MORE NEWS FROM THE POLITICAL JOURNAL "DUH" ...
It was today revealed that America's spies don't know near enough about Iran and North Korea. That's disappointing, because we knew so much about Iraq.
Raise your hand if you're surprised. Then send me your credit card numbers and the PIN to your bank account.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
I'M FREE
I'M FREE
Loyal reader and friend Jim Chadwick just commented that it had been a while since I had posted here, and he's right.
When Lent came, I promised I wouldn't do a bunch of things, as I often do (lapsed Catholic though I may be). One was to spend an excess of time online. Trying not to post from the office and stuck with my slow dialup connection at home, I found myself making copious notes of things about which I wanted to comment, but not enough time.
Then, two weeks ago, I was asked to stop coming back to the office. That was so startling I didn't know what to do about it for a few days, and I had nothing clever to say here about it.
I still don't, really. Here's the irony: I was trying not to go to the Internet from the office, but was fired for spending too much time on the Internet. Oh, and by the way, my job involved web work. My employer did have spy software installed on my computer, so he could view what I was doing, and he offered some Googling I was doing after I'd discovered images could be Googled. (Perish forbid, Rebecca Romijn of X-Men!) He was determined to let me go, and I was not in a mood to fight for my job -- I took it for fun and was having less and less of it -- so it's probably "all good" (as the young folks say) for everyone.
So... if you need someone to write any marketing materials, advertising, direct mail, or similar, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be sitting home during the day, using the spouse's slightly faster dialup connection, looking for work.
My other advice is this: Employers are going to more and more be spying on what you do with their equipment. Mirroring your computer screen, listening in on telephone conversations, going through your desk drawers. They have a right to do so; it's all their stuff. But ultimately that's the kind of management that's going to result in a staff just not committed to doing its job. At least, in my humble opinion.
Loyal reader and friend Jim Chadwick just commented that it had been a while since I had posted here, and he's right.
When Lent came, I promised I wouldn't do a bunch of things, as I often do (lapsed Catholic though I may be). One was to spend an excess of time online. Trying not to post from the office and stuck with my slow dialup connection at home, I found myself making copious notes of things about which I wanted to comment, but not enough time.
Then, two weeks ago, I was asked to stop coming back to the office. That was so startling I didn't know what to do about it for a few days, and I had nothing clever to say here about it.
I still don't, really. Here's the irony: I was trying not to go to the Internet from the office, but was fired for spending too much time on the Internet. Oh, and by the way, my job involved web work. My employer did have spy software installed on my computer, so he could view what I was doing, and he offered some Googling I was doing after I'd discovered images could be Googled. (Perish forbid, Rebecca Romijn of X-Men!) He was determined to let me go, and I was not in a mood to fight for my job -- I took it for fun and was having less and less of it -- so it's probably "all good" (as the young folks say) for everyone.
So... if you need someone to write any marketing materials, advertising, direct mail, or similar, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be sitting home during the day, using the spouse's slightly faster dialup connection, looking for work.
My other advice is this: Employers are going to more and more be spying on what you do with their equipment. Mirroring your computer screen, listening in on telephone conversations, going through your desk drawers. They have a right to do so; it's all their stuff. But ultimately that's the kind of management that's going to result in a staff just not committed to doing its job. At least, in my humble opinion.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
MY CHILDHOOD DREAM ON THE BIG SCREEN
MY CHILDHOOD DREAM ON THE BIG SCREEN
Talbot Katz, former Interlacker and current Wall Street math guy (hey, Talbot, you should probably write for the spouse's magazine), forwards to me an article about comics becoming movies.
It's an epidemic these days, and while I am happy to have quintupled the value of my Marvel stock, film critics look at the trend and have begun to wonder when it will end. Just as the great unwashed seem unable to believe that not all animation is for children, film critics appear to be unable to recognize that a bad film adapted from a comic book is no different from a bad film adapted from a novel. There is no need to decry the end of the novel form if the film version of one fails, either critically or at the box office. So how does it follow that comics as a source for movies will be discarded after a flop like Elektra or Constantine?
