like MY OPINION means anything

CBS Doesn't Want You Watching Their TV Shows

2007-03-03T16:25:00.000-06:00

I'm a modern man; by which I mean, I have no control over what appears on our television. Well, that's not entirely true - I have control if nothing that Erin wants to watch happens to conflict. For example, I used to watch CSI rather religiously. But, damned Grey's Anatomy is now on opposite and CSI has been banished from our living room (unless Grey's happens to be a rerun). So, since I've been missing CSI, I thought I would check it out on CBS.com.

These days, frustrated that everyone is TIVO'ing and skipping the commercials, or just downloading the show from torrentspy.com, the networks have all created their own online modes of watching the show. Of course, they show commercials. I don't really have a problem with this. I'm more than willing to watch commercials if they want to provide access to the show online. I'd like it BETTER, if there was ONE site I could go to that had all of the networks. But, I understand that they may not comfortable with that yet; so, I'm willing to go ABC.com, or Fox.com or NBC.com or CBS.com to see the shows that I've missed.

Most these offerings offer streaming video with imbedded commercials using their own proprietary streaming display. CBS, apparently, hates its viewers. First, they make you download the most recent RealPlayer. For reasons I'll save for another post I HATE RealPlayer. I try not to install it on my computer if I can absolutely avoid it. But, alas, if I wanted CSI, I would have to install it. Whatever. So I finally get it downloaded and installed and make sure that it doesn't take over my computer (no, I don't want your icons everywhere, no I don't want you to install firefox with the google toolbar, no I don't want you to be my universal player, no I don't want your spam) and sit down to watch CSI.

First, I find out that I am watching CSI 1 of 5. 1 of 5 how freaking long is this thing? Whatever, I figure they'll probably show me a commercial between each section and automatically queue the next section. No, that's not how this works at all. I get the intro started OK, then where the credits would roll I get a commercial. I had had it in full wide-screen, the commercial cuts out of wide-screen, runs for 20 seconds and then starts the show. Well, that's OK, there would have been a commercial there anyway. The timer shows 7 minutes remaining, and I figure - every 7 minutes seems a little short, but whatever. Not ONE minute later it cuts to a commercial and kills my wide-screen AGAIN. WTF? So, the commercial runs, I get the wide-screen reset and the show runs for TWO FREAKING MINUTES. Another commercial. It kills the wide-screen again. I watch the commercial (which is only partly true, I also had the OSU/Mich basketball game on mute on my regular tv, so I would mute the computer and turn the volume on the game, then switch back when the show came back on), get the wide-screen reset and the show starts again. THEN ONE FREAKING MINUTE and another commercial.

I'm sure you see where this is going. After 10 minutes and probably 5 commercials, the FIRST FREAKING PART was over. And, it didn't queue the second part. I stopped watching. It's not worth it.

And the networks wonder why people pirate their shit. I'm going to go download the show so I can watch it sans the CONSTANT FUCKING INTERRUPTION. It's un-freaking-believable that the networks seem to sabotage convenience on PURPOSE so that they can claim that no one uses it and that clearly the business model doesn't work - we should just keep the old one (of course, not ANALOG TV - they want to keep the digital part so they can keep you from skipping the commercials - what's next? keeping you from turning the channel???).

Anyway. Sorry my first post back in a while is a rambling mess - I hope you get the point.

I'm Back, For Now - Some Notes and Analysis

2006-12-11T12:24:00.000-06:00

First, I want to apologize to all those whose comments sat in limbo for many many many (many, repeat ad nauseum) months. I haven't been checking in recently, and quite frankly, I forgot that comments were moderated. So. Apologies. A special thank you goes to Umbria Listens for their comment letting me know that my opinion does, in fact, mean something. Given their mission, it's at least a little comforting to know that somewhere, out there, in the bleak business world, an executive (or, more likely an over-paid middle manager) is reading a report that contains either: one of my blog posts, or, more likely, a higher number for the "this item was blogged about" category in their marketing reports.

Anyway. Today's post was instigated by a beer industry blog that I read. For those unaware, I've recently begun brewing my own beer and I am in the planning stages of maybe, possibly, if the stars align properly, trying to turn it into a small business. I've been looking around the web and I found a good blog, called Brew Blog (it's actually called "Brew" Blog - but I'm not really sure what the quotation marks add - I believe that it is, technically, some sort of attempt to reference their magazine, also called "brew" but retain the source identifying portion in some asinine attempt to gain trademark rights over the term "brew" for publications pertaining to the beer industry by using the same term in a "family of marks" style). I read it a few times a week. It is, technically, under the auspices of Miller Brewing Company, but they assure me that Miller doesn't actually have any editorial authority. That seems to be true, so I'll take their word for it. For now.

However, today's post makes it abundantly obvious that the author does work for the beer industry. It's a short post, and I'm going to reprint it for the purposes of commentary. The article is in color, my comments are not. Enjoy. My apologies in advance if I come off as some sort of jack ass.

Cutting Beer Displays Could Hurt Retailers

This sounds like a threat. Like what he really means is: if you cut beer displays my best friend Guido is going to show up and convince you otherwise.

Displays have major impact on purchases behavior.

Interestingly, this is a true statement. What's even more interesting are the store gimmicks of displaying a "score" for the item and a quick "review" of the item from some industry source. This is popular with wine, and I've see some of it for beer. For example, you'll see "87. This wine pours a dark mahagony. It has a fruity, slightly acidic smell; but an oak aged taste that is guaranteed to impress your tastebuds. Brought to you by Winelover magazine." Apparently, people fall for these things all the time. Even people who know better. They use excuses like "it's nice to have more information." Ignoring the fact that the information comes from the source interested in selling you the product. It's sort of like believing GW when he tells you that the war is going well. It's amazing, and a sign of moderate competence in the marketing industry that everyone doesn't just give themselves 99's.

A growing number of retailers are contemplating “clean store” policies as more displays clutter their aisles and annoy customers.

Good. Those huge Miller Football displays annoy the crap out of me. There's such a thing as a "display" then there's "setting up a small football field in the beer aisle."

While such a thinning could improve shopper satisfaction, retailers need to keep in mind the importance of displays for key categories – including beer. Rather than sweeping out all displays, retailers should maintain focus on critical categories to ensure efficient use of floor space.

This is one of my favorite lines: "... retailers need to keep in mind the importance of displays ..." Oh. Really. How important is that 20' by 20' space eater piled with 300 cases of Miller Beer? To the retailer? It seems to me that all it does, for the retailer, is eat up floor space that could otherwise be taken by other products, create an impediment for the consumer, and cause massive inventory pile-ups. It seems that the best thing for a retailer might actually be to reduce the amount of Miller (or A-B, or whatever) it sells and increase sales on products that actually have higher margins.

According to an analysis of ACNielsen research by Miller Brewing Company, 26 percent of beer sold in supermarkets is sold on display. By dollars that ranks after snacks and carbonated beverages.

Ummm...OK...I'm struggling with how this is "good for retailers." By reverse logic, 74 percent of beer is NOT sold on display. If there were no displays, 100 percent of beer would be sold NOT on display. So what? But, the more interesting thing that this sentence suggests is that they actually have some way of tracking how much is bought from a display. Think about it. You walk up to the counter with a case of Miller Lite. How does the counter know you took that off a display? Well. In one respect the answer is obvious: the barcode. But, how do they know that barcode was part of the display? Did the minimum wage lackey scan it in? Did Miller provide separate pallets and provide instructions that one pallet was to be only for display? And, if that's the case, they actually trusted the minimum wage lackeys to do it?!? You see my point.

Moreover, beer is the second biggest category in supermarkets in terms of weekly sales dollars per square foot of space, according to the consultancy Willard Bishop.

Reducing displays on high-traffic driving categories such as beer could weaken promotional sales lifts and exacerbate promotional out of stocks.

Huh? Ok. Beer is a traffic-driving category. This means that people don't need displays to remind them to buy beer. The display could influence the Miller/Bud decision, but what does the supermarket care? Moreover, how does reducing these displays weaken promotional sales? The people are already in the stores buying beer, they will, presumably, see the (less-monstrous) displays for the supermarket promotional products. Plus, beer isn't sold in grocery stores everywhere (like here in Wisconsin) so it's a non-factor. And how exactly reducing displays for beer would exacerbate promotional out of stocks is a question we will leave for contemplation in the great beyond.

Suggestions for preventing this include: prioritizing display activities on categories that deliver high sales dollars per square foot; shift wine displays to beer because beer has significantly higher sales-per-foot productivity; and use “out of department” beer displays to drive impulse and cross-category purchases.

My favorite part: best way to prevent bad consequences: "shift wine displays to beer." I should have guessed. I can't say how much I love this sentence. First of all because the semi-colon is my favorite punctuation mark, and this sentence has TWO of them. Second, for the idea that the very premise of the article was complaining that supermarkets want to get rid of displays; this sentence encourages them to not only that beer displays are the best idea in retail history, but that other displays should be gotten rid of and MORE beer displays allowed and those extra beer displays should be place outside of the beer section in other parts of the supermarket. Awesome.

Sometimes When You Win, You Really Lose.

2006-09-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

I've tried to stay away from war topics, because I think it's all a bit preposterous, really. There's no legitimate debate because there is no legitimate information, and you can't have a legitimate debate without legitimate information. Supposedly some video exists that was made 5 years ago showing Bin Laden with (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the same guys that the US is now transporting to Guantanamo on (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the 5th anniversary of 911 for implementing the attacks. The fact that this video is just now surfacing raises a few questions: 1) where was it before; 2) who took it; 3) are those really the people who you are telling me they are; 4) was it really made five years ago or are you lying to me and you just made it last week so that you could show it to the American public to drum up support and evidence for a cause that you've been getting dragged through the mud on at a time that is shortly before general elections where you are probably going to get slaughtered at the polls because of your whole mishandling of the thing you are showing me? I'm not saying it's a fake - hell, I've never even seen the damn thing, I've just heard of it. All I'm saying is that time and time again there are pretty amazing coincidences that show up right around the time that ol' Gee Dubya steps in front of a television camera. But that's not really the point of this post. I'm just pointing out that the information we are supposed to debate is not entirely reliable and therefore the debate is kind of pointless and why I've stayed away from really commenting on the whole she-bang.

But.

After hearing for a few months now that pulling out of Iraq means we haven't won, I'm beginning to wonder what the definition of "won" means. NPR was running an interesting story about IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and how they have evolved since the beginning of the war. The interviewee was the foremost expert on these things and how they are set off. The interviewer asked him if there would ever be a point where they (the IEDs) were 100% ineffective because we had developed technology to either prevent them from exploding or at least prevent them from doing damage. The interviewee's answer was "probably not" because there's always a reason for The Enemy to keep building them, so, They will keep building them and working around our work-arounds that make the IEDs ineffective. That while we can mute the impact of the IED, the Raison D'Etre for their very being is cultural and until we win the socio-economic battle, we would never win the IED technology battle.

So, to me at least, that raises the question: can we "win" in Iraq? If you think back to WWII or even Korea, you'll see that wars are "won" - someone is declared the winner and everyone splits up the spoils, and the loser has to deal with the consequences and everyone lives more or less happily ever after (in a sustained cold war that causes panic and nuclear stockpiles). But there's a document of the event. Someone has signed a piece of paper in front of international witnesses that says "I Lost." It seems to me that this event is unlikely to occur in this war. First of all, who would sign it? Bin Laden? He doesn't really have anything to do with the war going on in Iraq (oh, I'm sure there's something that would link Bin Laden to the Iraqi dissident uprising - in fact there's probably a video of the meeting sitting in a vault somewhere in the CIA right this very second that shows the meeting with giant presentation easel in the room that reads "Plan: Death to the Western Infidels. Signed Bin Laden and the Iraqi Dissidents. Dated September 12, 2001.")

Anyway. My bigger point is: what are the terms of "winning" this war? A self-sustaining democratic government in Iraq that is freely elected in a peaceful, well-run election where all of the groups have pro-rata representation? We don't even have that here. A Constitution, President and governing body with police force and judicial system? That can't be it, because they have that and we're still there (i.e., we haven't "won" yet). Killing every member of any rebel group that is causing massive unrest? Doesn't seem like that's the answer, because much of the reason that they are even uprising is because we're there in the first place.

It seems that the US is waiting around for the Iraqi police and military to stop being corrupt and finally get around to policing themselves. But it's a chicken-and-egg situation - they can't support themselves until we leave, and we can't leave until they support themselves. I think the answer is this: they have plenty of reason to want to support themselves - and those reasons are scattered around the country and producing 20% of the world's oil. So, if left to the natural devices, it seems to me that those charged with deriving that oil would want a stable government to ensure that they could sell that oil. Since, we got rid of the unstable government and set up the skeleton of one that can work, all that's left is to hand over the keys and walk away. At some point, King Oilfield is going to have to drive the country off the lot, so to speak - even if he can't drive a stick shift.

John Has An Interesting Point

2006-07-31T10:09:00.000-05:00

So, John was up in Janesville this past weekend and, as we are wont to do, we were discussing topics that are current in today's political climate. We avoided the unimportant (Israel v. Huzbulleh) and the mundane (the relative merits of George W. Bush as the leader of the free world) and went straight to topics that are important to every youngish-middlish-aged males - internet gambling.

If you are unaware, and I may (or may not) have pointed this out before, the state of Washington has already passed, and the US Congress is about to pass, a bill that would ban "internet gambling." Basically, they want to ban online poker. I think my last post on this topic discussed the hypocrisy of those who proposed the bills (namely politicians from Iowa and Pennsylvania) rather than the actual content of the bill. I posited that it seemed a bit disingenuous for a politician from Iowa to propose a bill that would ban online gambling when his own state contained no fewer than 17 casinos. It seems that if you were really concerned about the societal ills of gambling, the best place to start would be the casinos within your own control, namely, those in your own jurisdiction. Instead, the politicians are reaching beyond their jurisdiction to posture in a place they can't possibly hope to control to try to gain popular (read: middle-america republican) support in an election year. As a side note (do my postings ever contain anything other than a series of "side notes"???) I would be curious to know how many of those middle-american republicans make their annual trek to Las Vegas or the Mississippi riverboats to blow their hard-earned nickles on quarter slots.

Which, leads to John's point. He posits the question: why would a politician oppose such a bill? There's virtually no political down-side in supporting it. Those who are in favor of internet gambling (and those constituents who would be "against" the bill) know it could never be enforced from a practical standpoint, thus are unlikely to care whether it actually passes or not because it will not change their activity (this is sort of like "illegal" downloading of music - despite the fact that it is "illegal" people continue to do it because it is practically impossible to enforce). Those against internet gambling would like to see such a bill and a politician could gain political capital by supporting it. Thus, a politician would not see any repurcussions from supporting it; the opposition just doesn't care enough - and it's not like there's a "pro-online-gambling" political action committee to stand up for the rights of the casual online poker player (like me - to date I have lost a grand total of $10).

My argument, half-drunk and not well-thought out, is that we, in our position as "member of a free society" and politicians as our representatives should oppose the legislation on basic principles of our democratic and free society. It seems only a little strange that a nation that is in the midst of a war that would put Russia's conquest to turn Asia communist to shame, in the same breath that supports and extolls the virtues of democracy and freedom, is invading the dens and living rooms and computer rooms and bedrooms of its own people to ban them from activity conducted there. In other words, the legislation enforces the very opposite of personal freedom. So, it seems a little disignenuous to "free" the Iraqis when reducing the freedom of your own citizens. Thus, any congress-critter that voted for, or has expressed a support for, the mission of freedom (if not the invasion) in Iraq is a hypocrite if they vote for this legislation.

