Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Hmmm...Maybe I'm Not As Innocent As I Thought
Ugh. I think I might sinking into "the blogosphere." Help! Hopefully my next post will be about something silly and random, like iTits. Oh well. Until then.
You know what's silly? Calling the "Estate Tax" a "death tax." A few months back, PBS ran this excellent Frontline episode called "The Persuaders." It's about marketing and whether and how marketing works. It was a really fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how a company chooses a new direction for their logos and brands. One of the people they talked to was this guy named Frank Luntz.
Frank Luntz was hired by the Republican Party to change their brand. They had become the "old rich white guy" party and they wanted to appeal to a younger, hipper generation. They wanted to broaden their message and find the best ways of getting the everyday person to understand their political messages.
Admittedly political positions can be a little difficult to comprend, especially for those of us who don't deal with every political issue. Take, for example, the "Estate Tax." For the most part, none of us will ever receive an estate tax. None of us will receive income from an estate that's been taxed. It doesn't affect a whole lot of people. However, it does effect those that have estates that can be taxed (over $2 million, I think??) and it taxes them pretty severely - to the tune of up to 55% (but, trust me, if you are paying the estate tax, you can afford an accountant and attorney who will make sure you aren't paying the full 55%). Anyway, Luntz is a bit of red herring in all of this, because his only role was to change the name of the "the estate tax" to "the death tax" because it makes it sound much more ominous, and thus like something no one would want, rather than an "estate" tax which connotes rich, white guys. So, changing it to "death tax" makes it seem more immediate to those who will never be impacted by it. Silly, right?
Anyway, Republicans (rich old white guys) hate this thing. Why? Because like Capital Gains Taxes it is a double tax. Not only are you taxed when you earn the money, but you are taxed when you try to give the money through inheritance. In this regard, I agree with the rich old white guys. It seems superfluous and unnecessary. If you must, raise the tax on the income, but what's the point of taxing the savings and inheritance?
However, this article, in the Christian Science Monitor is probably the best call against the estate tax that I've seen. And, it sort of makes me mad. The reason it makes me mad is that it presents a perfectly legitimate, and entirely persuasive, reason to keep the estate tax (the "death tax" if you will). Yet, jackasses like Dick Durbin run around to every media outlet that will let them spout their rhetorical bullshit and proclaim that we should keep the estate tax as a way of "sticking it to the man." (e.g., "This bill has nothing to do with the average American," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "It is about the wealthiest people in America flexing their muscles and pushing through on Capitol Hill the most outrageous piece of special interest legislation in modern memory.") That's not a reason, it's just argumentative.
I guess I'm fairly conservative in these matters. I believe that if I make money, that I pay my taxes and then leave me alone. If I don't use up all my money before I leave the earth, that shouldn't be seen as a taxable event. But, as the article points out, wealth differential is almost at an all-time high. And, it is the disparity in wealth that leads to the accumulation of power by those with money (they can afford to 'buy off' the democratic process). Of course, one can argue that even WITH the tax they can still afford to buy-off the democratic process. But, the argument goes, at least it costs them a lot more to do it, and we get some social programs paid for by their money until the reckoning day comes.
So, my answer is this: get rid of the estate tax and get rid of special interest groups. Or, only tax the rich, so that those with lower incomes can take their money and recycle it into the economy and actually be able to afford their own special interest groups.
You know what's silly? Calling the "Estate Tax" a "death tax." A few months back, PBS ran this excellent Frontline episode called "The Persuaders." It's about marketing and whether and how marketing works. It was a really fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how a company chooses a new direction for their logos and brands. One of the people they talked to was this guy named Frank Luntz.
Frank Luntz was hired by the Republican Party to change their brand. They had become the "old rich white guy" party and they wanted to appeal to a younger, hipper generation. They wanted to broaden their message and find the best ways of getting the everyday person to understand their political messages.
Admittedly political positions can be a little difficult to comprend, especially for those of us who don't deal with every political issue. Take, for example, the "Estate Tax." For the most part, none of us will ever receive an estate tax. None of us will receive income from an estate that's been taxed. It doesn't affect a whole lot of people. However, it does effect those that have estates that can be taxed (over $2 million, I think??) and it taxes them pretty severely - to the tune of up to 55% (but, trust me, if you are paying the estate tax, you can afford an accountant and attorney who will make sure you aren't paying the full 55%). Anyway, Luntz is a bit of red herring in all of this, because his only role was to change the name of the "the estate tax" to "the death tax" because it makes it sound much more ominous, and thus like something no one would want, rather than an "estate" tax which connotes rich, white guys. So, changing it to "death tax" makes it seem more immediate to those who will never be impacted by it. Silly, right?