It will be interesting to see how Sin City performs after it opens. It certainly looks to be visually unique. But we also live in times that fear black-and-white, so this film, which appears to be built in two-tone and muted colors, may be too challenging for the current moviegoing generation. And I fear the crap that will soon come with the Superman and Batman movies.
That said, good storytelling is good storytelling, and comics, like animation, have the advantage of being able to deliver any impact on the most limited budget. If only critics would stop segregating them.
Talbot Katz, former Interlacker and current Wall Street math guy (hey, Talbot, you should probably write for the spouse's magazine), forwards to me an article about comics becoming movies.
It's an epidemic these days, and while I am happy to have quintupled the value of my Marvel stock, film critics look at the trend and have begun to wonder when it will end. Just as the great unwashed seem unable to believe that not all animation is for children, film critics appear to be unable to recognize that a bad film adapted from a comic book is no different from a bad film adapted from a novel. There is no need to decry the end of the novel form if the film version of one fails, either critically or at the box office. So how does it follow that comics as a source for movies will be discarded after a flop like Elektra or Constantine?
It will be interesting to see how Sin City performs after it opens. It certainly looks to be visually unique. But we also live in times that fear black-and-white, so this film, which appears to be built in two-tone and muted colors, may be too challenging for the current moviegoing generation. And I fear the crap that will soon come with the Superman and Batman movies.
That said, good storytelling is good storytelling, and comics, like animation, have the advantage of being able to deliver any impact on the most limited budget. If only critics would stop segregating them.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
MAKING MY DEGREE WORTH JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE…
MAKING MY DEGREE WORTH JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE…
I did not attend an Ivy League university, but I didn’t exactly attend Left Armpit Community College, either. I am a 1979 graduate of The George Washington University, a school founded to be the national college and, if I recall correctly, the oldest non-religious university in the country. It’s situated in Washington, DC, and, let me tell you, attending college just four blocks from the White House and a short walk from the Smithsonian and so many important monuments was a terrific experience.
And nobody knows my alma mater. Or, worse, they think I went to Georgetown, which itself is a decent school, but confusing GW with Georgetown is like confusing UCLA and USC.
Despite my antipathy toward big-time college sports, I have learned that the average guy thinks about college sports first when he thinks about universities, and more likely it’s college football.
In 1966, GWU dropped its football program in order to concentrate on basketball. The problem was that for many years, the program was mediocre at best. That changed in 1993, when GW made it to the Sweet Sixteen.
That’s going to change again this year or next. This year GW won its divisional tournament for the first time in the 29-year history of the division. And while it may not go far – if the Colonials defeat first-round opponent Georgia Tech (where my college roommate’s son attends — wonder whether Nader is rooting for GW or the Ramblin’ Wreck), they then will most likely face 29-4 Louisville — they will pretty much return intact in 2005-06.
So, I wanted to write this before the game on Friday. Who knows how it will go. But the team that ESPN called this season’s "it" team and which was recently responsible for two of ESPN’s top ten plays of the week has a bunch of exciting players who also seem to be good kids, and they’re easy to root for. I think they might be in until the last game or two next year. But try to catch them this year.
Because the more folks who know GW, the more folks who’ll think more highly of my degree. And that’s okay by me.
By the way, Friday happens to be the birthday of my friend Bobby’s daughter Katie… who happens to be finishing her freshman year at GW.
George Washington University men’s basketball website.
I did not attend an Ivy League university, but I didn’t exactly attend Left Armpit Community College, either. I am a 1979 graduate of The George Washington University, a school founded to be the national college and, if I recall correctly, the oldest non-religious university in the country. It’s situated in Washington, DC, and, let me tell you, attending college just four blocks from the White House and a short walk from the Smithsonian and so many important monuments was a terrific experience.
And nobody knows my alma mater. Or, worse, they think I went to Georgetown, which itself is a decent school, but confusing GW with Georgetown is like confusing UCLA and USC.
Despite my antipathy toward big-time college sports, I have learned that the average guy thinks about college sports first when he thinks about universities, and more likely it’s college football.