I'm not suggesting that Congress does not have the power or ability to regulate online gambling. Of course they do. I'm suggesting instead that if Congress doesn't want online gambling, that it ban the establishment of online casinos in the United States. The online casinos are still free to set up outside the borders of the United States. But it seems only a little hypocritical and fascist to tell "free" citizens what websites they can visit and what activities they can and cannot perform in the privacy of their own homes. Yes, they already do this: you can't view child porn at home (but that affects more than just the individual viewing because the very act of producing it is degrading and there is strong public policy against child pornography - and while the congresspeople would argue that public policy militates against gambling, I would argue that it's not nearly as strong of a public policy, because we do, in fact, allow some gambling, just not online gambling - we do not allow "live child pornography" while banning "online child pornography"), you can't send email spam (again, it affects more than just the person sending, because it also affects the person receiving), and you can't have anal sex in Georgia (would somebody care to tell me the last time this was actually enforced? Thus, it is a similar, toothless, silly policy that may as well not exist).

In any event, we, as people, should oppose the legislation not because we are in favor of online gambling (most of us don't really care one way or the other about online gambling), but because we value our freedom. One of these days perhaps I'll write something about how George W. Bush and his neo-conservative republican cronies are eroding any base that they may have had outside of the "religious right" by insisting on controlling, invasive, and hypocritical politics.

Chris Zorich

2006-07-24T11:45:00.000-05:00

Because not all of you read my other blog, I'd figure I'd cross post this and add a little to it, because it's just too god-damn weird.

OK, from the realm of "ridiculous." I've had this Bears' jersey for years. I bought it in probably 1996 or so when John and I went to Chicago. Bought at the discount rack at Sports Authority on LaSalle at Ohio (or thereabouts). It's a Chris Zorich jersey. Who's Chris Zorich? Well, ummm...not what I thought. First, a quick run-down: he played football at Notre Dame (Defensive Lineman) and was drafted by the Chicago Bears. When he played he was pretty damn good. Unfortunately, he spent a lot of time injured and by 1997 he was out of football (he retired with the Redskins). I can't seem to find anything that says why, but I seem to remember he had nagging injuries and was considered a bit of a "mercurial" attitude.

I remembered him being really good, which is why I had bought the jersey and at the time, it was hoped he would still be able to play. He wasn't and he seemed to fall off the earth.

In any event, I wear the jersey on occassion because at this point it's got kind of an "old school" charm. Little did I know that the "charm" would be in full effect today. We were walking back from the Wicker Park Festival (it was raining, after Brothers Past) on Milwaukee to get a cab. As we were walking we hear "hey, you! stop!" I turned around and saw this huge bouncer-looking dude running at me from across the street. So, I kept walking (people in Chicago are crazy, I'm not stopping!). But, he was persistent and kept yelling to stop. So, I stopped. And here's the conversation that transpired.

him: "Hey, thanks for stopping."
me: "Sure"
him: "Where did you get that jersey?"
me: "I don't know, I've had it for years. I got it back in 96 or so."
him: "really? well. I just wanted to say 'thanks for wearing that jersey."
me: "huh?"
him: "Thanks for wearing that jersey, I really appreciate it."
me: "Ummm... no problem dude."

He shook my hand, and I shook his and we both went our separate ways. It all happened rather quickly and I wasn't really sure what the hell was going on. We walked away and it occurred to me: "Holy crap. That was Chris Zorich."

So, now my curiosity is peaked. I wonder "what the hell happened to Chris Zorich that he's now a bouncer at some random bar in Wicker Park?" Turns out ... he's not exactly a bouncer.

Here's the deal with Chris Zorich. Since leaving football he's been a little busy. He's running the Christopher Zorich Foundation. From his dress when I saw him, I can only guess that he was doing some work on behalf of the foundation when I saw him (he had work-gloves). He's also an attorney with Schuyler, Roche, and Zwirner in Chicago. So, go check out his Foundation's website; if you're feeling generous, donate your time or money.

I only wish I had known all of this when I met Mr. Zorich on the street. I have a zillion questions that I would have asked him.

Proof That Lawyers and Government Don't Mix

2006-07-10T16:00:00.000-05:00

Seen on www.uspto.gov today, an actual committee that's supposed to accomplish something:

Provisional Committee for Consideration of Proposals Relating to a Development Agenda for WIPO (PCDA)

Unpack that one. So, this is a temporary group of people ("provisional committee") covened for the purpose of thinking about suggestions ("consideration of proposals") that deal with a list of topics to discuss the growth ("relating to a development agenda") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")? That doesn't seem like a very useful meeting to me; or at least not one that has to be performed in-person - maybe exchange some emails until you get the development agenda proposals narrowed down for an actual committee to consider. Just a thought.

Oh, and just so you know: they considered 111 proposals. But, this temporary group thought process was scuttled when Brazil and Argentina played sticks-in-the-mud and decided to take their ball and go home.

They Had The Nerve To Talk About It

2006-07-10T10:39:00.000-05:00

I'll keep this relatively brief. Over the weekend we got cable re-installed (can't live without the Tour de France!) and one of the things I was watching yesterday morning was this show on AMC called "Sunday Morning Shoot-Out" - think of it as "Meet the Press" for the movie industry. The guest for the day was the CEO of Sony, Sir Howard Stringer. And he was fine - actually sounded like a pretty personable dude. But, then he dropped a bomb that is so inexcusable, so astoundingly pretentious, so amazingly condescending, so attrociously dictatorial that I not only turned the station, I have vowed that I will not knowingly watch another Sony movie (of course, this would be impossible, because a) Sony makes a lot of pretty decent movies and b) they have so many 'boutique' labels that I would never know if it IS Sony).

Anyway. They were talking about how "Memoirs of Geisha was such a failure." The problem, seemingly, is that it went WAY over budget and that it was offensive to the very people whom it was supposed to represent (e.g., using Chinese actors to portray Japanese people!). In the course of the interview, not ducking the criticism, Stringer admitted to it. He admitted that it should have been made for about half the cost and they should have looked harder for real Japanese actors.

But, this is where it gets good.

He claims it was still a good movie, but that what did it in was not that it was so offensive but "because we showed a screening in Japan a week before it was supposed to come out and the bad word of mouth kept people from the box office." Fuck you Stringer! How about you not make an offensive movie!!! I can not honestly believe that a CEO would stand (or sit) in front of a television audience and tell them, point blank, the problem isn't with the movie, it's that we showed it to people. The problem is that we showed an offensive movie and didn't give ourselves the first week box office to make sure we could reap at least some profit from the offensive movie before people started talking about how offensive it was and stopped seeing it.

So, it appears, that the lesson that Sir Howard Stringer is taking out of this is not: don't make offensive movies. Rather, the lesson is: If you're going to make an offensive movie, don't show it to anybody before it goes to the general public.

And the movie industry wonders why nobody goes to the fucking movies any more.

Update on the Whole Unity08 Thing

2006-07-06T08:54:00.000-05:00

I promised an update and here it is: It's starting to feel a bit like a cult, or a pyramid scheme, or Amway, or a chain letter. In other words, it's starting to feel a little .... off.

On June 28, I got an email asking me to "Declare Your Independence Today." It directs me to a website that contains the following:

Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for the governed to warn the government, a decent respect for democracy requires them to declare the causes of their anger.

We hold these truths to be self evident:

That elected officials should be public servants first and partisans second;

That to bicker is not to lead;

That those bought by lobby money cannot represent the people;

And that to polarize the Congress is to paralyze the nation.

We, therefore, as representatives of all the people of the United States, regardless of party, beseech our leaders to listen to our voices and hear our pleas. And to that end we mutually pledge to each other our sacred honor in declaring our independence from politics without purpose."

I'll leave alone the fact that, much like everything else published by these folks, this takes 7 paragraphs to not really say anything at all.

Now. I didn't check email on the 28th because I was out of town. But, not to be deterred, I received the same email on June 30th (still out of town) and again on July 3 (still out of town). Just for shits and giggles when I got home on the 4th and actually got around to reading it on the 5th I went and threw my name on it. After I hit "submit" it requested that I send a message to others asking them to sign it as well. Now, I'm not one to impose my self on others. I've done my duty, I've posted it here, if you're that interested you've looked at it yourself. I don't need to impose it on you by emailing you constant reminders of my own political whims.

Nevertheless, today (July 6), I get an email from them asking me, rather condescendingly I think, to "Show How Serious You Are." The email exhorted me to "take three minutes to get three more signatures" (emphasis in original). Now, it seems to me that if they truly offer a great product or service and advertise properly, they shouldn't have any problem getting signatures. It's this sort of "forced" viral marketing that is really irritating.

Groups see that some things travel the internet really quickly. Things like "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" and "Lazy Sunday" and whatnot. For some reason these things grab the fancy of the populace and they become over-night successes. But it happens naturally. No one said "Jeff, please forward this really funny banana singing an inane song to every person you know because we think it's funny, we think you'll find it funny, and we think your friends will find it funny." You know what? If I find it funny, I'll send it on without your telling me to.

And that's how viral marketing marks. It's providing something compelling enough that people want to share it. Not telling them that they aren't serious about a cause if they don't share it. That's just condescending and pretentious and grating.

I suppose by posting it here I've met their request to "forward it to 3 of my friends" and indeed I've done them one better by spending a bit more than 3 minutes discussing it. So, there ya are, I guess. Viral marketing at it's best. As they say, even bad publicity is publicity.

I Wonder If You Will Find This As Funny As I Did

2006-06-20T14:56:00.000-05:00

Files Are Not For Sharing

Hmmm...Maybe I'm Not As Innocent As I Thought

2006-06-13T10:16:00.000-05:00

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.

Catholic weddings and gay marriage

2006-06-06T17:59:00.000-05:00

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.

Sorry For All The Posts Lately

2006-06-06T13:35:00.000-05:00

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.

Speaking of Poor Execution

2006-06-05T13:13:00.001-05:00

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.

I Feel Sort Of Dirty

2006-05-31T10:25:00.000-05:00

I don't consider myself part of the "blogosphere" or whatever ridiculous title those in the "traditional media" give to those who comment on them. Yes, I have a blog. But, those of you who know me (and I'm guessing, from my visitor logs, that most of you that read this site know me) know that the only reason I post this here is because you are there and not here - otherwise I would just tell you these things. Trust me, if you were here, there'd be no need to post this stuff - ask Erin - she gets the long version of most of these post topics (despite the fact that she's probably tired of hearing it by now!).

Today, I'm going to depart a little from my normal course of rambling though. This article in the Washington Post piqued my interest. The basic gist of the article is this: some folks in Washington DC ("Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who gained political fame for their role in electing Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, as well as Doug Bailey, a media adviser to former president and representative Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.). They are being joined by former Maine governor Angus King, an independent") finally realized that the reason Americans don't turn out to vote is not because they aren't interested in politics, or because they don't care, but because they are sick of the political system as it has devolved through the two-party system. These folks, so the article posits, have created a new forum to give most of us in the center a new way of interacting with the political system.

In theory, this website, this movement, called, for now, Unity08, would provide forums for discussion and debate amongst those with opinions - a gathering point, if you will. When (Presidential) election time rolls around they will have what amounts to a royal rumble style vote to determine who the candidates will be. The candidates will not be limited to either party or, indeed, any party - eveyone is fair game. The article is unclear how they would go about persuading such a person to accept the nomination, but let's leave that alone for the moment. In any event, the issues this person would support, or the platform of the candidate - those issues which the candidate addresses would be those of interest to the people, not the party heads with bought and paid for interests. The candidates would be those who the people trusted to make decisions, not those who the party heads felt would most easily kow-tow to the whims of the biggest donors.

So, I go check out the website. It's at http://www.unity08.com. First off everything is very vague. And while I can certainly understand that they haven't exactly been up and running for a long time, there are very few specifics on how they envision themselves, or what they see their place as being. Most of the site is "preaching to the choir." Second, the game is really really lame. Third, and perhaps most interestingly, the "Founder's Council" is run mostly by college students. Now, I don't have anything against college students - I was a college student once (OK, three times), and to be fair college students are probably the ones most interested and with enough time to devote to such a cause - but I can't say it exactly helps the credibility.

Most importantly, though, I think I disagree with their beliefs and their division of "crucial issues" from "important issues"

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

I'm not sure I understand why the national debt is "more important" or "crucial" while "gay marriage" is merely "important." I think that their "important" issues are just issues that affect the individual, while the "crucial" ones are ones that affect the nation as a whole. But I'm not sure that this distinction necessarily makes an issue more important than another. And what do you do about, say, Welfare and/or social security? Welfare affects the nation (we all pay for it), but it also affects individuals (not all of us receive it). And it seems that saying "abortion" is an "important" one and "health care of all" is a "crucial" one ignores the fact that abortion is a health care issue for many, many people.

Moreover, I'd like to see this organization be more aggressive. I think by limiting themselves to just candidates for '08 Presidential election, they will run into two problems, both of which are related: 1) they will have a hard time convincing citizens they are legitimate; 2) they will have a hard time convincing politicians they are legitimate. I understand that the Presidential election is "easier" - it's only one candidate and it has national appeal. But it's also an "all or nothing" deal - either you succeed or you don't - there is no opportunity to take the idea for a test drive and kick the tires, so to speak. Whereas, if they looked at the intervening minor elections, or even local elections, they might be able to tweak their ideas a bit so that the Presidential process runs smoothly.

I'm not sure I've really said anything here. But I can say that I am frustrated by the current political process and parties. So, I'm willing to try anything I guess because I believe in our democratic system and this nation (yeah, I know, sappy - but it's true - no other country in the world has the options and choices that we have - and I mean "we" not just those who can afford to have options). In any event, I just wanted to make y'all aware of this thing and you can form your own opinions. I've thrown my name on the mailing list, so we'll see what comes of it. I promise to keep you updated.

Is This Not Setting Off Some Red Flags??

2006-05-26T09:33:00.000-05:00

The House is preparing a bill to make online gambling illegal.

Sponsored by Robert Goodlatte of Virginia and Jim Leach in Iowa. Man, they must really hate gambling. I mean, there's not a single casino in Iowa (there's 16 of them). But, I suppose it would have been just a little too obvious to have a representative from New Jersey or Nevada sponsor the damn thing. Clearly it's Las Vegas that stands to lose the most from online gambling - I mean there's no way people would go to a real casino if they can just gamble online ($10 billion in gambling revenue in 2005 in Las Vegas alone).

It seems a little odd that the nation's most corrupt industry is getting protectionist legislation and not a single person is saying a damn thing other than to note that it might be a little silly. And, I'm a little baffled at what they hope to accomplish. It's the idiots that go online and "get their feet wet" that end up filling up the Las Vegas (and Indian) Casino blackjack and poker tables.

I live sort of close to a casino (there's one in Milwaukee) where I COULD go to play poker. But I can't play a nickle-warm-up game there like I can online. The advantage of online play is that makes it cheap to play, so I feel comfortable going to the casino and blowing my money there. For a lot of "newbies" the online experience takes away a lot of the apprehension of walking into that poker room for the first time. I'd be willing to bet that if this thing passes and the feds are able to enforce it, that the Casinos will see a decrease in money earned from their poker operations.

So, I guess I'm not really sure what they're hoping to accomplish. Bob Goodlatte may dislike gambling, but there's hundreds of casinos all over this country - what does he care about online gambling just adding to the fray? My guess is because all of the online casinos are off-shore thus not going into his pocket. So - instead of making it illegal, they should be passing legislation to regulate online gambling inside the United States. Simple. Elegant. Done, problem solved (because we all know that the online casinos will just be run by the Las Vegas players, so they'll be getting their money they're so afraid they're losing).

The Greek Ideal

2006-05-24T09:34:00.000-05:00

I was in the gym the other day, just finishing up and about to leave when I got into a conversation with a 51-year old grandfather. We were talking about what makes life good. We both agreed that something like the Greek ideal of a good life was close to correct. This is the idea that the good life consists of a balance of intellectual, physical, and spiritual challenges. Now, I'm an atheist, so for me "spiritual" means, perhaps, "moral and aesthetic," but anyway I'm on board. We were also talking about the need for challenge, the need for adversity. People grow when they are challenged. People not only need to be challenged, bu they need to be challenged in multiple non-overlapping ways. Roughly: physically, mentally and spiritually (though I'm not sure these categories are exhaustive, or even very good; some set of sub-categories may be better).