Anyway, Republicans (rich old white guys) hate this thing. Why? Because like Capital Gains Taxes it is a double tax. Not only are you taxed when you earn the money, but you are taxed when you try to give the money through inheritance. In this regard, I agree with the rich old white guys. It seems superfluous and unnecessary. If you must, raise the tax on the income, but what's the point of taxing the savings and inheritance?
However, this article, in the Christian Science Monitor is probably the best call against the estate tax that I've seen. And, it sort of makes me mad. The reason it makes me mad is that it presents a perfectly legitimate, and entirely persuasive, reason to keep the estate tax (the "death tax" if you will). Yet, jackasses like Dick Durbin run around to every media outlet that will let them spout their rhetorical bullshit and proclaim that we should keep the estate tax as a way of "sticking it to the man." (e.g., "This bill has nothing to do with the average American," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "It is about the wealthiest people in America flexing their muscles and pushing through on Capitol Hill the most outrageous piece of special interest legislation in modern memory.") That's not a reason, it's just argumentative.
I guess I'm fairly conservative in these matters. I believe that if I make money, that I pay my taxes and then leave me alone. If I don't use up all my money before I leave the earth, that shouldn't be seen as a taxable event. But, as the article points out, wealth differential is almost at an all-time high. And, it is the disparity in wealth that leads to the accumulation of power by those with money (they can afford to 'buy off' the democratic process). Of course, one can argue that even WITH the tax they can still afford to buy-off the democratic process. But, the argument goes, at least it costs them a lot more to do it, and we get some social programs paid for by their money until the reckoning day comes.
So, my answer is this: get rid of the estate tax and get rid of special interest groups. Or, only tax the rich, so that those with lower incomes can take their money and recycle it into the economy and actually be able to afford their own special interest groups.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Catholic weddings and gay marriage
I went to a catholic wedding last weekend. Good times, good times. Anyway, during the service, the priest gave a homily about the meaning of marriage. He said that the essence of marriage, its central, defining component, is the commitment between two people. It isn't just about a feeling, it involves a commitment to be there with and for the other person for the rest of your life. He went on like that for awhile.
Now, this all seemed basically right to me. But it struck me funny, because the catholic church, including I think this particular priest (he was quite conservative), is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Yet, this definition of marriage seems to me to be one of the main justifications for allowing gay marriage: marriage is about this particular kind of commitment, and so any two people who share this level of commitment, this kind of love, should be allowed to marry. So, it struck me that the catholic church's position on gay marriage, at least as embodied in this priest but I think more generally, is blatantly inconsistent. Limiting marriage to just between a man and a woman is ad hoc: there isn't any principled reason for it that stems from the nature of marriage.
But wait, the priest also mentioned children. He emphasized that one of the important things about marriage is having and raising children. So if marriage is about a certain strong commitment and child-rearing, maybe this could ground a distinction between hetero- and homosexual couples. The former can have kids, the latter cannot. Hopefully, anyone reading this sees the problem here. Some heterosexual couples cannot have kids either. Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Of course not. For one thing, both of these groups can adopt. So they can do society the service of providing children a safe and stable environment in which to reach adulthood and become themselves productive members of society.
But let's push a little further. Maybe the bigot can say that heterosexual couples by nature, or in general, can have kids, but homosexual couples can't ever, so that's the difference (ok, a little rhetorical overkill with the use of "bigot," but these people piss me off). My response is that this is just wrong on the facts. Some heterosexual couples produce children by means other than sex, such as in-vitro fertilization. I take it that pretty much no one has a problem with that. Well, homosexual couples can use this method to produce children that are genetically related to at least one of them. So, homosexual couples can produce children too, using a method that isn't intrinsically wrong. Maybe not by having sex with each other, but how is that the limiting factor? Further, I'm positive that, given time, we will develop methods that allow homosexual couples to have children that are genetically related to both parents.
I'm sure there are other silly arguments against gay marriage, and unjustified and ad hoc reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman. But given the catholic priest's definition of marriage, which again I think is pretty much on target, I'm hard pressed to think of any good ones.