In 1966, GWU dropped its football program in order to concentrate on basketball. The problem was that for many years, the program was mediocre at best. That changed in 1993, when GW made it to the Sweet Sixteen.
That’s going to change again this year or next. This year GW won its divisional tournament for the first time in the 29-year history of the division. And while it may not go far – if the Colonials defeat first-round opponent Georgia Tech (where my college roommate’s son attends — wonder whether Nader is rooting for GW or the Ramblin’ Wreck), they then will most likely face 29-4 Louisville — they will pretty much return intact in 2005-06.
So, I wanted to write this before the game on Friday. Who knows how it will go. But the team that ESPN called this season’s "it" team and which was recently responsible for two of ESPN’s top ten plays of the week has a bunch of exciting players who also seem to be good kids, and they’re easy to root for. I think they might be in until the last game or two next year. But try to catch them this year.
Because the more folks who know GW, the more folks who’ll think more highly of my degree. And that’s okay by me.
By the way, Friday happens to be the birthday of my friend Bobby’s daughter Katie… who happens to be finishing her freshman year at GW.
George Washington University men’s basketball website.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
SOME STUFF IS JUST NOBODY’S BUSINESS
SOME STUFF IS JUST NOBODY’S BUSINESS
I nearly had a heart attack tonight. No, it wasn’t the peanut-butter-and-banana burrito I ate an hour ago. It was that I actually agreed with a Republican member of the House of Representatives. Even more amazing, he was from Texas.
Rep. Joe Barton, who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Social Security information should not be sold commercially by credit agencies and other such companies — at least, not without the permission of the person whose Social Security Number it is.
"I've not heard anything that explains to me why we should allow that to go on," said Barton, who said he would probably carve out an exemption for police investigations.
In fairness, Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts has introduced a similar bill, and Seattle radio commentator Dave Ross once suggested that no information be allowed to be sold unless it had the written permission of the recipient.
All of these are wonderful ideas.
Too much information is now available, and more will be released into the world as soon as possible.
Even now, I routinely refuse to give my Social Security Number when asked for it. Someone who asks had better justify it and have a governmental purpose for asking. I do not sign my name electronically at cash registers where they ask you to do so. It’s easy enough to steal data without giving someone the ability to add my signature. I’ve even gotten to the point where I try to avoid other marking information, such as mother’s maiden name or birthdate.
Am I being paranoid? Maybe. But tonight my spouse asked me if she should sign up for Google’s new g-mail product. I urged her not to. Aside from all the other information already being zipped electronically from place to place, add Google’s plan to read all email to make better information for its vendors, and, well, you don’t have to be Rod Serling to see an unfortunate end to it all.
So I firmly support this way of solving the problem, even if it does make things a little more difficult for myself at work. After all, tomorrow I’m mailing 97,000 letters to potential subscribers asking them to sample our magazine, Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES.
As Pogo said…
I nearly had a heart attack tonight. No, it wasn’t the peanut-butter-and-banana burrito I ate an hour ago. It was that I actually agreed with a Republican member of the House of Representatives. Even more amazing, he was from Texas.
Rep. Joe Barton, who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Social Security information should not be sold commercially by credit agencies and other such companies — at least, not without the permission of the person whose Social Security Number it is.
"I've not heard anything that explains to me why we should allow that to go on," said Barton, who said he would probably carve out an exemption for police investigations.
In fairness, Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts has introduced a similar bill, and Seattle radio commentator Dave Ross once suggested that no information be allowed to be sold unless it had the written permission of the recipient.
All of these are wonderful ideas.
Too much information is now available, and more will be released into the world as soon as possible.
Even now, I routinely refuse to give my Social Security Number when asked for it. Someone who asks had better justify it and have a governmental purpose for asking. I do not sign my name electronically at cash registers where they ask you to do so. It’s easy enough to steal data without giving someone the ability to add my signature. I’ve even gotten to the point where I try to avoid other marking information, such as mother’s maiden name or birthdate.
Am I being paranoid? Maybe. But tonight my spouse asked me if she should sign up for Google’s new g-mail product. I urged her not to. Aside from all the other information already being zipped electronically from place to place, add Google’s plan to read all email to make better information for its vendors, and, well, you don’t have to be Rod Serling to see an unfortunate end to it all.