This means to me that we need to structure society to present these sorts of challenges. First, maybe we give kids intellectual challenges in school, but at least the kinds of broad critical thinking skills that generalize well are being under-emphasized in favor of more easily testable skill sets. To me this is ridiculous: who is it exactly that thinks that ease of testing is good indicator of intellectual value? This is a fallacy so absurd that I will not even bother to refute it here. So, my point is that we are failing in this society to give our children the kinds of intellectual challenges that they need to grow. Second, P.E. is also being tossed out in many school districts. This is amazing. There are societal benefits to teaching children the value of exercise (i.e. less obesity and all of the economic woes that derive from it), but moreover, it's screwing the kids out of another of the sets of challenges that they need to grow into well-rounded, healthy adults! Facing a little bit of self-imposed physical pain helps you to know yourself better, to know what you're capable of. It can breed confidence and strength, and conduce to emotional stability. None of these claims are new, and many of them are heard in reference to the movement to encourage young girls to pursue sport activities. But now, not only are girls not getting enough physical activity, but everyone is getting screwed!

OK last one: "spiritual" growth. Like I said, I see this as "moral and aesthetic" growth. Some might argue that moral teaching ought to be the sole domain of the parents (and their church, of course). Setting aside the loss of art programs, which fits in to the aesthetic side, I want to address the idea of helping kids achieve moral growth in state-sponsored activities like public school. I think it's silly to say that only parents should teach their kids right from wrong, etc. The state, and we all, have an interest in seeing that children are taught certain values that are necessary to the existence of a democracy. These include, but are not limited to, tolerance, respect for others, a sense of civic duty, an appreciation of diversity, and so on. I absolutely think that the parents are, and ought to be, the primary moral instructors (how could they not be? They have unmitigated access for the first 3-4 years). But the parents alone aren't necessarily even able to provide all of the challenges necessary for a child. It is a different situation to be surrounded by your peers and asked to make decisions than to be told by your parents what you should do. Further, I think that certain kinds of peer-group activities can lead to feeling a sense of civic duty (e.g. the responsibility to vote, to understand the governmental process, to be an active member of various community projects, committees, and so on), in a way that purely local family interaction may not be able to provide. Our schools currently provide, if any, only the barest introduction to the process of government, and how to participate in it. It is this kind of moral instruction that I think is needed in schools. Arguments can be made for "peer mediation" programs and such, for groups of kids who tend to be disruptive and aggressive, but that's not my focus here. That is the kind of thing that I think parents need to provide, and when they don't, I'm not sure that any school can systematically correct it. It looks like to me the kind of thing that takes dedicated, focused effort for each kid, not any kind of general algorithmic-type program.

My point is that, if anything like the Greek ideal is right, we are currently failing to provide the children of this country with any of the three general sorts of challenges that they require in order to grow into well-developed, happy adults.

The World Cup

2006-05-23T08:46:00.000-05:00

On June 9 the World Cup starts. 90% of this country could care less. There's about 10% of us that are truly interested in watching the games. I won't get into an argument about watching soccer on television. It's like baseball - some people get it, some people don't. I can understand if you're one of the people don't - but there are another 3 billion people in this world who do, so trust me, YOU are the one in the minority. You can laugh and snigger all you want, but I'm not the one watching 30 cars make left hand turns for 3 hours.

In any event. It's a simple request. I want to watch the games of the world's most popular sporting event. It's only held once every four years. It shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. But, here's the problem. I don't have cable. ABC is only showing like 11 games - my guess is the 4 US games, then semi-finals and finals games, and possibly a few Mexico or other random games. ESPN and ESPN2 are showing the remaining 53 games. So, I won't get to see any of those.

I called to check on just subscribing to ESPN and ESPN2 (and OLN just for kicks so I can watch the Tour de France). See, I subscribe to "local" cable - as I think I've mentioned before. I get ABC/CBS/NBC/WB/UPN/PBS/WGN and also CSPAN a few shopping channels, a religious channel and a spanish channel (univision - we'll come back to this in a minute). I pay about $11/month for "cable" now - if I want the minimum cable package that includes ESPN and ESPN2 I have to pay $49/month. I'm sorry, but ESPN is not worth $38/month. So, now I'm back to the same problem.

I look around the internet to see if maybe there's an internet video thing I can subscribe to. NBA, MLB, and NFL all have packages that I can watch games live over the internet. I thought the World Cup might. It turns out they do. In Israel and Brazil. And both are blocked to non-residents. And while I'm sure I could figure out some hack to fake them into thinking a resident, I'd rather not have to do that. So back to the drawing board.

I started thinking - you know what? The Mexicans are huge soccer fans. I've seen soccer on Telemundo and in Mexican restaurants. I wonder who is broadcasting for the Mexicans. Turns out - Univision! 58 of the 64 games. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish. Have you ever watched soccer in Spanish, though? It's AWESOME. They get so much more excited about it than the Americans. I don't understand a goddamn word, but it's fun. So. I'll be watching the World Cup in Spanish this year. Except for some weekend games which I'll get to see in English on ABC. Most likely I'll watch the Mexican broadcast anyway.

So, now the problem is finding a way to record the games. I got rid of my VCR years ago. And I heard that WalMart was going to stop selling them. So, I've got to make a decision - get a VCR and throw it away when I'm done with it. Or get a DVD Recorder. The VCR is cheap - but I can't do anything with it when I'm done. I'm uncertain about timing for the DVD recorder. My concern is that I won't be able to get enough time on a DVD Recorder. With a VCR on low settings I can record 8 hours - plenty of time to record 2 or 3 games a day. With a DVD Recorder I think I'm going to be limited to 2 hours TOPS.

Anyway. All y'all electronics geeks out there (Brian, Aveh, Pete?!) help me think this one through. Any great ideas? You know the limits - and no, get a "TIVO" is not an option ($20/month for the ability to record 25 channels? I don't think so). I have thought about a TV Tuner/Recorder for my computer so I can record to hard-drive. But, given the age of my computer, I don't think I have enough empty slots for one. But it IS an option.

Brian, I know you have an ORB account - any chance of you recording to your computer and me grabbing your feed?

Don't Let Anyone Patent This Idea Because It's Now In The Public Domain

2006-05-19T09:49:00.000-05:00

Does this ever happen to you? You're in a meeting and you hear, from outside the meeting someone's cell phone ring. You think "God damn inconsiderate bastard." And then you think "Shit! Thank god it wasn't MY phone." So, you reach into your pocket (those of you who always have your hands in your pockets, you can just skip to the next step) and grab your cell phone and turn off the ringer. Phew. Disaster averted.

Then, the next morning you go to put your cell phone in your pocket and you notice you have missed a call and have a voicemail. Then it dawns on you. You never turned the ringer back on.

Someone should invent a ring-tone timer, so that way you can just turn off the ring-tone for like 2 hours, then it automatically turns itself back on. That way you can't forget. Simple, easy to do. Quite frankly, not really sure why it hasn't already been done.

But let's take it a step further. Movie theaters have been threatening to jam cellphones for years. It sucks when a phone rings in the middle of a movie and some jackass doesn't realize it's their phone. But jamming the phone is not the solution. I've been to movies with Dr. Aveh when he's received important calls during a movie (of course, he should actually leave the theater to answer the phone, but that's another admonishment for another day). And, I'm sure, parents would want to receive a call from the babysitter.

But, what if there was a signal that could be sent to the phone that would set the phone in silent (vibrate) mode while the movie was playing? That way the call can come through, but the phone doesn't ring out loud.

There is one complication. This idea would be contingent on all the cell carriers adopting a ring-tone trigger standard, which will never happen because each of them would want THEIR OWN trigger standard to be adopted. So then the companies would have to get lobbyists in Washington to try to get a "ring tone trigger standard" legislation passed. Inevitably some silly consumer rights group would argue that turning off the ringer remotely would be invasion of their right to leave the ringer on whenever they god-damned felt like. So then you'd have a counter-ring-tone-trigger organization to tie up the legislation. Ultimately nothing would get done, but our cell phone rates would increase to pay for the lobbyists who didn't actually accomplish anything.

So, maybe I'm just better off remembering to turn my phone back on.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

2006-05-09T11:08:00.000-05:00

In the Chicago Tribune today there is a story about private labeling in grocery stores that I think deserves some thorough commentary. I hope the Tribune, and John Schmeltzer, will forgive my fair use of their article as I copy it in its entirety for purposes of this commentary. I will put my in-line comments in a different color. I apologize in advance for the length.

Some introductory comments first. Erin and I were actually just talking about this the other day. When was the last time you saw a black-and-white generic food product? Think hard, because I can't remember the last time. I clearly remember them from when I was a kid. I think I remember them in early college when I was poor and eating macaroni and cheese and ramen on a daily basis. But, I don't really remember the last time I saw an honest-to-god generic package. From a consumer's perspective this is troubling - it acted as a sort of 'negative' brand recognition. I knew when I saw the black-and-white, that the product in question was the generic. It was the baseline for comparison. I wasn't paying any extra for marketing, I was getting the cheapest product I could buy. And I mean that in every way possible. But, for some people, and in some circumstances, that's exactly what we, as consumers, want. Sometimes it's all we can afford. Sometimes we just don't care. In any event, we don't want to pay for marketing, we don't want to pay for 'prestige,' we don't want to pay for anything other than a cheap product.

And it kept the other brands honest. As consumers we knew how much the food 'really' cost because we could compare it against the generics. We still, for the most part, willing paid the premium, because frankly Kraft mac-and-cheese tasted a hell of a lot better than the generic. I could tell that just by looking at the labels and I could recognize it as such. That's the purpose of labels - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I didn't buy the generic mac-and-cheese the second time. I gladly paid the premium for Kraft.

Anyway, with that out of the way, on to the story:

Generics heat up battle of brands

By John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 9, 2006

Once relegated to the bottom shelves where only the thriftiest of shoppers found them, generic foods are shedding their drab, functional black-and-white wrappers and going top shelf, so to speak.

Yes. Functional. As in "serving a function" - in this case, the aforementioned 'negative' product recognition.

From cookies to oatmeal, and just about every food category in between, "private-label" products are evolving into premium products.

This is a bit misleading. They aren't "premium" as in "better," they are just "premium" as in "cost more." Have you ever had Kroger's "Premium Select" mac-and-cheese?? It's just as vile as the generic crap.

They are commanding the attention of shoppers who are willing to spend more money for them, while giving the grocery industry an important weapon in its ongoing battle for survival, industry analysts say.

How about a better weapon like "more efficient layouts." How about a better weapon like "more informed staff." How about a better weapon like "local produce." These are all things that local groceries can offer over the big-boxes. Differentiate on service and leave the products alone.

One big sign of the transformation emerged this week at the Food Marketing Institute show at McCormick Place, where an entire pavilion and several seminars are dedicated to the topic--the first time at a show for FMI, where grocery manufacturers showcase their newest and best products in front of retailers from all over the world.

Shoppers see other signs of the shift everywhere--organic oatmeal under the "O" label at Dominick's, Whole Dairy cream cheese at Whole Foods and pasta with a red bull's-eye on the box at Target.

He should have put "organic" in quotations. Have you looked at that label?? Hardly "oats right out of the ground" that one would expect from a oatmeal product labelled as "organic." Which leads to another problem in the grocery business - false, or at least mildly deceptive labelling. Anymore, what constitutes "organic" is unknown. The FDA's definition of "organic" is extraodinarily loose. You'll notice that it merely requires that any one ingredient in the package to have been grown "without the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, hormones, antibiotics, or artificially-derived chemical additives." Only products labelled at least "100% organic" or "certified organic" are assured.

Where generics represented 1 or 2 percent of a grocery store's sales in the 1970s, they now account for an average of 17 percent, representing $107 billion in spending in the United States. That's expected to grow to more than $130 billion by 2010, according to ACNielsen.

Some of this was due to a loss of stigma attached to generic products. In the 1980s, due maybe in part to more wide-spread availability of big-box groceries (remember, until the 1970s most grocery stores were not huge over-blown affairs because of poor refrigeration - most groceries were relatively small, family owned operations), due in part to reduced discretionary spending in the middle class, due in part to increase consumer awareness of what they were paying for, middle-class consumers bought generics instead of paying for Kraft's marketing.

This represents a serious problem for big food companies like Glenview-based Kraft Foods or Downers Grove-based Sara Lee, whose business models are based on the idea that shoppers will pay a premium for a widely known product. Both companies are restructuring their businesses to remedy flat earnings growth and sagging stock prices.

While generics have traditionally been cheaper, price doesn't appear to be driving shoppers toward them now. Consumers have shown a willingness to pay as much or more for an upscale generic than for a nationally advertised product.

Or maybe it's just that consumers have duped into buying generics. Again, the product hasn't changed, the groceries are just putting a different label on the box. And, if you go somewhere like Kroger, they misleadingly price everything with their damned "store card" shenanigans that the store brands always appear cheaper, even though they aren't. More on this later. I promise.

"Sales of private-label foods are no longer limited to the historic profile of the low-income and middle-income blue-collar shopper," said Todd Hale, an executive with market research firm ACNielsen. "It is now spreading to high-income households."

Again, see my above comment about increased consumer awareness. Why pay more for a boxed product that is just going to one part of a larger meal where you can't taste the difference in quality? If I'm making beef stroganoff does it really matter if I buy the generic egg noodles? No. I'm not really going to taste them anyway - the cream and butter and ground beef are going to override any taste of the noodles. So why pay a premium for Kraft egg noodles?

In fact, many private-label products are created to be higher-quality options than the national-brand competition, according to Peter Brennan, president of Stamford, Conn.-based Daymon Worldwide, which closely tracks sales of store brands.

"What has changed is the quality of the product," he said. "This is where grocers will have to move if they are to compete effectively."

Horseshit. Prove it. I've had Kroger's Premium Select brand. It's shit. Grocers aren't improving the product, they are re-labelling and re-pricing the old product. And, even if they are improving the old product - WHY?? Consumers want the cheap crap - particularly for low-end, bulk products. And, you know what? Fine, make your fancy "premium" store brand - but leave me the cheap generic so that I can buy it if I want it.

Growing percentage of sales

With the wider customer base that comes with targeting both premium and low-cost shoppers, private-label sales at some mass supermarkets represent as much as 35 percent of sales, according to Brennan.

So? The financial gap in this country is growing. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting (relatively) poorer. Marginal discretionary income is dropping. Workers are losing real money to inflation and cost-of-living increases all around the country. So, consumers are getting smarter with their money. So what? He also doesn't address deceptive pricing by the likes of Kroger and the other large grocers with their "store cards."

Some grocers, such as Cincinnati-based Kroger Stores and San Antonio-based HEB, have diligently developed store brands in an effort to help them take back market share lost in recent years to Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Costco and Trader Joe's--all of which have invested in private labels.

Ninety percent of the products sold at Aldi Foods are private label, while 70 percent of Trader Joe's sales are of private-label products. Two German billionaire brothers own both stores.

Have you ever eaten anything from Aldi? Have you ever been into an Aldi? 90 percent of all Aldis are in economically depressed and blighted areas. Before private brands existed, a stroll through Aldi was only generics. That's what Aldi's is, that's what they do. They sell generics. Except now they put pretty pictures on the box.

With so many retailers in the game, U.S. sales of store brands have more than doubled the growth rate of manufacturer brands--5 percent compared to 2 percent--in the last two years, according to Nielsen.

It's called market saturation. Are you familiar with the concept?