Now, this all seemed basically right to me. But it struck me funny, because the catholic church, including I think this particular priest (he was quite conservative), is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Yet, this definition of marriage seems to me to be one of the main justifications for allowing gay marriage: marriage is about this particular kind of commitment, and so any two people who share this level of commitment, this kind of love, should be allowed to marry. So, it struck me that the catholic church's position on gay marriage, at least as embodied in this priest but I think more generally, is blatantly inconsistent. Limiting marriage to just between a man and a woman is ad hoc: there isn't any principled reason for it that stems from the nature of marriage.
But wait, the priest also mentioned children. He emphasized that one of the important things about marriage is having and raising children. So if marriage is about a certain strong commitment and child-rearing, maybe this could ground a distinction between hetero- and homosexual couples. The former can have kids, the latter cannot. Hopefully, anyone reading this sees the problem here. Some heterosexual couples cannot have kids either. Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Of course not. For one thing, both of these groups can adopt. So they can do society the service of providing children a safe and stable environment in which to reach adulthood and become themselves productive members of society.
But let's push a little further. Maybe the bigot can say that heterosexual couples by nature, or in general, can have kids, but homosexual couples can't ever, so that's the difference (ok, a little rhetorical overkill with the use of "bigot," but these people piss me off). My response is that this is just wrong on the facts. Some heterosexual couples produce children by means other than sex, such as in-vitro fertilization. I take it that pretty much no one has a problem with that. Well, homosexual couples can use this method to produce children that are genetically related to at least one of them. So, homosexual couples can produce children too, using a method that isn't intrinsically wrong. Maybe not by having sex with each other, but how is that the limiting factor? Further, I'm positive that, given time, we will develop methods that allow homosexual couples to have children that are genetically related to both parents.
I'm sure there are other silly arguments against gay marriage, and unjustified and ad hoc reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman. But given the catholic priest's definition of marriage, which again I think is pretty much on target, I'm hard pressed to think of any good ones.
Sorry For All The Posts Lately
Some awesome YouTube stuff though.
General Elektriks - Facing That Void (video)
General Elektriks - Facing That Void (live)
General Elektriks - Frost On Your Sunglasses (video)
I've been obsessed with the General Elektriks for about 6 months now. It's basically a one-man thing, but as you can see in the video he does have a band that he tours with apparently. Same label as DJ Shadow. I call it "French Hip-Hop" but, as you can see A) he sings in English (there are some French-language tracks on his cd) and B) it's not very hip-hop-ish (though, again, on the cd he does have an MC - I use that term loosely since he's not a true "master of ceremonies" for this cd, or even the tracks, just a rhymes, mostly - that he uses on some of his tracks) - but what else does one call such things?
Ted Leo & The Pharmacists - Rude Boys (live)
Ted Leo are flat-out awesome. We (Erin and I) saw them at Bimbo's 360 in San Francisco - one of the better spent $15 I've had.
Sonic Youth - 100% (video)
It's Sonic Youth. And skateboarding. What else do you need?
And just for Brian:
Queen - I Want To Break Free (video)
-You may need to blind yourself after watching this video as punishment for your eyes for not allowing you to turn away.
General Elektriks - Facing That Void (video)
General Elektriks - Facing That Void (live)
General Elektriks - Frost On Your Sunglasses (video)
I've been obsessed with the General Elektriks for about 6 months now. It's basically a one-man thing, but as you can see in the video he does have a band that he tours with apparently. Same label as DJ Shadow. I call it "French Hip-Hop" but, as you can see A) he sings in English (there are some French-language tracks on his cd) and B) it's not very hip-hop-ish (though, again, on the cd he does have an MC - I use that term loosely since he's not a true "master of ceremonies" for this cd, or even the tracks, just a rhymes, mostly - that he uses on some of his tracks) - but what else does one call such things?
Ted Leo & The Pharmacists - Rude Boys (live)
Ted Leo are flat-out awesome. We (Erin and I) saw them at Bimbo's 360 in San Francisco - one of the better spent $15 I've had.
Sonic Youth - 100% (video)
It's Sonic Youth. And skateboarding. What else do you need?
And just for Brian:
Queen - I Want To Break Free (video)
-You may need to blind yourself after watching this video as punishment for your eyes for not allowing you to turn away.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Speaking of Poor Execution
A few days ago, in another life, I mentioned the fact that one of my pet peeves was taking really good ideas and fucking up the execution so badly that you turn away not only potential customers, but also the potential to actually execute it correctly. Today, we have another case-in-point, with the mis-handling of online broadcasting of the World Cup.
