal drugs, believe it or not, are not generally the honors students (though I could name a few that are). The other problem is that the "heavy users" smoked pot, on average, 29 out of the last 30 days. They were then only given 24 hours to "de-tox". As I have read that pot can stay in your system for as much as 6 weeks after you stop smoking it, I am not horribly surprised that it might have had a continued effect for 24 hours after you stop smoking it. Also, the "light users" only smoked pot once the the previous 30 days. I bet ya that if I got wasted for 29 out of 30 days and tried to take a test a day later, I would probably not do as well as if I hadn't had a drop of alcohol in a month.

But probably the funniest part of the "anti-drug" website was the "is your kid smoking pot" quiz. I honestly laughed out loud. I took the quiz, which asks you to respond to statements with "often", "sometimes", or "never". I responded to "never" on everything except the following:

• "[my son/daughter is] careless with grooming"
• "[my son/daughter] has had a recent change in groups of friends" 
• "[my son/daughter] is secretive about possessions, friends, or conversations"
• "[my son/daughter] has dramatic personality or mood changes"
• "[my son/daughter] frequently makes excuses for not being able to attend family events or outings"
• "[my son/daughter] uses secretive or “coded” language with friends"

So "my son/daughter" is careless with grooming, changes groups of friends, is secretive, has mood changes, doesn't want to go to the zoo with me, and uses language I don't understand? It sounds to me like I have a typical teenager (from the grooming and "coded" responses, they are probably a bit of a nerd). However, apparently I also have a "high risk" teenager, and I should, "take a closer look at this critical problem and address your teen’s drug use or drinking now. Don’t let another minute go by."

Ironically, my kid who sometimes, "come[s] home after school or after being out with the smell of mouthwash or breath mints to cover up the smell of alcohol", is only at "medium" risk for drinking. Honestly, I wonder what these people have been smoking?

UPDATE: Apparently, the Mexican congress reads my blog, and has about 2 joints more sense then the US congress.

I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a "geography expert". I wasn't very good at it in school, I could never remember what the capital of Oklahoma was (Is it Tulsa?), where Wyoming is (but the question is, does anyone care?) or what that big country is that is north of us (Mexico?). However, apparently, I am a pretty normal kid. Because according to a study reported by cnn, 2/3 of kids my age can't pick out Iraq on a map. Now, assuming we have some pretty bright soldiers, and they are all in the top 2/3 of the population in geography, we can still safely assume that half of them have no idea where they are.

Maybe if this kind of thing stopped happening, other countries wouldn't laugh at us so much. Seriously.