The Binary Circumstance

One of these days I’ll learn that when AOL suggests I download some "upgrade" that it’s going to be nothing but problems.

When I downloaded AOL 9.0 Optimized SE I had problems.

Lately AOL has been pushing their free virus protection.  My Norton Anti-Virus software has gotten a little out of date so I thought why not download AOL’s free McAfee Virus Scan since it’s included in my current membership fee anyway.

When I started the download AOL told me I had to delete the Norton Anti-Virus first before I could start.  So I uninstalled the Norton Anti-Virus without a problem.

Then when I started the download of the McAfee Virus Scan I just got the hourglass and no messages or status bar showing me how the status of the download.  My computer just stayed like that for a long time and I figured it was locked up.  Since I had no messages, I didn’t know if the software had downloaded or if it was still in progress.

After a while, I just hit the "X".

I went back to it later and now AOL gives me a message that says that the software is partially installed and I should click on "Complete Installation" to finish the job.

I’ve tried this several times and every time I get a blank window that says McAfee Virus Scan in the upper left-hand corner.  Not other messages, no hourglass, no status bar, nothing.

So I see they’ve got online support and I to to that section and type in a brief statement of my problem.  Then I click on "Chat" thinking that I’m going to start talking to one of their online technical support people.  Nope.  It takes me to a completely unrelated window that has nothing to do with downloading the virus software or technical support.

I tried that several times, too, and always get the same result.

So I thought I should try uninstalling the McAfee and starting from scratch again. Only problem is that it doesn’t show up in the list of programs that are installed.  But the AOL login window says that I have virus protection software installed.

I’ve been wondering for some time now why I keep AOL.  Mostly, it’s because I only pay $10/mo for it under the bring your own access plan.  But the fact is that I can get free e-mail from any number of sources and the content on AOL doesn’t really offer anything I can’t get anyplace else.

So this latest problem with their software downloads may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I’ll just have to bite the bullet and start telling all my friends and the companies that I have accounts with that I’ve got a new e-mail address.

While I at it, I might change my ISP, too.  Currently I Qwest provides my DSL line and MSN in the ISP.  My connection often sucks big time.  I don’t use my MSN accounts very much and I don’t need them for content either.

We’ll see.  I hate to have to do all that extra work but AOL just really doesn’t offer me that much anymore except a lot of problems.

Their "spyware" software which has always blown up before on my computer, actually ran to completion today.  Why?  I don’t know.  But it found two programs that might have been spying on my personal information.  I don’t know why it finally started to work after all these months but I’m glad it did.  Now if I could only get AOL’s McAfee to download to completion and run, I’d be OK.

While googling for something else, I came upon this article about some not-so-subtle changes over at NBC’s Today Show:

HOLLYWOOD - The effects of waking up at five AM every day are finally taking a toll on NBC’s “Today??? show hosts Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Al Roker, Ann Curry, and contributor Gene Shalit. Anger erupted on the set Monday when Lauer told Couric to “shut your god damn cake hole for a freaking second??? and Shalit unleashed an expletive-laden tirade about the upcoming movie, “Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!???
Viewers are already noticing a major difference with weather man Al Roker. While interviewing fans outside the “Today??? show studios, the affable Roker asked a viewer where she was from. The woman responded by saying she was Suzie Landers from Mobile, Alabama, and she wanted to wish her parents a happy 50th wedding anniversary. That’s when an unshaven Roker said “yeah, like I give a shit!??? and then ripped up Landers’ sign that read, “Happy 50th Anniversary Mom & Dad.???

It gets worse.

The successful completion of Iraqi voting is a huge psychological victory for everybody in the world, except those who want to defeat the process.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq’s interim leader called on his countrymen to set aside their differences Monday, while polling stations finished the first-phase count of millions of ballots from the weekend election that many Iraqis hope will usher in democracy and hasten the departure of 150,000 American troops.

From the counts by individual stations, local centers will prepare tally sheets and send them to Baghdad, where vote totals will be compiled, election Commission official Adel al-Lami said. Final results could take up to 10 days.

With turnout in the vote still unknown, concern was focused on participation by Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority, amid fears that the group that drives the insurgency could grow ever more alienated. Electoral commission officials said turnout in hardline Sunni areas was better than some expected, thought they cited no numbers. A U.S. diplomat warned that Sunni participation appeared "considerably lower" than that of other groups.

Iraq’s problems are far from over and it remains to be seen if the necessary level of order can be restored for the country to move forward and for the U.S. to get out.

The fact that so many Iraqi’s voted in the face of threats on their lives says a lot about their hopes for the future.  Of course, yesterday’s vote took place under martial law and ironically in an atmosphere of little freedom with a curfew in place and vehicles prohibited on the roads.

Once that level of security is lifted, I expect there will be many more attacks, especially on those politicians who won positions in the new government.

This was the weekend for watching remakes of old movies that were originally adapted from novels.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004), falls short of the brilliant Manchurian Candidate of 1962 which I reviewed here long before seeing the new version.

The 2004 version is very suspenseful and entertaining at times, but it is long and convoluted.  It lacks the sharpness and focus of the original.

Angela Lansbury was more demonic in the role that is now played by Meryl Streep.  The character, who was originally a U.S. Senator’s wife, is now the Senator herself.  In making the lead female character so overtly powerful, the movie lost the sinister power of the woman who pulled all the strings from behind the scenes in the original.

Indeed, the subtext of the original was the emotional pull that mothers have on their children and husbands and how it ultimately effects the course of human events.

Denzell Washington is very strong in the lead role and the acting is generally good throughout.  The film’s failures lie in the script and the chaotic directing, editing and imagery.  There are tricks that were complete unnecessary in the 1962 version because the story was so powerful and unified that it could carry itself without the use of gimmicks.

I think that political correctness doomed this movie from the start.  It is impossible to be provocative when the writers and actors are all afraid to offend.  In the original the evil was effectively distilled into the Angela Lansbury character, whereas the evil in the new film is more the Manchurian Global corporation. 

Streep’s Senator Shaw is some strange cross between Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush.  It is unclear why she needs to have her son become so powerful when she can have so much power herself. 

The Angela Lansbury character achieved her power by manipulating others particularly her son.  She could do evil without ever being at center stage and without getting any blood on her own hands.

At one point, Streep’s Senator Shaw laments that there are no men left in the world, nobody who will just get the job done without first asking for permission. (She’s never met George Bush.)  But if she’s such a powerful Senator, she could do the job herself, she wouldn’t need men to do it for her.  I mean, that’s presumably why she became a Senator in the first place.  She thought she could do a better job then a man.

Yet, once in a position of power, she still denies her own power, sees herself as the victim, and longs for stronger men.

I’d suggest that people watch both of these versions of the story.  I think it says a lot about where we’ve gone as a society between 1962 and 2004.