So I firmly support this way of solving the problem, even if it does make things a little more difficult for myself at work. After all, tomorrow I’m mailing 97,000 letters to potential subscribers asking them to sample our magazine, Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES.
As Pogo said…
Friday, March 11, 2005
WHY KIDS DON'T READ
WHY KIDS DON'T READ
"Comics, in their drive to attain respect and artistic accomplishment, abandoned children." So said Michael Chabon, the author of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, at a presentation at the recent Eisner Awards. As with all great thinkers, he was able to put into words and transmit something that had disturbed me for some time.
Comics are no longer for kids.
I, naturally, had been complaining about the situation from the elephant's tail end of the problem: The comic companies were doing very little to draw people into the medium. Yes, they now have giant-sized movies about their characters (cheers to Marvel, and thanks for quintupling our still-too-late investment; had we bought when I first began to think about Marvel, we'd have octupled it), and you can buy nicely gathered collections at the Barnes & Noble at the mall near you, but the comic companies are doing nothing to make people walk out of movie theaters and go to their nearby comic shop. Or even go from the upstairs of the Barnes & Noble to the downstairs of the Barnes & Noble.
But Chabon got it. There are no more comics for kids. When I first read comics, they were titles like Timmy The Timid Ghost, Casper The Friendly Ghost, Richie Rich, Archie, Dot and the like. Later, when I was reading Justice League of America and Batman, there were still comics for kids.
Today, there's not enough of that.
I stopped reading comics after my two-year stint at DC Comics. There, in its marketing department, I felt I needed to read everything DC published, as well as everything its competitors published. My brain turned into banana pudding and oozed out through my ears.
But I also began to dislike comics. Buying one comic did not buy you a single story, but bits of a story arc. Miss one or two issues and you might as well stop buying the comic. Comics also got violent. I contributed to that; when we promoted Frank Miller's Rõnin, the first in-store poster was a big ol' blood splatter. It was a very effective blood splatter, but we weren't really promoting the world of the rõnin, were we? It's gotten much worse, since.
If I can have my Jerry Seinfeld moment, it's not that there's anything wrong with that. But there need to be comics that will make kids like comics, just like there are books that will make kids like books.
Of course, the other part of the problem is the 90% of the American market that sees pictures or cartoons and assumes they're for kids. They don't see the problem at all. And they're buying them violent video and computer games to play, anyway.
I'm not sure there's anybody left who can write entertainingly for kids and kids alone. My only hope is that someone who appreciated Finding Neverland is developing the knack.
Michael Chabon's website.
"Comics, in their drive to attain respect and artistic accomplishment, abandoned children." So said Michael Chabon, the author of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, at a presentation at the recent Eisner Awards. As with all great thinkers, he was able to put into words and transmit something that had disturbed me for some time.
Comics are no longer for kids.
I, naturally, had been complaining about the situation from the elephant's tail end of the problem: The comic companies were doing very little to draw people into the medium. Yes, they now have giant-sized movies about their characters (cheers to Marvel, and thanks for quintupling our still-too-late investment; had we bought when I first began to think about Marvel, we'd have octupled it), and you can buy nicely gathered collections at the Barnes & Noble at the mall near you, but the comic companies are doing nothing to make people walk out of movie theaters and go to their nearby comic shop. Or even go from the upstairs of the Barnes & Noble to the downstairs of the Barnes & Noble.
But Chabon got it. There are no more comics for kids. When I first read comics, they were titles like Timmy The Timid Ghost, Casper The Friendly Ghost, Richie Rich, Archie, Dot and the like. Later, when I was reading Justice League of America and Batman, there were still comics for kids.
Today, there's not enough of that.
I stopped reading comics after my two-year stint at DC Comics. There, in its marketing department, I felt I needed to read everything DC published, as well as everything its competitors published. My brain turned into banana pudding and oozed out through my ears.