Currently, 25 percent of the U.S. population buys 50 percent of the private-label products being sold. But that is quickly shifting.

And the trend is expected to continue for at least the next five years, Hale said, noting that rising oil prices are going to begin squeezing more than just those people living on fixed incomes.

"Value retailing is winning today and it will be the driving force for the next three to five years," he said.

Hmmm...a semi-intelligent comment. I knew you had it in you.

Retailers that have strong private labels will be able to compete and hold their own against the big boxes, Virginia Simmons, a consultant with McKinsey & Co., told an overflow crowd of supermarket executives at one of the many private-label sessions staged by FMI and Daymon Worldwide.

"Private label is a brand in its own right and needs to be marketed just as the brands," she said.

"Compete and hold their own against big boxes." Let's look at that a little bit. Why are grocers trying to compete against big boxes? Just because Wal-Mart puts food in the store doesn't make it a grocery store. Have you looked at the products in a Wal-Mart? More sodium and shelf-stability than any one person should ever have to consume. That crap will, literally, rot your insides. And grocery stores want to duplicate this? I went in to a Kroger recently and they were selling porch swings. Who the FUCK buys a porch swing at Kroger?!?

Marketing costs also soar

But the need to spend on marketing eats up some of the modest difference in the profit margins. The average profit margin on private-label products is 33 percent before store expenses, while the average profit margin on brand-name products is 29 percent.

Ah. My favorite part - private label pricing; I could write a whole post on this, but I'll try to keep this part short. Let's look at how Kroger does this. You go into Kroger to buy something, let's call it "cheese." I live in Wisconsin (at the time I lived near Wisconsin) so cheese is a pretty popular item. You go find their cheese aisle. And here's what you find: most of it is "Premium Select" brand. Let's say I was looking for a cheddar cheese - it's a semi-soft cheese, that should have some give in the texture, but should be firm. It should have basically two ingredients: milk and yeast. The "Premium Select" brand is soft. Not just "some give" but like firm pillow soft. The "ingredients" are extensive. I manage to find, in the back, a single Wisconsin brand cheese - it is one of the cheaper, lower-quality cheeses, but it looks and feels like real cheddar - and it only has two ingredients. So, I compare the prices. They are priced identically. BUT, the "Premium Select" has a "price reduction" for using the "store card" (you know, that card where I give them all of my personal data so they can track everything I buy and inundate me with crap that I might want because Erin bought some Tampax using my card one day? It's also the personal data that they sell to the highest bidding "partner"). This "price reduction" makes the "Premium Select" cheaper than the Wisconsin brand. I would estimate that 80-90% of humanity will purchase the cheaper of the two - whether through ignorance, or not caring, or some ill-conceived notion of "value" (I mean, they are the same weight, look similar, there doesn't appear to be a difference - only someone who knew what it was supposed to look and feel like in the first place, and cared would even know that they weren't the same). But, if I go to an independent grocer, like "Woodman's" or "Treasure Island" (I know, Woodman's and Treasure Island aren't truly independent, but it's as close as you're going to get these days), you will see that the identical Wisconsin cheese is priced at the exact same price as the "Premium Select" brand with the discount. So, Kroger is over-charging on their non-store-brand products and getting to people to buy their store brand by offering "discounts" via the "store card." So, why do people go to Kroger? Because it's usually closer and people are lazy.

Regardless, private labels are likely to keep growing, if markets in European countries are any indication. European private labels represent 23 percent of sales, on average, or about $246 billion in spending. ACNielsen projects that will grow to $317 billion in 2010.

In Switzerland, 45 percent of the products sold by that country's food stores are private label. In Germany 30 percent are.

Why, particularly, would markets in Europe be any indication? Are they more advanced grocers than us? They don't refrigerate eggs there. Why would I trust what they do in their grocery stores as indicative of what will happen here??

With the growth of private labels growing around the world, many foodmakers are starting to produce for both markets. Mainline manufacturers including Sara Lee Corp., ConAgra Foods Inc., the spicemaker McCormick & Co. and Associated Brands, which manufactures Knox Gelatin, are producing foods bearing labels other than their own.

This should be illegal. Perhaps some other day, I will detail why. Suffice to say if product A and product B are both the exact same product, they should bear the same label to prevent consumer confusion.

Ray Borooah, president of Anaheim-based Harris Tea Co. said all the major supermarket chains are now counting on high-quality private-label products, including tea, to drive their profitability and build customer loyalty.

Rather than the typical Lipton, Celestial Seasonings or Twinnings, Safeway and Kroger have their own specially blended teas, he said.

"Their own specially blended teas"??????? Has the author tasted that crap?? Blending tea leaves with sawdust does not make it a "special blend!"

"The Safeway green tea has a Japanese blend, while Kroger's is from China," he said. It's one way stores try to tailor their blends to their customers' tastes. But experts warned that grocers should not attempt to just copy what the brand names are putting on the shelves of their stores.

"It is not about duplicating brands, but it is about truly innovating," said Simmons. "Distinctive private labeling is a weapon in driving store loyalty."

How about driving store loyalty by offering a knowledgeable, friendly experience in a store where I can buy high-quality, local foods at a reasonable price? I know it can be done - there's a shitload of trucks at every farmer's market in the country that proves it.

----------

jschmeltzer@tribune.com

Baseketball Statistics - Pythagorean Win Percentage

2006-04-28T12:45:00.000-05:00

In baseball there are many theories that go about proving this concept called "statistical luck." Take for example, a guy like Kevin Millwood, the pitcher for the Cleveland Indians in 2005. He had what would be considered, statistically, a very very good year.

Here's his line:
9 W
11 L
30 G
1 CG
192.0 IP
182 H
72 R
61 ER
20 HR
52 BB
146 SO
2.86 ERA
143 ERA+ (park adjusted)
1.219 WHIP

OK, a lot of people may not understand these statistics and I'll briefly run through them, but I wanted to first point out the obvious. These are awesome statistics. Yet he only had 9 wins! That, my friends, is called "unlucky." And it can be statistically shown. As mentioned, we can look throughout all of history and look at pitchers that have had similar years and compare them against each other. What you will find is that when a pitcher has a 2.43 ERA and is 143% better than the rest of the average pitcher in the league, that said pitcher should win more than 9 out of the 30 games he appears in. One important statistic that we are missing is "Run Support." What we would see is that Mr. Millwood had terrible run support from his team when he pitched (runs scored was considerably below the team average for the year). This is "luck."

To make it maybe a little simpler and "step back" for a minute. The object of any game is to score more runs (or points) than you give up. In this case, Mr. Millwood gave up only an average of 2.43 runs for every 9 innings he pitched. Yet, this was only good enough to win 9 games. That means that in the majority of games (9 out of 30 of them to be exact), his team failed to average more than 2.43 runs while he was in the game. This makes sense at the player level. Anyone that followed Mr. Millwood's year last year would describe it as "unlucky." He pitched well, but just didn't get the win.

If you apply that to the team, it's even easier to prove. You can see how many runs a team scores and how many they give up. Based on those numbers you can come surprisingly close to predicting the number of games they "should" have won. Any difference between the "predicted wins" and the "actual wins" is "luck." Which tells you something. If a team comes very close to its "predicted wins" you can say that the team's record accurately reflects the performance of the team. Thus, a team that would be predicted to win 82 games that actually won 82 games, you could say, is an average team. In any event, it is accurate to say that teams that are close to their high predicted wins are actually good and those that are not but still actually won a lot of games were just lucky. (of course, at the end of the day, who cares if you're the one holding the world series trophy over your head, right?)

Baseball statisticians have figured out how to calculated predicted wins, and that number is eerily similar to the "pythagorean theorem." The basic idea is that if you were to plot runs scored on one axis and runs allowed on another axis, the closest distance between them (the hypotenuse) is wins (sort of). Anyway, the actual formula derived by Bill James is: runs scored squared divided by (runs scored squared plus runs allowed squared). This will give you the team's predicted winning percentage. Multiply by games played (in baseball = 162) and voila - Predicted Wins.

In 2005, the Indians scored 790 runs and allowed 642. Running that through the ol' formula gives you: 624100/(624100+412164) = 624100/1036264 = .6022 (predicted win pct) = 98 Wins. They actually won 93, there's about +-4 on the calculation, but that's an "unlucky" by about 5 Wins. IF they had won those 5 games, they still would not have won their division. (The White Sox won 99), but would have made the playoffs. Let's look at the White Sox: 741 Runs, 645 Runs Allowed = 549081/(549081+416025) = 549081/965106 = .5689 (predicted win pct) = 93 Wins. So, the White Sox were 6 games over their predicted wins. Which means they were lucky. The Indians had 93 wins, and they didn't make the playoffs. So, like I said, at the end of the day who cares about luck when you're the one with the World Series trophy right?

So, what can we take away from that though? Well, we can say that despite winning the World Series, the White Sox were lucky last year. Which tells Kenny Williams, their GM, that they aren't really as good as their record. And that chances are they won't be so lucky next year - if they don't improve, they may not even make the playoffs. Thus, in the offseason, Mr. Williams made quite a few moves to improve their offense (their runs allowed was very good, but their runs scored was in the lower half of the league). On the other hand, the Indians knew that they were unlucky; thus they made very few moves in the offseason - knowing that if they just got rid of the bad luck, they would make the playoffs.

Anyway. These same ideas apply to both football and basketball. The exponents change a bit (to 2.47 and 16.5, respectively - though basketball-reference suggests 14 as an exponent), but the theory is still the same. I was going to show how it worked with them, but you get the idea, and I'm out of time and space and patience. There has already been some significant work done on Pythagorean Wins for football and basketball (see the above links). Here some links to a football statistics database and a basketball statistics database that you can play around with.

I ran a file for this year's NBA pythagorean wins. Here's a summary: (predicted/actual)

Luckiest Team - Eastern Conference: (+4) Detroit (60/64) and New Jersey (45/49)
Unluckiest Team - Eastern Conference: (-6) Toronto (33/27) and Indiana (47/41)

Luckiest Team - Western Conference: (+8) Utah (33/41)
Unluckiest Team - Western Conference: (-3) Golden State (37/34), LA Lakers (48/45), and Memphis (52/49)

So what does all this mean? Well, not much quite frankly at the top of the Playoff brackets. There are no teams that would have made or missed the playoffs if they had or had not met their predicted wins. However, some of the rankings would have been a little different.

Current Playoff Matchups - Western Conference:
San Antonio (1)/Sacramento (8)
Phoenix (2)/LA Lakers (7)
Denver (3)/LA Clippers (6)
Dallas (4)/Memphis (5)

Pythagorean Playoffs - Western Conference:
San Antonio (1)/Sacramento (8)
Phoenix (2)/LA Clippers (7)
Denver (3)/LA Lakers (6)
Dallas (4)/Memphis (5)

As you can see - not much difference. Only the Kobe/Nash matchup would not have happened. But you'd have Kobe/Carmelo, which would have been equally interesting.

Current Playoffs - Eastern Conference:
Detroit (1)/Milwaukee (8)
Miami (2)/Chicago (7)
New Jersey (3)/Indiana (6)
Cleveland (4)/Washington (5)

Pythagorean Playoffs - Eastern Conference:
Detroit (1)/Milwaukee (8)
Miami (2)/Chicago (7)
New Jersey (3)/Washington (6)
Cleveland (4)/Indiana (5)

So, again, no interesting deviations other than the regional matchups of Cleveland/Indiana and New Jersey/Washington.

Baseketball Statistics (part 1)

2006-04-18T09:33:00.000-05:00

I'm a huge baseball fan. I'm a ridiculous baseball fan. I admit to being attracted to the 'dark side' of baseball. That side of baseball that the likes of Tommy Lasorda refuse to admit exists. The side of baseball that has produced winning teams in Oakland for years, got Boston its first World Series victory since my grandfather was young enough to not remember it, created winning teams in Cleveland all through the 90s. I'm a believer in statistics, in numbers, in knowing that so many games are played and so many at-bats, and so many hits, and so many runs, and so many put-outs are made that every player tends to an average. That a player's numbers are an accurate representation of their comparative ability for that particular year. Using statistical methods you can normalize years against each other and get a relatively decent comparison from year-to-year of a player's ability. Because baseball has been played for so long and most statistics are based on simple metrics that have been tracked for ages we can track trends over time. Indeed, most statistics are based simply on Hits, Runs, Walks and Strikeouts. And those four numbers have been tracked since at least the early 1900s. And what we can say, after analyzing a lot of players is that players that show a propensity to do x, also show a propensity to do y. Thus, when Player A does x, we can postulate that there is a very good chance he will do y. This analysis is very useful in baseball. If you want to build a team around On-Base-Percentage ("OBP") and Slugging Percentage ("SLG"), you can find players who have exhibited tendencies that are indicative of getting on base and getting high-profit hits (doubles, triples, home runs). While statistics aren't perfect, teams like Oakland are showing that they work more often than not. Even without a whole lot of money, if you spend the money on the computer power and invest in the raw data collection, you can assemble teams of relatively young or inexpensive players to fill roles and put together a team capable of winning year after year. In some circles it's called "Moneyball" based on the book written by Michael Lewis about Billy Beane - the GM of the Oakland Athletics.

What I find most interesting is two things: 1) professionals in baseball continue to deride statistics as a "dork's game" and worthless - in their opinion nothing beats the opinion of a time-worn scout; 2) other sports have not adopted similar approaches despite the fact that some, like basketball, could probably profit greatly from it.

As to the first, I'll just point to the Los Angeles Dodgers - perhaps the one team most singularly attached to the 'old school' way of scouting. They've been terrible over the last few years. Spending money on players that 'look good' but have shown no real consistent ability at the major league level. They consistently outspend most teams in the majors, yet teams, like Oakland, consistently put up bigger winning percentages. Why? I would argue inept front office led by Tommy Lasorda - the holy ghost of all things Dodger. He single-handedly ran out of town the only GM to make any sense there and instituted his own old school methodologies. Simply put, the old ways are out of date. When they work, they are great, but I think GMs like Billy Beane and Mark Shapiro and Kenny Williams (notice they're all AL GMs??) are leading the way in developing teams using a combination of statistical analysis and scouting ground-work.

As for the second issue, I think the other sports are missing out. And the point of this series of posts will point out some places where those sports might be able to bastardize some of the well-developed baseball analytics for their own usage. Things like the pythagorean winning percentage, runs created, scoring efficiency, park ratings, etc. These metrics have a (relatively) long history in baseball and have been refined to the point where they work pretty well. Each post I'll try to take one metric and adopt it for use in some other sport to show how its theories will hold up (or not!) to cross-sports usage.

Enjoy. When I get some time, I'll look first at the pythagorean theory for predicting expected wins and losses.

Tom DeLay and Other Partisan Politics Ridiculousness

2006-04-05T13:15:00.000-05:00

A New York Times Analysis Piece about Tom DeLay deciding to quit the House of Representatives. I also heard a short discussion of this on NPR this morning on my drive in to work. In any event, it provides a good opportunity to look at the role of partisan politics, since Mr. DeLay is widely credited with, if not inventing, at least feeding and exacerbating partisan politics in Washington, and by extension throughout the United States. Of course, say what you will, the Times is unabashedly Democrat. And this piece is no exception, they lay into Mr. DeLay and Republicans in general something fierce. All but calling the Republican Party a pack of tyrants who use their control over both legislative branches to feed their own power. They fail to suggest that if the roles were reversed and Democrats were the ones in power that they would do precisely the same thing.

And therein lies the problem of modern bi-partisan politics, and I think a general indictment on our modern society in general. In politics and law, in entertainment, in sports, indeed in common every day life there is an overwhelming contrariness. People feel the need to be contrary simply for the sake of disagreeing. Granted, it's fun, but it can be really frustrating when you are trying to get something accomplished.