First, read this from BoingBoing. I've seen info from others about others having received this "anticipatory cease and desist." We'll leave alone the fact that BoingBoing is hardly likely to have been a site that would broadcast clips of the World Cup. But, let's just look at this way, from a consumer's point of view.
Most of the games for the World Cup don't start until mid-to-late-afternoon in Germany. This means, that here in the United States (particularly in the Central TimeZone, where I am) the games come on in the morning and early afternoon. I am at work during that time. Lots of people who would want to watch the games are at work during that time. So, it's a little hard (see my prior post about the World Cup - because it's actually impossible) for me to watch The World Cup live on ESPN. So, ideally, I could subscribe to a service that will broadcast, live on the internet, English language broadcast of The World Cup. I'd probably $25 for this. Hell, I might even pay more than $25 for this.
But, InFront Sports & Media is running the broadcast and licensing for the World Cup. In their infinite wisdom and, I'm assuming, prompted by the broadcast television, they have not licensed for broadcast on the internet to any one. Instead, the only internet-based way to get the games is via "live highlight clips" that I can subscribe to (and receive on my fucking phone!?!). My only guess is that they did this so that people are forced to watch the broadcast television telecasts. But, this has resulted in two deficiencies (and losses of revenue) for them. First, I want to watch the games not just the highlights, so I am forced to video tape the games from the Univision feed. Which means, I'm not going to subscribe to their highlights because I don't want to "ruin" it before I get a chance to watch it. So, we both lose: I don't get an English language live feed and they lose out on A) subscription fees and B) advertising fees for any internet broadcast.
I've got to imagine that there are others that would pay handsomely to be able to watch the world cup games live over the internet. But, no, we are treated like criminals because they're afraid we might store the games on our hard-drives and that someone might re-broadcast them (without commercials, oh no!). It seems to me that I can already do the former anyway (thank you Orb and even just a simple VHS tape). And that the latter could be taken care of via legal mechanisms in place (copyright laws) that prevent the re-broadcast of sporting events without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
I wonder if anyone will be making their Orb accounts public and releasing the videos? If I could record to my hard-drive, I would.
First, read this from BoingBoing. I've seen info from others about others having received this "anticipatory cease and desist." We'll leave alone the fact that BoingBoing is hardly likely to have been a site that would broadcast clips of the World Cup. But, let's just look at this way, from a consumer's point of view.
Most of the games for the World Cup don't start until mid-to-late-afternoon in Germany. This means, that here in the United States (particularly in the Central TimeZone, where I am) the games come on in the morning and early afternoon. I am at work during that time. Lots of people who would want to watch the games are at work during that time. So, it's a little hard (see my prior post about the World Cup - because it's actually impossible) for me to watch The World Cup live on ESPN. So, ideally, I could subscribe to a service that will broadcast, live on the internet, English language broadcast of The World Cup. I'd probably $25 for this. Hell, I might even pay more than $25 for this.
But, InFront Sports & Media is running the broadcast and licensing for the World Cup. In their infinite wisdom and, I'm assuming, prompted by the broadcast television, they have not licensed for broadcast on the internet to any one. Instead, the only internet-based way to get the games is via "live highlight clips" that I can subscribe to (and receive on my fucking phone!?!). My only guess is that they did this so that people are forced to watch the broadcast television telecasts. But, this has resulted in two deficiencies (and losses of revenue) for them. First, I want to watch the games not just the highlights, so I am forced to video tape the games from the Univision feed. Which means, I'm not going to subscribe to their highlights because I don't want to "ruin" it before I get a chance to watch it. So, we both lose: I don't get an English language live feed and they lose out on A) subscription fees and B) advertising fees for any internet broadcast.
I've got to imagine that there are others that would pay handsomely to be able to watch the world cup games live over the internet. But, no, we are treated like criminals because they're afraid we might store the games on our hard-drives and that someone might re-broadcast them (without commercials, oh no!). It seems to me that I can already do the former anyway (thank you Orb and even just a simple VHS tape). And that the latter could be taken care of via legal mechanisms in place (copyright laws) that prevent the re-broadcast of sporting events without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
I wonder if anyone will be making their Orb accounts public and releasing the videos? If I could record to my hard-drive, I would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)