But I also began to dislike comics. Buying one comic did not buy you a single story, but bits of a story arc. Miss one or two issues and you might as well stop buying the comic. Comics also got violent. I contributed to that; when we promoted Frank Miller's Rõnin, the first in-store poster was a big ol' blood splatter. It was a very effective blood splatter, but we weren't really promoting the world of the rõnin, were we? It's gotten much worse, since.
If I can have my Jerry Seinfeld moment, it's not that there's anything wrong with that. But there need to be comics that will make kids like comics, just like there are books that will make kids like books.
Of course, the other part of the problem is the 90% of the American market that sees pictures or cartoons and assumes they're for kids. They don't see the problem at all. And they're buying them violent video and computer games to play, anyway.
I'm not sure there's anybody left who can write entertainingly for kids and kids alone. My only hope is that someone who appreciated Finding Neverland is developing the knack.
Michael Chabon's website.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PASS A TEST TO BECOME A CITIZEN, EVEN IF YOU WERE BORN HERE
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PASS A TEST TO BECOME A CITIZEN, EVEN IF YOU WERE BORN HERE
Apparently, American high school students are too busy buying drugs and watching The O.C. to even understand their basic rights, which is both frightening and disturbing, especially since they are the ones who will probably be on the front lines should President Bush's long-term plan to take out the Axis of Evil come to fruition.
A study conducted last spring for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation by the University of Connecticut found that nearly one-third of US high school students favor restrictions on the press. And 36% believe that news organizations should receive government clearance before running stories (this from the story I read at Insight.com).
Among its findings:
• Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
• Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
• Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
• More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.
Principals and teachers were also surveyed. (Scary, no?)
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Director Hodding Carter III (you may recall him from the Jimmy Carter Administration), described these results as "dangerous."
One thing that both conservatives and liberals can generally agree on is that you lose freedom if you don't use it. That's why Carter III is correct when he describes these results as "dangerous." Between parents and faculty, the result is that three-quarters of American high schoolers believe that flag-burning is illegal. Now, they're welcome to believe it's wrong, but a lot of things that are wrong are still legal. (For instance, property tax.)
These results are understandable, however, in the Big Lie mentality that drives political life today. The current administration seems to make a habit of repeating the same untruth until it becomes "common knowledge." That's why so many Americans believe al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That was the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln behind President Bush. Heck, that's the purpose of all political spin, on both sides of the aisle.
(Oh, and does anybody remember who invented the Big Lie?)
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation intends these results to be used to increase the number of high school classrooms that include journalism (or "communications") in their curriculum. Understanding journalism is certainly a useful thing. I know a fellow who freelances for CNN and who teaches at Pacific Lutheran University. He is active in the business today, and he tells me that the trend these days (besides hiring airheads in blonde wigs to read the news) is reporting from a specific point of view. That is so wrong I won't even joke about it. It's one thing to do some investigative journalism; it's another to craft stories so that they reflect political opinion. And yet, there's Fox News, the alleged "balance" to "liberal" news.
How to put this in analogy, for those of you who don't understand what journalism should be? How about reporting on a fire? An objective reporter finds out where it was, what kind of structure it was, whether the structure was occupied by people, whether they were injured or killed, whether it was suspicious. An investigative journalist might ask if the fire department got there on time, had the proper equipment, or used the correct techniques. One of these Fox News types would blame it on Ted Kennedy.
Years ago, tests to determine suitability to vote were thrown out because racist scumbuckets in the South skewed them to keep blacks from voting. I now believe that was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Our Constitution needs to be revised so that rights are not conferred on a person simply for being lucky enough to have been born in the United States. I contend that citizenship for people born in this country should only be made final upon completion of the same test we give foreigners applying for citizenship. If some high school dropout is home watching American Idol and telephoning her girlfriend to discuss what color to paint her fingernails, perhaps this is not the type of person who should be voting for president, especially if she doesn't know the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Articles of Confederation.
If that's not practical, how about at least requiring a high school diploma before you can register to vote? (Or drive, but that's another rant.) The problem with that is you would also need to have a high school diploma that means something, and there are so many opponents to that one final high school test (whatever it's called in your district) -- including my spouse -- that the distinction would be meaningless.