Those who know me are screaming "HOLY POT AND FUCKING KETTLE BATMAN!" I am the most contrary person you'd ever want to meet. Well, sometimes I'm the most contrary person you'd ever want to meet. I have honestly argued with people over whether the sky was blue. I argued that the concept of "blue" is a linguistic construct and that other people call "blue" different things, and that it's just mere coincidence that it's called "blue" at all and not "speaker" or some other word that someone along the line had to have invented because there HAD to have been a time when "blue" was "invented" - it's a stupid, childish argument that, I think, everyone has had when they were 16 and finally figured out that they knew everything.

The problem is, I think this is the equivalent of just about every argument that is held any more in the political arena (I promise to try to keep this post centered on politics). On "Fresh Air" yesterday Ben Carlin, a producer of "The Daily Show", was asked about a spot that frequently appears on that show called "This Day in Punditry" (or something like that) where they have children assume the role of 'talking heads' found on MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, CNN, etc. To point out just how childish the arguments can be. And I think he's right on. But it isn't limited to pundits - it happens every day in politics.

It seems that politicians will say whatever they think we (the public) want to hear. Or, if not what we want to hear, what they (by "they" I mean "their party") want us to hear on the subject. There is no objective debate of an issue. There is the Republican side and the Democrat side. Either you're "for" abortion, or you're "against" it. Forget for the moment that no one is going around saying they are "pro" abortion! It's a ridiculous position, but those in the Republican Party want you to believe that if you aren't against abortion, you are no better than a murderer. An "abortion" is just a representative topic, this is true for Medicare, Education, the War in Iraq, just about every topic you can imagine. You're either for us or you're against us. There is no middle-ground policy. They can afford to take this position because they are the dominant party and it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.

Such contrarian stances result in bad law. It results in the state of South Dakota banning all abortions - for the SOLE REASON of testing Roe v. Wade. What's the point!? Yet, we have to go through the motions because the Republicans feel some need to assert their power on the issue. Actually, they know that inertia is a powerful force. Half the battle in any contrarian policy is getting enough people to agree with you - so if they can power through an issue there is a good chance that it will never get reversed. It's inertia, and the result of an A.D.D. society. They know they can put an idea out there, the public will get in a huff over it, and if it survives the huff, the public will move on to the next topic and they can get their legislation through. It's happening with abortion. It's already happened with the War in Iraq and wiretapping. And it's going to happen with Digital Rights Management and other IP issues.

What the Republicans (or indeed the party in power, which just happens to be Republican Party right now) have figured out is that all you really need is a lot of money. If someone, say a Political Action Committee, has enough money, they can keep an issue on the legislative agenda forever. And if the issue stays on the agenda forever, eventually the public will move on and it will get passed. For instance, look at the "Broadcast Flag" issues. For three years the MPAA, RIAA and TV groups have been trying to get the broadcast flag issue passed. It refuses to go away despite overwhelming public resistence to it by manufacturers and the public. Yet, it stays on the plate and every year some Republican stooge (it's always a Republican, by the way) tries to sneak it into some budget as a rider that hopefully no one will notice. And every year, some one notices (usually the EFF) and the senators and representatives are flooded with mail and email and telephone calls and counter-propaganda about how unproductive it would be. Eventually it will get passed. Why? Because the powers that want it have more money than the powers that don't and they can keep it on the agenda forever. And eventually the EFF will be looking the other way.

And that's how politics works. There's no intelligent debate. There's just "the way it's going to be." And that way is whatever way someone wants to pay for it to be. We don't argue the relative merits of a position and select a course of action that is reasonable and move on to another topic. We yell at each other until one party forgets what the other is yelling about. It's like throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. Except when the shit falls off the wall, it just gets picked up (assuming someone has paid for it to get picked up) and put back in the pile to throw at the wall.

Right now it is the Republican agenda that is getting most of the shit to stick. Why? Because they are in control of both parts of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. So, throwing money at them is a good idea - you are more likely to get your agenda passed. In the 1970s and into the 1980s it was the Democrats. And what happened, well let's see - civil rights, advances in gender equality, increased quality of education (especially at the university level among the lower-tier universities), increased access to education, etc. And, who was making money? Teacher's unions, old people, manufacturers' unions, and other political action committees who have a vested, monetary interest in ensuring that their constituency gets paid.

Of course, we also had war, and terrible foreign relations, and oil shortages. Uhhh...wait. Maybe that stuff isn't related to politics. But wait, let's look a little deeper, because while we have those things, we have some very powerful companies making a shit load of money off of them (unlike the first time around) - for example, Halliburton is seeing record profits because of the war, the oil companies are seeing all time record profits, etc. So, unlike the first time, the economy isn't being hurt by those 'problems' this time it's being helped!!

Anyway, as usual, this has gotten far afield. But the main thesis is this: because we don't have a negotiation process in politics, because our political process is so contrarian and majoritarian, we have the result of a dominant party that forces through paid-for legislation, rather than legislation that is aimed at the best interests of the general public. Am I just going to bitch, or do I have a real solution? Mostly, I'm just going to bitch today. But my suggestion, which will likely be the subject of some other post some other day is: a viable third party.

The Crappiest Registration Form Ever

2006-03-31T09:14:00.000-06:00

I'm not normally one to pile on good causes that do stupid things. Well. Wait. Yes I am. And really, I should stop making fun of cancer-related subjects. But really this registration form is one of the worst designed forms I've ever seen.

I'm not unfamiliar with marketing forms and surveys and registration forms. Part of my Masters work was in Marketing Analysis and I worked for many years as a web designer writing registration forms and surveys. I even wrote an automated survey generator - just type in some questions and answers, click a few buttons and instantly formatted survey or test with full grading and analysis. Anyway, the point is - I've seen a lot of forms and I understand how to make them correctly; or at least not incorrectly.

Some brief information about this form. It's a registration form to help volunteer for the American Cancer Society Run/Walk in Madison, WI the weekend of 4/8. I wanted to volunteer to help out with the run/walk. Not really sure what they'll need me to do, but I'm always happy to help. So, you go their main site and then you click on "volunteer registration" and you are presented with a form.

The first question (statement) is: "I am a cancer survivor" then a yes/no. OK, not a bad way to start - I can understand that they will likely give priority to cancer survivors since they ARE the American Cancer Society. If they have to choose between me (not a cancer survivor) and someone else that is a cancer survivor, they'd rather have the other guy. Fair enough. But I've had family members with cancer, it's not like I am unfamiliar with the issues. But, again, not a bad way to start - I understand it, and it's not required. I click 'no' and move on.

The second question (statement) is: "Select the Race with which you most closely identify." I half expect to see "5K run" and "5K walk" as the options. But no, the options are (in order): African-American/Black; American-Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian; Caucasian/White; Hispanic/Latino; Pacific Islander; Other. Leaving the options themselves alone, WHAT THE FUCK!? Why does this matter? I'm fucking volunteering to help you out. What do YOU care if I'm black, white, or asian? The only conclusion I can come to is that they want to find out who are the minorities so they can make sure they get them where the cameras are and/or that it's some sort of 'affirmative action' question. As if for VOLUNTEERING they are going to give preference to one race over another. Also interesting is the phrasing of the question: "which race do you most closly identify." What do you mean "identify?" Don't you want to know what race I AM? I may not identify with my own race. If I grew up among those of a different race, I may more closely identify with that race. They are my 'culture' and 'family' so to speak despite the fact that I am not, genetically, one of them. Clearly, they are ashamed to be asking the question because they are trying to be delicate about the phrasing. But why ask the question at all? What purpose does the question serve? Luckily it's not required, so I move on.

It doesn't get better with the third question: I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions outlined above. This one's required and there is only one option: "yes." But, if you look at the form carefully you will notice something is missing. Yes, that's right - THERE ARE NO TERMS AND CONDITIONS! Not even a LINK to terms and conditions. What am I clicking 'yes' to? In virtually every other instance I would stop filling out this form right here. There's no way in HELL I'm going to click 'yes' to terms that I are not only presented RIGHT UP FRONT, but terms that I can't even discover from the page that I am agreeing to them on. I've been told that the terms are actually on the "participant's registration" but there is nothing on THIS FORM to indicate that. I reluctantly click "yes" because, really, how bad can the 'terms' actually be? Plus, I'm an attorney, and I know that I can't be held responsible for terms that I've never been given notice of. (let's set aside for the moment the fact that I have submitted a position paper to the American Bar Association that suggests that users have a duty to discover terms that they know exist, even if there is no notice of where exactly the terms are, and failure to discover the terms is not a defense to them)

The next question is: If eligible, I waive my incentive prize. What? What incentive prize? There is nothing here about incentive prizes. Why would I waive it? How do I get it? What is it? Well, there's no way in hell I'm going to waive a prize that may be rightly mine, so I leave this one blank.

Then they get into the name/address information. But they never ask me what I want to volunteer to do! I know that run/walks need a lot of people to a lot of different things. I've participated in many; I've volunteered for them once or twice. It is entirely possible that my EXPERTISE IN RUNNING AN EVENT MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT FUCKING RACE I AM! But, alas, they will never know if I am the greatest timer of all time. Because I will be put into the hat and when they draw out names I may be put at a drink station.

Unless of course, they prefer to use a cancer survivor or a minority for that position.

Network Neutrality and Paying for the Intertron

2006-03-10T09:03:00.000-06:00

A little background for those non-techies who stumble across this mess. Once upon a time in a land not so far away some really geeky dudes in the military wanted a way to communicate with each other in case phone lines went out. Telegraph was one option, but, being geeks, they wanted to invent something entirely new. They worked for an entity called "DARPA" (Defense something something something). The thing they created would be what we currently think of as some weird hybrid between IM and e-mail; sort of like SMS over phone lines. But, it was taking too much time and there was parallel work going on over at MIT and on the west coast at Stanford, so they turned over their research and, more importantly, the physical wires, to the public domain and asked the university folks to do it for them. The university folks were interested in a slightly different application - they wanted to not only talk to each other, but to share documents with each other online. What they realized is that the wires were good for not only sharing these IMs, but also for sharing documents. The only real difference was the language that the computers at each end used to talk to each other. But both messages could travel on the same wires at the same time because the network itself was neutral. In other words, neither the wires themselves, nor the intermediate connecting points, contained any preference for whether the thing they were transferring was an IM or a document. It was all data.

This is important because later more and more types of data made their way on to this thing that came to be called the internet. But the physical network didn't care. So long as it traveled in bits and packets, the network could care less what it was. Some time in the late 90s or so, the sheer amount traffic on these networks required more lines be laid. Since telcos and cable companies were already laying line, it made sense to use their lines. But the lines themselves are not fundamentally different, they still just carry bits and packets around the country without any regard or preference for what is contained in them.

Now, though, these 'private' lines far outnumber the 'public' lines. And the telcos have all established their own little gateways to get on to the internet (called ISPs). Many of them have very lucrative contracts with content providers (Time Warner, Disney, etc.) and most have, or are looking to establish, their own marketplaces for this content. They have realized that companies like Google (not an ISP) provide a very profitable service - they serve up content (of all types) and get paid for it.

Enter the argument. The telcos/cable companies basic argument is this: Google accounts for the vast majority of traffic on our wires, and if we add our traffic to their traffic we'll need to eventually put in more wires, so Google should pay us for this traffic. But the problem is even slightly more nefarious than that. What, say, AT&T has noticed is that Google and Skype and YouTube and others are doing is essentially competing with AT&T. AT&T offers phone and voip (Skype) and television (Google Video and YouTube) and they think that these others are essentially getting a 'free ride' on their lines for their competing services. So, their (AT&T and other telcos/cables) solution is this: let's charge Google and Skype and others for using our lines for these services. Now, their argument is even a little more nuanced than that - because to deny them outright unless they pay would be illegal. So, they are saying "we will provide a base level of service, but if you want to transfer enough packets for a high quality service, you'll have to pay us."

And that, my friends, is a problem. First of all it's a fallacy. They are already being paid for the traffic. When you and I pay for our ISP service - we are paying them for access to these exact kinds of services. It's not my fault that they charge me the same amount of money whether I use it strictly for email (a low-bandwidth use) or for video (a high-bandwidth use). But, the very essence of the internet is that it remain open to any and all types of uses. Because the next step is that only AT&T will allow video, only Comcast will allow voip, you get the idea. And then the net is divided up into these little areas that are controlled by the telcos and cables. Only those transfer mechanisms and protocols that they deign to be permitted will be allowed on the internet, and improvement and technological advance are rendered null because it is controlled by those that hold the right to allow it to travel over the wires in the first place.

So, what are the options? I'm a free-market kind of guy. I think that if the telcos and cables provide the wires and charge for access, that's fine, they have every right to do that. But they shouldn't able to control what gets on to the internet or how it is used. In my opinion, the best solutions is a 'usage' billing system - that way, those that use the 'high-bandwidth' applications pay more. This is, to me, a reasonable solution. If use the internet to watch TV and download movies and music and stream audio, I am using up a lot of band-width. If enough of us do this more lines will have to be laid. Telcos/cables should not have to be in a position where they do this gratis; it's not to be expected of them. So, those of that use more, pay more. We accept this for other utilities: water, gas, electric, etc. If we look at the internet as a utility (which it is because it a public service), then there's no reason to not charge like a utility.

A usage billing system will have one most immediate impact: a drastic decrease in the amount of traffic on the internet. Will it stop? Of course not. People want to use the internet. I will grant that if they had used this system initially, the internet probably would have never grown. But any more it is a necessity. There are things that simply absolutely must be done online. Provided the usage charge is reasonble, bills shouldn't change drastically; particularly because I imagine it will be a "stepped" or "tiered" charge rather than a purely usage fee. Something like: 0-5GB transferred per month = $20; 5GB-30GB $50; 30GB - 100GB $75, etc. Keep in mind that one downloaded movie is about 5GB (so for what most people pay now - about $50/month - they would be able to use the equivalent bandwidth of about 6 movies; quite frankly, I don't know if that's a lot or a little - I know that I currently have 6GB of downloads queued up in Azureus and that's about my normal download activity for a month - although, to be fair, this doesn't include all the back-ground transfers that go on - games I play online, etc. but it seems to me that 30GB is quite a bit of data and 100GB would be transferring my entire media hard-drive in one month; I would think that most people - and most people don't download tons of movies or play tons of video games, etc. - use between 5GB and 30GB of data in an average month). And each month you would just be charged for the amount of bandwidth you used that month. This is similar to the charging for certain applications, but it isn't discriminatory like the other model. It doesn't say "Google, you must pay $X if you want to transfer high quality video" it says to the consumer, "hey, I have no idea what the hell you were doing, but you used a whole lot of bandwidth." And that's a huge difference. As a consumer, I still have choices - I can choose to watch high-quality, or low-quality, I can choose not watch it over the internet at all. But the primary advantage is that it isn't discriminatory.

(An added advantage would be a drastic decrease in piracy; who's going to download libraries of data if they have to pay for it all - of course, it will decrease the amount of 'legal' downloading as well because then you are paying twice for it - admittedly this is a disadvantage, and a fairly big one at that - but I still think the theory is sound, and that this is just something that would be worked out - maybe a 'legal' puchase would act as a credit towards your monthly bill - or, more likely, legal downloads from authorized sources would not 'count' as traffic - though that starts to look less and less like network neutrality - but as long as there were a 'compulsory license' for payment of the bandwidth taken out of the purchase price and the authorizing agency was a third party - maybe the government?? sort of like a 'sales tax' is charged? the 'internet transfer tax' maybe would be collected and authorized by the government and remitted to an ISP fund that is split ratably amongst the ISPs based on number of users? - there shouldn't be too much of a problem? OK, I'll admit, this a pretty tough part of this problem).