But, really, is it wrong to forbid anyone to vote if he or she doesn't know why we had to remember the Maine? Or who Lewis & Clark were? Or why Teddy Roosevelt wanted to bust the trusts (and what a trust is, anyway)? Sadly, I fear that the Bobby Hill character on King of the Hill isn't the only creature on this continent who believes that Jed Bartlet is a real president.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the government can censor the Internet. In which case, after he's confirmed later today, Michael Chertoff can just press a button and delete this.
Apparently, American high school students are too busy buying drugs and watching The O.C. to even understand their basic rights, which is both frightening and disturbing, especially since they are the ones who will probably be on the front lines should President Bush's long-term plan to take out the Axis of Evil come to fruition.
A study conducted last spring for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation by the University of Connecticut found that nearly one-third of US high school students favor restrictions on the press. And 36% believe that news organizations should receive government clearance before running stories (this from the story I read at Insight.com).
Among its findings:
• Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
• Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
• Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
• More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.
Principals and teachers were also surveyed. (Scary, no?)
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Director Hodding Carter III (you may recall him from the Jimmy Carter Administration), described these results as "dangerous."
One thing that both conservatives and liberals can generally agree on is that you lose freedom if you don't use it. That's why Carter III is correct when he describes these results as "dangerous." Between parents and faculty, the result is that three-quarters of American high schoolers believe that flag-burning is illegal. Now, they're welcome to believe it's wrong, but a lot of things that are wrong are still legal. (For instance, property tax.)
These results are understandable, however, in the Big Lie mentality that drives political life today. The current administration seems to make a habit of repeating the same untruth until it becomes "common knowledge." That's why so many Americans believe al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That was the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln behind President Bush. Heck, that's the purpose of all political spin, on both sides of the aisle.
(Oh, and does anybody remember who invented the Big Lie?)
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation intends these results to be used to increase the number of high school classrooms that include journalism (or "communications") in their curriculum. Understanding journalism is certainly a useful thing. I know a fellow who freelances for CNN and who teaches at Pacific Lutheran University. He is active in the business today, and he tells me that the trend these days (besides hiring airheads in blonde wigs to read the news) is reporting from a specific point of view. That is so wrong I won't even joke about it. It's one thing to do some investigative journalism; it's another to craft stories so that they reflect political opinion. And yet, there's Fox News, the alleged "balance" to "liberal" news.
How to put this in analogy, for those of you who don't understand what journalism should be? How about reporting on a fire? An objective reporter finds out where it was, what kind of structure it was, whether the structure was occupied by people, whether they were injured or killed, whether it was suspicious. An investigative journalist might ask if the fire department got there on time, had the proper equipment, or used the correct techniques. One of these Fox News types would blame it on Ted Kennedy.
Years ago, tests to determine suitability to vote were thrown out because racist scumbuckets in the South skewed them to keep blacks from voting. I now believe that was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Our Constitution needs to be revised so that rights are not conferred on a person simply for being lucky enough to have been born in the United States. I contend that citizenship for people born in this country should only be made final upon completion of the same test we give foreigners applying for citizenship. If some high school dropout is home watching American Idol and telephoning her girlfriend to discuss what color to paint her fingernails, perhaps this is not the type of person who should be voting for president, especially if she doesn't know the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Articles of Confederation.
If that's not practical, how about at least requiring a high school diploma before you can register to vote? (Or drive, but that's another rant.) The problem with that is you would also need to have a high school diploma that means something, and there are so many opponents to that one final high school test (whatever it's called in your district) -- including my spouse -- that the distinction would be meaningless.
But, really, is it wrong to forbid anyone to vote if he or she doesn't know why we had to remember the Maine? Or who Lewis & Clark were? Or why Teddy Roosevelt wanted to bust the trusts (and what a trust is, anyway)? Sadly, I fear that the Bobby Hill character on King of the Hill isn't the only creature on this continent who believes that Jed Bartlet is a real president.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the government can censor the Internet. In which case, after he's confirmed later today, Michael Chertoff can just press a button and delete this.
Friday, February 04, 2005
I'M BONED
I'M BONED
According to a Reuters Health story, constant stress and worry may be an important component in getting Alzheimer's disease.
Now I'm really stressed.
According to a Reuters Health story, constant stress and worry may be an important component in getting Alzheimer's disease.
Now I'm really stressed.
MEET THE COUNTRY'S DUMBEST GOVERNOR
MEET THE COUNTRY'S DUMBEST GOVERNOR
The governor of the great State of New York is either crazy or stupid.
Thanks to our current economic crisis (or, as the president would say, "Crisis, what crisis?" -- that's a nod to Supertramp, by the way, for you youngsters), New York, like most states, is facing economic difficulty.
So Governor George Pataki (he's a Republican, don't you know) is investigating the idea of selling public infrastructure to private companies to raise funds.
Like many failed business ideas, this is a short term victory that will lead to long-term disaster.
Companies that buy the New York State Thruway or the Second Avenue Subway are (*gasp*) going to want to make a profit. Here's the thing: If those things were profitable, the state wouldn't want to sell them. So one of two things will happen: Either the new owners will lose money operating the facilities, first letting them deteriorate, then going bankrupt and letting them wither away and die, or, worse, they're going to raise rates on the public so that only the few will be able to afford to take the subway or the Brooklyn Bridge.
Free marketeers generally have their pulse on a good idea -- a free market is great for innovation and reducing consumer costs on consumer goods. But roads, bridges, subways, tunnels and the like are not consumer goods. Public utilities are created because it's insane to have competing power companies, e.g., or because there's a greater public good involved in having a municipally managed water supply, sewer line, subway, or bridge. The rabid free marketeers -- the ones who conveniently forget that even Adam Smith was of the belief that taxes were a good thing because they let the government do things for the whole population -- believe everything should be privately held and government should do nothing.
Washington State has a similar problem now, thanks to the Bush Administration. Washington State law for years permitted taxing estates, and took a share of what the federal government took. When Bush led the fight to reduce estate taxes, Washington State did not reduce what it took. Yesterday, the Washington State Supreme ruled that Washington State could not do that, and must reduce what it takes in from now on and repay what it took in since the federal estate tax reduction. The result is another $400 million or so that Washington State will have to tax from somewhere else or reduce already bare-bones public services. This in a state with no income tax (unless you're self-employed, in which case you must pay a fee for the right to possibly make money), so it sends out armies of "assessors" to invent real estate values, the better by which to steal money you may or not be able to afford. (I.e., if I own a house and am unemployed for a year, I still pay tax on the house, even though I may not have the money to do so, which means the state can steal my property. If I didn't owe property tax, but the state had income tax, the state could charge me zero in this year of unemployment, but receive its full fair share when I was back and employed.)
New York State's problem is that the public interest will not be served by putting these things under private ownership. A business is obliged to cut its losses if things don't go well. Pataki is short-sighted and will help return New York to the depths of its financial problems from the 1970s.
The governor of the great State of New York is either crazy or stupid.
Thanks to our current economic crisis (or, as the president would say, "Crisis, what crisis?" -- that's a nod to Supertramp, by the way, for you youngsters), New York, like most states, is facing economic difficulty.
So Governor George Pataki (he's a Republican, don't you know) is investigating the idea of selling public infrastructure to private companies to raise funds.
Like many failed business ideas, this is a short term victory that will lead to long-term disaster.
Companies that buy the New York State Thruway or the Second Avenue Subway are (*gasp*) going to want to make a profit. Here's the thing: If those things were profitable, the state wouldn't want to sell them. So one of two things will happen: Either the new owners will lose money operating the facilities, first letting them deteriorate, then going bankrupt and letting them wither away and die, or, worse, they're going to raise rates on the public so that only the few will be able to afford to take the subway or the Brooklyn Bridge.
Free marketeers generally have their pulse on a good idea -- a free market is great for innovation and reducing consumer costs on consumer goods. But roads, bridges, subways, tunnels and the like are not consumer goods. Public utilities are created because it's insane to have competing power companies, e.g., or because there's a greater public good involved in having a municipally managed water supply, sewer line, subway, or bridge. The rabid free marketeers -- the ones who conveniently forget that even Adam Smith was of the belief that taxes were a good thing because they let the government do things for the whole population -- believe everything should be privately held and government should do nothing.