I would place one caveat on this: a federal regulation that all houses that have either phone or cable lines must have internet access and that the first GB be free. The internet will have far more potential if every house has access to it. If the house pays for cable or phone, it shouldn't be a problem - it's just another type of data to travel over the line. Hardware developers could build the modems into the products (DSL into phones, Cable into cable boxes or just have the modem as part of the physical house/unit itself, sitting between the outside line and the inside line).

The other option, besides usage-billing, is reverting to government control over the internet. The federal government would buy the lines from the telcos/cables and they would lease it to the municipalities, whatever. I think this is silly, because I think that the free-market can do it itself. But, if private companies can't be responsible about it (and quite frankly, right now there's no reason to think that they can) then it is better off in the hands of the governments where they dole it out as a public utility and ensure that everyone has access.

Anyway. It's just a little rant/essay on why it's important to pay attention to how the telcos/cables are screwing their customers behind their backs. Luckily, it has appeared that the vast majority of the public is standing up to the telcos on this issue. Google has publicly said "bugger off we're not going to pay you." And the technology industry in general has made it clear how terrible of an idea eliminating network neutrality is. But, the telcos are insistent on pushing forward with this. And, if a reasonable alternative isn't developed, we will have many 'personal' internets - there will be an AT&T net, a Comcast net, a Sprint net, a Google net, a Microsoft net, etc. And that will be bad for everyone.

8th Grade Math Is Easy

2006-02-28T16:25:00.000-06:00

I'm pretty sure I knew how to do this in 8th grade, too. In any event - if this is what standardized tests require 8th graders to know, the students have it pretty easy.

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

I always hear how "hard" the standardized test are. But from the questions I've seen from them, they err on the side of too easy. It's just a shame that students that fail these things blame anyone other than themselves. I can guarantee you that everything on those tests is in every curriculum in the country. The really disappointing thing I've found though is that schools are basing their curriculums around these exams, which seems to me to be dumbing down the curriculum. This is stuff that should be a given to an 8th grader, stuff they learned on the way to learning to other stuff - not what the 8th grader should be striving to learn.

The Modern State of the Music Industry

2006-02-27T16:51:00.000-06:00

I can't see anyone giving an interview like this any more.

Thurston Moore, Beck, and Mike D - hilarity ensues. My favorite part is when Beck throws his shoe. Unfortunately most of the music is cut out.

I can't think of a single current modern band (released a debut album post-2000) that can compare. The Strokes, maybe; But they're more "drunk" than "goofy." The rap folks all take themselves entirely too seriously to "lower" themselves to some good ol' "fuckin' around in front of the camera because MTV was dumb enough to let us." The Jackass guys (Bam Margera, etc.) would - but a) they aren't musicians, and b) it's what they do for a living.

The beauty of the interview is that there is a sense of sincerity to it, which just makes it weird. It's not people stupid for the sake of being stupid. Well, there's some of that. But it's just 3 guys being goofy in front of the tv, because that's how they've chosen to be that day. I get the feeling in watching the video that Beck answered many other questions that day by throwing a shoe.

Anyway. Amusing. It's about 6.5 minutes of 1994 goodness.

Sectarian Stupidity

2006-02-24T07:54:00.000-06:00

Sectarian: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences"

Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group

Prior to yesterday I hadn't heard the word "sectarian" more than 5 times in my entire life. Maybe 5 times. Tops. Between yesterday and today I have heard the word AT LEAST 7 times. NY Times headline, Washington Post headline, NPR yesterday (twice), and NPR this morning (three times! in less than 30 minutes!!!). It's like everyone forgot this word existed and now there is mad dash to see who can use it the most.

Some headlines from around the world:
Iraq Imposes Daytime Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Voice of America)
Curfew in Baghdad after sectarian violence (Telegraph - UK)
Iraq sectarian violence kills 130 (Reuters)
Analysis: Iraq sectarian bloodshed not yet civil war (Middle East Online)
Iraq Imposes Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Update1) (Bloomberg)
SECTARIAN VIOLENCE EXPLODES ACROSS IRAQ (SF Chronicle)
Iraq under curfew to quell sectarian violence (CNN International)
Sectarian Violence in Iraq Limiting US Military Response (ABC News)
Nigerian Muslims flee city as sectarian violence subsides (Irish Examiner)
Nigerian Muslims Flee Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
Sectarian violence continues in southern Nigerian (Jeruslem Times)
NIGERIA: Dozens dead as sectarian violence continues in southern Nigeria (Reuters)
U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future (NY Times)

And the two that started it all:
Sectarian Fury Turns Violent in Wake of Iraq Shrine Blast (NY Times)
Shrine Bombing Sparks Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)

I mean, WTF?!? And speaking of "sectarian violence." I have the sneaking suspicion we are about to witness some here in the good ol' US of A. Apparently the state of South Dakota (is that even still a state??) is going to pass a law that makes performing an abortion a felony. Yes, that's right. Good ol' political antagonism. Apparently pissed off that Tom Daschle got beat out for the Senate seat in South Dakota the Republicans are on the warpath there and are going to piss off the entire country. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, the Republicans think that now that they have a stacked deck in the Supreme Court they can finally get that damned Roe v. Wade case over-turned. Even if they COULD get Roe v. Wade overturned, how many states would ban abortions? South Dakota? So, the South Dakotans who need abortions sneak over the border into North Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Wyoming. Or Montana. Or the doctors there perform them and take the risk. Seriously, what purpose do these people think banning an abortion would serve? Congratulations, you have forced someone who doesn't want a kid and probably can't afford the kid to give birth (additional medicare expenses) and raise it (more welfare) in crappy living conditions (low-income, low-literacy). And if they give it up for adoption there's even MORE strain on the state budgets. I'm not saying we should all be out having abortions; it's not like it's fun and games. I'm sure the people who go through with them think about the consequences very, very seriously before doing so. And hopefully they are having them done by competent medical professionals. But now, this ban would prevent competent medical professionals from performing them. And quite frankly, if I were a competent medical professional I wouldn't move to practice in South Dakota. And, as an attorney, knowing there are fewer competent medical professionals in South Dakota, I might just move there - seems like a money-making proposition for me. So, congratulations South Dakota, you've added another social cost to the stupidity - increased medical malpractice costs from suits and increased insurance premiums.

Oh, I guess I'm not the only one to draw the connection.

Stop Snitching (backdated)

2006-02-23T08:51:00.000-06:00

First off, this post is backdated because I think the one above it is better and I didn't want people to not see that one. So, this story that I'm linking to actually was posted on 2/24/2006. Anyway.

The greatest quote I've read in a long, long time:
"In its a priori dismissal of the "Stop Snitching" campaign, the general public has failed to acknowledge the moral complexity and legitimacy of an anti-snitching position." (emphasis in original)

Whenever I hear about the "stop snitching" stuff, I'm always reminded of grade school bullies. Do I have an "anti-snitching position"? No, not really. I can guarantee that if some jackass guns down a friend of mine while I'm standing 2 feet away I will snitch. So, if you're one of those people that will get upset if I snitch - don't gun down my friends while I'm standing there watching. Bastards.

I can tell you, though, that I do, in fact, recognize the "moral complexity and legitimacy" of the "anti-snitching position." I fully support other people's right not snitch. But, recognize that, at least in my mind, there is a significant difference between not snitching on someone for stealing your lunch and not snitching on someone for SHOOTING you (or someone else).

Greed and Loathing in the United States

2006-02-07T08:45:00.000-06:00

Verizon
Mobil
Shell
BP
Alaska

Anyway, you get the idea. I can understand the need to make a buck. I can understand the need to satisfy shareholders. I even understand the arguments that "social welfare" isn't exactly compatible with corporate objectives and isn't necessary from a "free market" point of view. The unfortunate problem is that we don't live in a perfect free market. For example, utilities, such as oil, phones, internet service, water, electric, etc. are not "free markets." You and I cannot just start up an electric plant and start competing with ComEd. You and I cannot just start up a telephony company and start competing with AT&T (or SBC or Cingular, or whoever the hell AT&T is these days). You and I cannot just throw down an oil rig and start competing with Mobil, BP and Shell. There are significant barriers to entry to each of the utility markets. Some are practical: high costs of capital, high costs for fixed assets, labor intensive, technical knowledge, etc. Some are regulatory: licensing for operation, licensing for drilling, licensing to dig to lay down fiber, licensing from entities that already have lines down to use their lines, etc.

Unlike Microsoft's "monopoly" which is more the failure of the market to create a competitive product than the doings of any over-arching conspiracy, the utility "oligolopy" creates a bigger threat. The current players spend millions of dollars a year lobbying congress for two things: deregulation and rigorous licensing standards. The reason is obvious, though maybe not intuitive.

Before deregulation of most of the utilities in the 1980s, the government set hard caps on the prices utilities could charge, the markets they were allowed to enter, and the number of them that exist. The companies argued that with de-regulation there would be greater competition and lower prices. (why would the government listen to the companies?? Did they really think that industry was interested in more competition and lower prices?!?) With deregulation, these barriers were removed, they could charge whatever the market would bear. They could buy up whatever markets they wanted. And they could consolidate into a very few large national companies. These companies have no incentive to "compete" against each other. Rather, they have a large incentive to compete with each other. One agrees to lay down the infrastructure, the others agree to lease it from them. The leases ensure that prices have a floor - at a minimum, no company is going to charge less than what they have to pay to lease the line. High physical barriers to entry ensure that start-ups cannot compete. If a start-up manages to get its foot in the door, deregulation ensures that one of the few can buy out the company before any significant threat is realized.

Going hand in hand with that is difficult and laborious licensing procedures. The companies that already exist already have the licenses. Getting one more isn't going to present a problem. On the other hand, a start-up faces the daunting task of getting all them before they even begin. The minutia involved and the local political grumblings practically ensure that no one other than the big players can lay lines without the permission of the entity that's already there.

What all of this means for the consumer is prices that bear no resemblences to "free market" competition. The companies don't compete against for lowest price to attract customers. For the most part the utilities are necessities of daily life - the consumer cannot boycott the high prices. So, the companies have no incentive to keep prices low; it's not like they are going to lose customers. They only have to ensure that they stay within a reasonable distance of their competitors. And it's a leap-frog up the chain instead of down. Company A charges X, Company B charges X.01; while everyone might go to Company A to start, Company B still makes some money (for instance, BP routinely is .01 above its surrounding competition because of its advertising and 'status' as a 'premium' supplier, it's why they spend so much money to keep clean stores and good lighting). Having no incentive to keep prices low, Company A gets greedy, they realize that they can charge X.02. They can do this because Company B has no incentive to keep their price at X.01 - their shareholders demand increasing profits, so they have every incentive to keep up by charging their "loyal customers" (you know, the ones with the Company B "discount" card) X.03. And so on and so forth. And in the meantime, customers have no recourse because they can't not buy the resource.

Oil prices are at an all-time high. Yet the oil companies are making record profits. Cable and Electric prices are all-time highs, yet they are bending truths to wring more money out. And meantime, we, the customers are bending over and taking it because we have no choice.

A New Blog

2006-01-23T12:29:00.000-06:00

Because I have so much free time (that's sarcasm for those of unfamiliar with the concept), I have started another blog. I keep a journal at home of all the books I read, the date I finished them, and I attempt to give them some sort of rating. I'd like to be able to put that online, but this particular blog isn't really an appropriate place for that. So, I've started a different blog called "Frittering and Wasting." To the extent anyone cares, they can see what I do to kill time until I die. For example, the books I read. The music I listen to. The concerts I go to. The movies I watch. You'll notice there are no comments allowed there; it's really just an online place that I'm going to put stuff for myself that I'm interested in remembering (because I have a crappy memory), but that others can read if they choose. I thought about starting a MySpace thing for it, but I don't really like their format, so I chose an open-source project called "Live Journal" instead.

I think it'll make an interesting experiment. Over time, it could make an interesting self-referential guide to my own private culture. I mean, it'll be interesting to see if the music and movies I hear and see are influenced by the books I read, or vice versa. Anyway. You can find it here.

Math

2006-01-12T09:30:00.000-06:00

Some interesting (relatively) new technology advances in recent months (or years) have re-defined how people watch, listen to, and want content. It's an a la carte world, baby. The long-play record is dead (that's an 'LP' for you young whippersnappers who never knew what "LP" stood for), as are (so say the pundits) cds, tapes, broadcast television, hell even cable television. The new world is going to be "content on demad" for those of us who want our content the way and when we like it. I don't want to wait until Tuesday nights at 8pm to watch Scrubs, goddammit; it's 2pm on holiday Monday afternoon and I have 4 hours to kill. I want to catch up on all the episodes from this season that I haven't been able to watch because Scrubs runs while my yoga class is going on, and I want to do it all at once right now. Please. Here are my options (more or less): I can wait for a year or so and wait for the shows to come out on DVD; I can wait until my Tuesday night schedule clears up and try to catch them in re-runs; I can pay $37,000 per month for cable so I have access to NBC On-Demand (does this truly exist yet??); or I can head on over to iTunes (though it isn't a "tune" so that really makes about as much sense as shutting down my computer through the "start" button, eh? The Apple apologists will let that one slide though because "everyone knows" what's at iTunes, so a silly misnomer isn't going to kill anyone) and buy each of the videos for $1.99 and watch them on my computer that I've rigged through my TV.

Here's some realistic numbers assuming I've missed 8 shows this year. At iTunes, the math is easy (we'll round up to $2 for ease of computation, those of you who demand accuracy can subtract $.08 at the end in your head); the 8 shows cost me $16. Let's pretend an entire season runs 16 shows, I can purchase the entire season for $32. Or, if I wait a year I can purchase the entire season on 6 DVDs for $45. Or, if I want NBC on-demand (assuming such a beast exists), I can subscribe to basic cable ($11), plus extended digital cable ($50), plus the movie channels ($75, in case you haven't figured it out this is a running total, not the amount added to the prior number), plus the on-demand package ($100) - per month - or $1200 per year. Let's say I really only care about 10 shows (that's being very generous by the way); at a going rate of $2 per show, and $32 for a season, I should be willing to spend $320 per year to watch all of the shows I truly care about. That leaves about $900 more for miscellaneous shows. At $2 per show, that's 450 individual shows, or about 28 other shows that I can pay for for an entire season.

If I have a DVD burner I can burn my downloads to DVD and watch them on my DVD player. More likely I'll save some of the extra $900 because it now seems silly to subscribe to cable at all and buy some extra hard-drive space and just keep the computer attached to the TV.

Now, what I presume will happen is this: in the next few years the media companies (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) will release shows to iTunes (or whatever) about 1 week after they air on TV. They will only keep them up for a limited time; access to the archives will cost more. We'll also start to see shows that only run on download. But we'll also see PBS get into this game; why? because right now PBS offers their shows for free - if they can get people to pay for them why wouldn't they?? But PBS will likely set their price point at $1 per show (it's a tax-deductible donation, by the way!). Eventually, advertisers will get pissed because no one will watch regular tv any more, so advertisers will start paying the channels to put commercials into the downloads. Someone will invent a technology to skip the commercials (or strip them out).

Anyway, as usual this has gotten afield from what I started as the point of this post: the math isn't nearly as bad as I expected. In fact, $2 per download seems pretty reasonable given current pricing mechanisms. What will ruin iVideo is not the price-point. What will ruin iVideo is the insistence by the content providers of 'locking' the shows with pointless DRM (it will only be hacked within a week of releasing it anyway) so that people can't watch it on whatever display device they choose. Apple will sell video that can only be watched on a video iPod. Sony will only sell video that can be watched on a PSP. Microsoft will only sell video that can be watched using a Windows based device. Etc. Etc. Etc. And content will be exclusive. So, if you want to download both MLB and NFL games you will need both an iPod and a PSP. And who wants to do that?? I want one device that will play everything; pick a format, I don't really care which one, and everyone use that. Or, use your own format, I don't care; but make sure everything available for one is available for all - or at least have conversion software that works "on the fly." But the exclusivity crap is what will kill this technology before it ever gets started.