Washington State has a similar problem now, thanks to the Bush Administration. Washington State law for years permitted taxing estates, and took a share of what the federal government took. When Bush led the fight to reduce estate taxes, Washington State did not reduce what it took. Yesterday, the Washington State Supreme ruled that Washington State could not do that, and must reduce what it takes in from now on and repay what it took in since the federal estate tax reduction. The result is another $400 million or so that Washington State will have to tax from somewhere else or reduce already bare-bones public services. This in a state with no income tax (unless you're self-employed, in which case you must pay a fee for the right to possibly make money), so it sends out armies of "assessors" to invent real estate values, the better by which to steal money you may or not be able to afford. (I.e., if I own a house and am unemployed for a year, I still pay tax on the house, even though I may not have the money to do so, which means the state can steal my property. If I didn't owe property tax, but the state had income tax, the state could charge me zero in this year of unemployment, but receive its full fair share when I was back and employed.)
New York State's problem is that the public interest will not be served by putting these things under private ownership. A business is obliged to cut its losses if things don't go well. Pataki is short-sighted and will help return New York to the depths of its financial problems from the 1970s.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
THE BEST WAY TO SEE THE WORST COMBOVER EVER
THE BEST WAY TO SEE THE WORST COMBOVER EVER
The deadline for getting your application in to NBC to be the next apprentice (Trump-style) is February 10. You've got a week! Don't blow your shot -- apply today!
Personally, were I filling in the application, my answer to the question, "What is your most embarrassing moment?" would probably be, "Completing this application."
Maybe Mark Burnett's next show, instead of Martha Stewart, should be a chance for washed-up has-been middle-aged guys like me to get a job in a new career. Like inventing reality shows, maybe.
The deadline for getting your application in to NBC to be the next apprentice (Trump-style) is February 10. You've got a week! Don't blow your shot -- apply today!
Personally, were I filling in the application, my answer to the question, "What is your most embarrassing moment?" would probably be, "Completing this application."
Maybe Mark Burnett's next show, instead of Martha Stewart, should be a chance for washed-up has-been middle-aged guys like me to get a job in a new career. Like inventing reality shows, maybe.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
IS THIS A GOOD THING?
IS THIS A GOOD THING?
When she's released from prison in a month, Martha Stewart will get her own Apprentice. Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor and The Apprentice (both of which I watch, just so you know), will be building a sibling Survivor around America's domestic diva.
I ain't watching.
But I never did watch Stewart. I always found her irritating, condescending, and perhaps just a little bit overbearing. I'm glad that she's going to land on her feet, though, because her conviction seems to be just a little bit unnecessary considering the crime and the profit she made from it given her billion-dollar bankroll. My spouse claims that Stewart was basically convicted for being a woman, and if the spouse is right, that's just wrong.
But, Mr. Burnett needs to know: I ain't watching.
When she's released from prison in a month, Martha Stewart will get her own Apprentice. Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor and The Apprentice (both of which I watch, just so you know), will be building a sibling Survivor around America's domestic diva.
I ain't watching.
But I never did watch Stewart. I always found her irritating, condescending, and perhaps just a little bit overbearing. I'm glad that she's going to land on her feet, though, because her conviction seems to be just a little bit unnecessary considering the crime and the profit she made from it given her billion-dollar bankroll. My spouse claims that Stewart was basically convicted for being a woman, and if the spouse is right, that's just wrong.
But, Mr. Burnett needs to know: I ain't watching.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
37 DOWN, 14 TO GO (AND THEY'RE ALL RED)
37 DOWN, 14 TO GO (AND THEY'RE ALL RED)
I visit the spouse's Live Journal site, and I keep finding that she's found all these little quizzes. So I have to do them, too.
Dear, please don't ever jump off the Empire State Building…
create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.
I visit the spouse's Live Journal site, and I keep finding that she's found all these little quizzes. So I have to do them, too.
Dear, please don't ever jump off the Empire State Building…
create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)