Why the hell can't I ever seem to stay on topic??

Miscellaneous Stuff Found Around The Intertron

2006-01-11T13:32:00.000-06:00

A conspiracy theory on Chappelle's Show.

One of the most bizarre cartoons ever made.

A fifteen year-old with "impeccable" taste in music.

A lot of games to play on-line.

A(n) hilarious op-ed piece in the NYTimes about a million little lies.

Cingular doesn't have very good customer service.

Blockbuster is waiting to die.

I'm sure there's others. I'll add to this post as I see them.

Edited to add: The funniest blonde joke ever.

Nothing on the tele

2005-12-14T10:31:00.000-06:00

It's really interesting not having extended cable. I get about 25 channels. Of those 25 channels, 1 is a tv guide, 3 are shopping, 2 are public access, 2 are C-Span, 1 is TeleMundo, 1 is some weird christian religious channel. That leaves me with 15 channels of progamming to choose from. Of those fifteen channels, there are 2 of each of the major broadcast channels - one from Madison, one from Rockford; so those 8 are really only 4 channels. That leaves me with ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, UPN, WGN, and PBS. And I can tell you, after about 3 months of this great experiment, that broadcast television is some of the worst progamming in the universe. In fact, we watch only a few things: football, CSI (only CSI: Miami because there is really nothing better on - David Caruso is an idiot and the show is poorly written and directed - but more on that later), Charmed (Erin's "guilty pleasure"), Gilmore Girls (yeah, I said it, you gotta problem with it?), Law and Order (only the original), and PBS. That's what 5 shows?

To be honest, there are few other shows that we'll watch if there is absolutely nothing else on and we just don't feel like reading: Commander-in-Chief (Geena Davis is pretty decent, the husband character is a whiny bitch, the kids aren't really that believable, but Donald Sutherland is one of those evil characters you just love to root for), the new Criminal Minds (that show has gotten considerably better since its first episode; thankfully the cast is excellent which more than makes up for the crappy writing and dialogue and the over-use of special effects), Without A Trace (it's getting a little tiresome though), and Ghost Whisperer (sometimes on a Friday night you just get desperate; it is a ridiculous show, but desperate times call for desperate measures). Oh and Everyone Hates Chris - a good goddamn show. Anyway.

So, of those shows, most are on CBS, football is on Fox, a few from the WB, one is ABC, and one is NBC. And I can tell you that without a doubt we (I) have watched more PBS than any of those shows. Newshour is the best news on tv; bar none. Our local PBS station, during their pledge drive, ran a show about this dude out in the middle of freaking Alaska; utterly captivating to watch this guy make a log cabin with his bare hands and tools that he made himself. Nova's had some good stuff lately. They ran some show about some dude who has way too much money and free time who goes on these weird adventures to the middle of nowhere to hunt for orchids; his goal was to find a brand new orchid species he could name after his grandmother - he succeeded but the species he found was pretty weak. They've also show Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and last weekend was a new Sherlock Holmes.

That's not to mention Austin City Limits, which is probably the best show featuring music found on TV. Check out their upcoming broadcast schedule for 2006: Ryan Adams in January, then in March starts an ubelievable run of Polyphonic Spree/Ozomatli, Wilco/Bright Eyes, Modest Mouse/Guided By Voices, Flaming Lips/The Shins, Trey Anastasio, Jack Johnson, Allison Krause, Etta Freaking James, Ben Folds, The Killers/Spoon, and Franz Ferdinand. I mean come on. Makes me wish I had TiVo with DVD-R functionality.

Anyway. I can say without a doubt in my mind that PBS has the best programming on TV.

In any event, the whole point of the post (I'll bet you wondering when I'd get to it!) - Last night we watched this show hosted by Alan Alda called Scientific American Frontiers. They ran a program on hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Now, it was my pre-conceived notion about this subject that we, as a society, were far from this being a viable option. The conventional wisdom is that hydrogen is dangerous (not true, or at least no more dangerous than conventional gas), that it is expensive (while probably true in true volume measures, not as an efficiency measure; in other words 2 gal of hydrogen is more expensive than 2 gal of petrol, but it is considerably more efficient, so less is needed to do the same amount of work), and that it was hard to get it moved around to stations (turns out you can manufacture it on site, so there is no need to move it!).

There is this ridiculously talented dude in Michigan who appears to have shit figured out. He's an inventor. He makes materials that do really cool things like soak up hydrogen so it can be used in solid, rather than gas form. He also made solar cells that are light and extra-ordinarily efficient; they can be physically damaged and still work, in fact they work even while it is raining. Anyway, watching this show made me mad. I can hear the chorus now: "Why did it make you mad?" Well, it made me mad, because it seems that this dude has it figured out. And if he can figure it out, why can't anyone else figure it out and, more importantly, why aren't we using his shit!?!?! They didn't go into how much his stuff costs to manufacture. But that seems like quibbling to me. If we know how to make it, and this dude can make it with a relatively meager staff of a few people and some elbow-grease, it would seem that the manufacturing minds over at, hmmm, Ford or Chevy, or Dodge, or Toyota, or Honda, or BP, or Exxon, or Phillips, or Sony, or any of the other companies that have figured out how to reduce manufacturing costs of a cd player to under $20/unit, could all put some thought into how to manufacture these things and distribute them so that we don't have to rely on the oil cartel to feed our cars.

In the over 100 years that automobiles have been in existence, they still rely on essentially the same technology that they used when they were first invented: the internal combustion engine. They still use gasoline. They still are horribly inefficient. They are still spewing hundreds, and thousands, and millions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. They make cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Seoul unlivable in the summer months.

It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple process to just start putting hydrogen engines into cars. The biggest problem, and I really don't think it would be that big of a problem, is getting hydrogen to gas stations. Will it take some work? Sure. Will it take some money? Sure. Is it sustainable? yep. Is it better for the environment? Yeah. And we introduce products all the time that can't afforded by the lower class (hell, even the upper-middle class). But eventually those products come down in price. Take the DVD player for example: when they first came out they were thousands of dollars; a little over a year ago I bought one for under $90. My point is, there is a demand and a need for the technology. OK, it's too expensive to manufacture in mass quantities sufficient for someone like me to buy it. I can understand that, but make them and sell them to people who can afford them. I guarantee you that if you put a hydrogen engine in a Hummer, someone will buy the damn thing. You want to know why? Because someone will always buy one.

The bigger problems is hydrogen stations. I'll admit, that's a problem way beyond the scope of this blog; I am not smart enough to figure it out. But there are people who are.

I think is the biggest reason to do it is to reduce reliance on Middle East oil. As a country we don't produce anywhere near the amount the amount of oil we use. The simple fact is that if we wish to keep cheap supplies of oil for our country, we can't rely on the whims and bargaining table with OPEC. We have to have the wells for ourselves. So, we have to do things like invade countries that pose a threat to our oil supply and install governments that are more sympathetic so that we can continue to get the oil. Is it a tragedy? Sure, but wars have been started for less. Even more disturbingly it's an endless cycle. Because once Iraq is stabilized and oil prices start to normalize again, OPEC will get greedy and start restricting output to increase prices. Then we'll have to have invade someone else in order to get more oil. Uzbekistan, US calling Uzbekistan. They're a corrupt country that no one knows anything about - and they produce oil. We can invade them for cheap oil. Bonus points because they are next to Afghanistan and have a history of violence against Muslims, so we can invade them and show that we care about religious tolerance in the region. Anyway, my point is that we always need more oil and we'll always have to get it from someone else. And as long as we need to rely on someone else, the someone else can always bend us over; and we can either bend over and take it, or we can do what we always do - kick their ass.

Perhaps I'm overstating the case for hydrogen. Maybe there's something better. The fact is, someone needs to come up with a solution. The pity is that politics will keep it from ever being implemented. But that's another story for another day.

Kicking (and being laughed at)

2005-12-12T10:35:00.000-06:00

ESPN article about Mike Vanderjagt with commentary by Mark Schlereth

Maybe it's because I used to play soccer that I feel a bit sad when kickers are denigrated. I don't get it. Really, I don't. They seem to be everyone's favorite whipping-boy until someone needs one to win a game for them. Sort of like lawyers. Everyone wants to laugh and make jokes until they need one. Then they want the one that's just like the one they joke about.

What I find particularly amusing about Schlereth's commentary is his complete recidivism into the comfortable clothing of the football stereotype. And without any shame. "Mike shouldn't walk around pretending that he plays football. Don't intimate to me that you can get out there and bash heads with an opponent like we can." Doesn't play football? Last I checked he wears a uniform. Puts on pads. Puts on a helmet. Gets a check from the Indianapolis Colts every week. In fact, he probably plays football better than Schlereth ever did. And maybe that's why Mark's mad. Vanderjagt is a good kicker. Possibly a great kicker. His salary is probably twice what Schlereth ever made as a guard. And what does that make the offensive lineman who snaps the ball to the kicker? Go ahead Mark, call your compatriot a pussy, I dare you.

And you know what? He may not be able to go out and "bash heads with an opponent" like Mark can, but neither can Peyton Manning and I don't see Schlereth calling Manning a pussy. In fact, every year kickers lead the league and their teams in scoring. Go ahead and tell the Buffalo Bills that the kicker is useless; they lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one. It's guys like Mark that go out every week and "bash heads" in the trenches. But when the game's on the line with 3 seconds left and the team down by one, who is the focus of attention? Not Mark Schlereth.

Look at a team like the Bears. They've scored, what? 9 touchdowns all season? They've had games (see the Packers game) where they had 4 field goals and won. The kicker's not a "real" football player, eh? So, that's not a "real win" because it wasn't won by a "real" football player?

Football, perhaps more than any other sport is truly a team sport. Look at a team like the Patriots, few standouts, but everyone contributes, including the backups. Including the kicker. They're all out there trying to add one more to the "W" column. The fact is that Vanderjagt wants to win just as badly as Mark Schlereth, or anyone else on his team. There's no reason the kicker can't be a team leader - hell he probably already is the team leader in points scored.

While we're on the subject of football:
The Bears are 9 and 4. All of their losses have come to AFC North teams. They have lost no games in the NFC this year. Weird. Not sure if Kyle Orton will play on Sunday or not. My guess is that he will, but what do I know? If the Bears are going to kick the Rex Grossman tires this year, Atlanta's as good a time as any to do it. It's indoors, so it won't be cold and miserable. A pristine field on which to take the Rex-mobile out for a ride. Of course it's also fake grass. So Grossman will probably be injured with career-threatening turf toe or something and Orton will be back in by half-time anyway. The Bears finally got some decent play out of their Wide Receivers, but the running game seems to have gone to shit. Either than or Ron Turner has gone to shit. It's too early to tell at this point, but I'm not really sure why when it was 10 degrees and snowing the Bears were throwing like they had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on the field.

Meanwhile, the Vikings, inexplicably, are at 8-5. How the hell did that happen?

The Browns played Cinci surprisingly close! In fact, CBS out in my neck of the woods switched from the Colts trashing to the Browns/Bengals game in the 4th Quarter. It looks like Charlie Frye is the real deal. With a healthy Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, Jr. next year, and with Ruben Droughns in the backfield, the Browns are just one or two players away from being a wild card team.

Movie Magic

2005-12-07T15:00:00.000-06:00

I've seen quite a few (for me anyways) movies lately. Here's a quick run-down:

Walk the Line - Simply good. It was a good way to kill an afternoon. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it the worst? Not by a long shot. Surprisingly, I though Reese Witherspoon was excellent as June Carter Cash; I'm not generally a Reese Witherspoon fan. Joaquin Phoenix was acceptable as JR Cash. I believed him. No, my problems with the movie, such that they were, were primarily with the formulaicness of the whole thing. I had the feeling while watching the movie that I'd seen this whole thing before. I had. It was called Ray (another movie that I thought was over-hyped). I didn't get the feeling at the end of the movie that I really knew Johnny Cash any better than I did before the movie. Another review I had read suggested that after watching the movie, they wondered why they hadn't made the film about June instead, she seemed much more interesting. I would agree with that. It's not that I don't think Johnny Cash is interesting. He is. But you wouldn't know it from this movie. I guess my beef is this: the movie was about Johnny Cash falling in love with June Carter Cash. A fine premise I suppose. But I wanted to see some insight behind his music and there wasn't very much of that. In fact, I would have loved to have seen much more about June writing "Ring of Fire." But we are just treated to a few snippets of her putting it together. Anyway. I make it sound worse than it is. I liked it. It could have been much, much more interesting.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - I'm obsessed. I've seen every installment on opening weekend (a few of them on opening night - although it now occurs to me that I didn't see it on opening weekend this time around - we were going to go see it right after Walk the Line, but when we went into the theater it was CRAMMED so we waited until the next weekend) and I applaud Erin for humoring me (she hasn't read any of the books). It was a good movie. It was my favorite of the books. The only nit to pick is that I remember the Quiddich World Cup being a much bigger part of the first part of the story and there was surprisingly little time devoted to it. I understand why it was cut - the movie is already 2.5 hours long, and the WC didn't really add much to the story; but it was a really fun part of the story nonetheless.

Kinsey - finally got around to seeing it. In fact, I subscribed to NetFlix ($9.99/mo that I can actually afford since I got rid of cable and internet at home) just so I could finally rent it. Anyway. I liked it. His study was interesting and I thought the director/writers did a good job of showing how such an endeavor will inevitably be corrupted by those who can't/don't desire to keep their hands to themselves or their own spouses. My biggest gripe is that the director couldn't seem to figure out a style that he liked and wanted to stick with. At times it looked like a modern movie (which it is), but at others it adopted a faux-50s-newsreel type feel, and other times it adopted the style and language of a play. The director should have stuck with one, any one of them would have been an interesting way to portray this movie; but to jump around just left me shaking my head.

Hotel Rwanda - sort of like Requium For A Dream - I really liked the movie, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. I felt beaten down afterwards.

Finding Neverland - after Hotel Rwanda we were like "let's watch something fun and uplifting." Ummm...this movie, not really the direction to go for that. While it was most definitely fun in parts, the end of the movie is a bit of a downer. Johnny Depp was fantastic (as usual) but I was left wondering how, after a brief glimpse of JM Barrie's childhood and the ongoing story of his marriage, how exactly he managed to maintain this child-like outlook on life. Of course, there's nothing like precocious, intelligent, essentially good eight-year-olds to bring out the child in even the hardest of hearts; but I'm not sure that's really the answer here because the effect almost seemed the opposite - that Barrie brought out the child in them rather than vice versa. Anyway, again I really liked it.

So, the next few movies on the list are: Motorcycle Diaries, Love Actually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Good Girl, The Fearless Freaks, Some Like It Hot, Lolita (Kubrik's version), and Frida.

CDs of interest lately:

Camper Van Beethoven: Camper Van Beethoven, New Roman Times
Spoon: Gimme Fiction
Modest Moust - New Lonesome Crowded West
Sigur Ros - ( ), Takk

It's Copyright Law Week Apparantly

2005-11-18T11:26:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held hearings on "Fair Use: Its Effect on Consumers and Industry."

Here's some particularly lovely snippets from this hearing:
Paul Aiken, of the Author's Guild: "The public domain's a fine thing, but it is, and always has been, merely a nice by-product of the copyright system."

James DeLong, IPCentral.info Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF is a non-profit 'think tank' funded by these fine IP Rights holders; to think that their 'research' would be unbiased seems highly dubious at best): "In sum, fair use is a doctrine that has outlived much of its usefulness."
---- (note: Google is one of their supporters, I can't fathom that Google would approve of this statement!!)

Both of these statements show flagrant disregard for the public policy underlying the grants of intellectual property rights in the United States. In the US intellectual property is, as I said, granted, it is not a right inherent to mere creation (if you want that, move to Europe). We, our Founding Fathers, created the grant of intellectual property as an incentive for people to create. We want to encourage people to write novels, so we grant them a copyright in the work they created as an incentive for the creation. The terms and limits of the grant are, in theory, a bargain; for your creation and the betterment and advancement of science we will allow you to control the copying and distribution of your work for x number of years.

Right there we run into the problem with Mr. Aiken's astonishingly ignorant statement that the public domain is a byproduct of the copyright system. First of all, the public domain existed long before the copyright system did. Second, our very principles of copyright are to encourage the creation of works to enhance the public domain. Without the public domain, in the US, there would be no copyright system. We want to encourage people to invent things and disclose the inventions to others so that they can be used for the advancement of technology, so well tolerate temporary monopolies as a sacrifice and incentive for the creation. The argument being that without the granted rights monopoly, there will be no financial reward for creation because as soon as the thing is created, it can be duplicated and leveraged by others for their financial gain, and thus I would have no incentive to invest my own time and effort and intellectual captial into a project that someone else is going to financially benefit from. So, to encourage the expenditure of time, effort and intellectual capital we (the people of the US) grant to the inventor (or the author) a temporary monopoly on distribution, copying (and some other rights granted by the patent laws) so that the author/inventor can have time to reap the benefit of his work. After that temporary monopoly is over, the work falls into the public domain and is free for everyone's use, which is the very reason were incentivizing the creation in the first place!

This is actually one place where I depart from the 'economic theory' school of law (to which I am normally a staunch believer, and which you will notice is 100% entrenched over at the PFF). Economic theory says, the rights should be granted to whomever is able to most use them efficiently; if someone else can use them more efficiently, they can purchase the rights. Therefore, we should not have any limits on the rights (temporal or otherwise). If someone wants to utilize the technology or work, they can license it from the rights-holder; basic principles of supply and demand will dictate the price-point for that license - if there is little demand for the work, the price to license will be low, but if the demand for the work is high, the right-holder should benefit from that work's sustained popularity (this is the argument Disney uses).

But here's the catch. Under our theory of intellectual property - if we hadn't "tolerated" the grant of the monopoly in the first place, the work would have never been created. Now, of course, you can argue that "of course it would have been created, authors don't write because it is economically efficient, they write because they need a creative outlet for their ideas." But that's not really the point; the point is the Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's very text mandates the existence of the public domain and limitations on the works, all in the name of generating more Writings and Discoveries for the greater good of our society to be available for use by all. In fact, the original "limited Times" were quite limited - Authors got 20 years (renewable for another 20 years) and patent holders got 10 years (I think). A far cry from the life+70 and 20 years, respectively, they get now.

The Times are limited because we want works to fall into the public domain. We want works to be available for use by others to build upon. We want the technology in patents disclosed so that others may analyze and improve upon the inventions. Soon, our country's long line of technological superiority will be over-taken by those with less restrictive rights regimes - by countries where "everything" is in the public domain. We call those countries "pirate nations" now, but in a few years we will be paying the price for our greedy ways.

I haven't even addressed the "fair use" quote; but this is getting long, so I will cut it short like this: it seems to me that if we place temporal limitations on the monopoly in the name of "progress" that if the granted rights get in the way of "progress" or impose into areas protected by copyright or patent laws (for example, neither grants the rights-holder the right to control use) that we should sacrifice the right to the monopoly before we sacrifice the (fair) use of the Writings or Discoveries. So, when we talk about "fair use" we talk about those uses for Writings and Discoveries that, while technically infringements, we allow because either: 1) it is too difficult to monitor (e.g., private, at-home copying); 2) it is so minimal that we, as a society, don't think the rights holder should complain (e.g., book reviews, etc.); 3) it would infringe our other, more important rights (e.g., first amendment right to parody, or commentary, etc.; right to freedom of religion, etc.). These are things that "fair use" protects and I would argue that all of these are still pretty "useful."

Something New and Exciting In The World Of Music

2005-11-16T09:42:00.000-06:00

I like it when people think "out of the box" so to speak (thanks to the most excellent TechDirt for calling this to my attention - even though I disagree with Carlo's analysis). What's funny is that it really isn't all that "out of the box." It's more like thinking about music in terms of science or, more specifically, chemistry, or physics (or even I suppose, biology, or genetics) - hmmmm...I guess that pretty much covers all of science - so yeah, think about music in terms of analyzing science. Break down the product into its component parts.

When you buy a CD, you are buying a copyrighted work. Actually you are buying a number of copyrighted works (songs - each of which has multiple copyrighted elements, the music and the lyrics) bundled together into a copyrighted work (a compilation that is a separate copyright) and packaged with some copyrighted artwork on front (and probably on the back and inside the booklet, too). The law traditionally thinks of copyright in terms of "bundles of rights." A "copyright" gives the author the exclusive right to do a number of things for a number of years (life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years if an anonymous work - or something very similar to that, in any event). The author is given the right to control among other things, copying and distributing. (note: copyright does not cover the right to control "use" that's a right you freely give up when you buy a file from iTunes or some other place that sells DRM'd files; just one way that industry practice and norms are changing substantive laws without all the hassles of actually legislating the changes and putting it up for public opinion. But I digress.)

The proposal linked separates out these component parts and lets you purchase the rights you want. Instead of purchasing a .aac file of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" you can just purchase various component parts for "Hollaback Girl" and you can get them in any file type you want. Want the right to distribute, you can buy that; want the right to make copies, you can buy that; want the right to play on your internet radio station, you can buy that; just want the karaoke (non lyrics) version, you can just buy the rights to the music and not buy the rights to the lyrics; want to buy the album art, they're yours for the paying, what type and how big do you want them. If you lose the file, no problem, you own the rights, just go download the filetype you want. In theory it's fantastic idea - pricing at its best - you can buy what you want and only what you want - the more rights you want, the more you pay, but you can get them.

Business-to-business transactions work like this all the time; a business will pay more or less for more or less contractual protection. Presumably consumer transactions don't work like this because of the high transaction costs involved. However, if there is a central rights aggregation and retail center, the transaction costs can be spread out over the entirety of the offerings making the per-piece transaction costs pretty low.

The devil is in the detail, so to speak, and the biggest problems aren't theoretical, but rather practical implementation problems with keeping each component part distinct and preventing tampering such that the consumer can pay for the lowest cost right and still reap the higher reward. The first practical problem I can think of is actually more concerned with the rights that the consumer purchases, what do you do when the copyright term expires?? Contrary to the music industry's (or movie industry's, or Disney's) wishes, copyright is not infinite - it does end. Of course, this is fairly easy to account for because the copyright duration calculation is fairly heuristic and just entering the 'date of authorship' and the type of author (work-for-hire, individual, anonymous, etc.) would make the calculation simple.

More importantly though, how do you discern regular copying (me making a copy for Brian) from backups that are legally protected by the Copyright Act? Of course, the initial argument is: what do you need the backup for? If you lose the file, you own the rights in perpetuity, just go download it again. But there you run into another problem. How do tell if a person has 'lost' the file, or just transferred it to someone else against the terms of the agreement? One answer is hardware authentication - every piece of electronics you own can be 'registered' with your own personal id (perhaps a swipe of your driver's license, or other state or [enter diabolical laugh here] national id) and when you buy the file, you enter your personal id and it will only play on devices that are authenticated with your own personal id; if you buy "copying" or "distribution" rights, you would swipe your own id and the id of the person to whom you are transferring and it will only play on devices registered to that person.

Actually, not a bad idea now that I think of it, except for the obvious "privacy" issues that may be implicated. The hardware registration process would have to be fairly rigorous - though maybe not, because the hardware will only work with files that are registered to you anyway. Hardware registration could work in a whole slew of areas - computer security, home security, cell phone (or even "regular" phone) usage. In some instances the hardware would be 'locked' so that someone who steals the device can't just swipe their own id - maybe a two step process that requires two swipes (one for each person's card in the transaction) to transfer title to physical item.

Well, this got kind of far afield. But, the point I suppose is that I'm not sure we, as a society, are quite there yet in terms of implementing micro-rights-management that would be truly useful instead of just crippling. And, unfortunately, I don't really trust the record companies with it. In fact I'm not really sure who I would trust to implement it properly. I, honestly, think it would be good idea. But, as with anything that involves firmware/software, it would be easily hacked and thus would be rendered impotent anyway.

Yeah, Yeah, I know ...

2005-10-18T09:26:00.000-05:00

... you shouldn't make fun of cancer victims. But goddamn this is one of the funniest/coolest things I've seen in a while. Unfortunately it will make trademarking my iTits a little more difficult; especially if she starts a whole line of "tits" wear. First its TitBits, then TitHolster, then TitBits Plus (new and improved and more comfortable). The next thing you know, she's put two and two together, and come up with iTits and TitTunes. My mindshare for the tit race is slipping.

Maybe we could form a joint venture; I can supply the intellectual property and know how and she can provide the manufacturing labor. I mean, if you're already putting a fake one there anyway, you might as well have one that's functional as well as looks good. Women like to store things in their tits, we could manufacture a TitFolio with a pouch to store cash and keys. Women store kerchiefs in their tits, we could make TitShew, a disposable tissue holder (and renewable - haha, we could lock in our customers with 'specially designed tissue holders' that would only hold the tissues we manufacture!). The iTits would be a natural extension of these developments. In fact, you could have a whole line of Tit electronics - iTits, TitCell, TitBerry, and WiTitFi (a personal wifi receiver with bluetooth that connects to Verizon's nationwide broadband network).

Back to the lab...

I should patent this idea or something ...

2005-10-17T10:06:00.000-05:00

I linked to this as website of the day.

Erin and I were having a bit of spirited discussion about this with all of the requisite "Tune in Tokyo" jokes. But it occurred to me that such devices could revolutionize the strip club as we know it. Just follow with me and save comments until the end.

Imagine this: You enter a strip club in New York or Chicago. Because of the smoking ban, the air is clear and highly oxygenated. The lights are dim, the place is packed with 'gentlemen' crowded around two or three stages each with 3 or 4 girls, all in various stages of de-robement. And, except for the sound of the men's cat-calls and general conversation, the only music to be heard is the soft sounds of a jazz and blues playing over the speakers. You wander to the bar, eyeing the 'wares' and order a drink (a scotch naturally - hey, do I know my readers, or what?) You spot a fine young woman dancing on a stage in the back. You see on her arm the following markings: 103.3. You pull out your Creative Zen, put in your ear bud headphones and tune the FM Radio to that station. The sound of drum and bass comes thumping through your headset and you realize that this girl is dancing to the music coming through your headset. In fact, every girl has a different number on her, and you can tune each of them in and they are all dancing to whatever music they have programmed in to their iTits. One is drum and bass, another gangsta rap, another j-pop, another break-beat, another metal; each one has a customized playlist. After the second song of her three song set you hear a brief pause in the music, then you hear: "Hi, this is Desire. If you like what you see, you may also like Amber, she's on after the next song on stage 2. For an extra $30 I can get her for you and we can make your wildest dreams come true together." Then the music comes back on and she resumes dancing.

It would be a whole new way of looking at strip clubs. And, there would be a whole new revenue within the strip club for advertising through various girls. Just think: you spot a fine blonde swede and between songs you get ads for "Heineken." Or, girls could advertise on other girls. The possibilities are endless, and the audience is guaranteed. Of course the club would get their take. The girls would make more money, the advertisers can target their ads to specific types of guys (come on, we all know the dude who likes the skanky white trash chick, and we all know he drinks PBR and we can probably assume that he would be interested in an ad for handcuffs from "Joe's Pleasure Palace.")

The girls can play whatever music they like; the guys can listen to whatever music they like, and the club can maintain a relaxing atmosphere. No more shouting over music to be heard by the person next to you. The possibilities are endless ...

Death of a Chicago Institution

2005-10-10T16:09:00.000-05:00

I found out today that my favorite show on NPR is no longer broadcasting. The show "Odyssey" hosted by Gretchen Helfrich (intelligence is damn sexy) went off the air on September 30, 2005. Which is rather unfortunate. The format of the show was a round-table discussion of just about anything you can imagine. The show would usually feature 2 or 3 experts (usually college professors because they have nothing better to do anyway) and Ms. Helfrich. The first 30 - 45 minutes was a panel discussion on the topic. The last 15-30 minutes was a call-in period.

What I loved about the show was its topics and its discussion leader. Ms. Helfrich always asked really insightful questions that gave the speaker plenty of opportunity to talk. But she was also a good moderator, keeping the discussion centered on the topic and preventing the speakers from talking over each other. The topics were fascinating. For example, consider the last month they broadcast, hell just look at the last WEEK they broadcast: important movies, internal migration, curiosity, identity and the human face, "the social geography of death." Really, really interesting topics that take the subjects and put them within global, national, and local context. While the show is based out of Chicago, Ms. Helfrich keeps the show from being Chicago-centric.

Anyway. Congratulations on a fantastic 8 year run. Here's a link to their entire archives available online to listen for free. Enjoy!

Two Interesting Stories About The First Amendment

2005-10-07T14:02:00.000-05:00

First up, Walmart turns a kid in for a picture he took that shows a magazine picture of George Bush with a red pin through its head. Next to the photo the kid's hand is a thumbs down. Walmart called the Secret Service on him. OK, arguably Wal-Mart has a point here - they don't know who took the picture - and it is a federal crime to threaten death on the President. While their reaction seems a little outrageous, it is, arguably, justifiable. Still, makes you think for a second.

However, this one, is not as forgivable. Woman wears a t-shirt with the pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, with the caption "Meet the Fuckers." Fellow passengers complain. Southwest asks her to cover it up. On the trip over she puts hubbie's sweater over it while she sleeps. While sleeping the sweater falls off. Passengers complain again. She was told by Southwest if she gets off the flight they will refund her ticket. She gets off the flight (at a connecting airport). Southwest refuses to refund her money.

Make up your own minds. Obviously there is no "First Amendment" violations. Though as a "common carrier" Southwest may have some First Amendment obligations (common carriers - transportation providers, hotels, etc. - are held to higher standards than regular private corporations). But generally the Bill of Rights only apply to governmental entities. So, private corporations are free to kick you out and do what they like for any reason, so long as: a) it doesn't violate the terms of your contract with them, and b) it's not racially discriminatory. While my usual reaction to something like this would be to boycott Southwest for being bastards (I already boycott Wal-Mart for a whole slew of reasons), I can't really afford to not fly Southwest. However, I will say, that this action on their part will make a significant contribution towards any decision I make regarding flying them in the future. So, what should Southwest have done? Nothing. Told the other passengers to deal with it. I find Ashlee Simpson offensive; so, can I have a 12 year old girl kicked off the flight for having a t-shirt with Ashlee Simpson on it?

More on the Lost Trailers

2005-10-07T10:49:00.000-05:00

Let's take a trip in the way back machine. Link to Original Lost Trailers Website. On the right you will find a link to one MP3, a little bit down on the left you will see a link that says : The Lost Trailers believe in providing free music downloads for our songs. You can click that for more MP3s. Of course, this statement has proven to be full of shit. They believe in providing free music downloads until their record label tells them that they aren't allowed to believe in such things anymore.

You can also go here for more MP3s.

This is their Journal from the first show that Brian and I witnessed. A phenomenal opening set for Virginia Coalition. They played maybe 5 or 6 songs and just tore the House of Blues up. VACO was a huge disappointment after that.

This is the Journal for the second show of theirs I saw at the Park West. It was a co-headlining deal with Llama (who??). The set was "blazin" though the fans were a little lackadaisical. Nonetheless, it was a reminder of how great this band can be.

And then, after seeing them open for Pat "Fucking" Green (TEXAS!!! WOO!!), they signed with Universal. After that they played a set at Schuba's which was far better than the crowd deserved. And then a set at the Abbey Pub was the last we in Chicago have seen of them. After that show we were talking to the band and they wondered why we, meaning the fans in the Chicago, didn't do more for them and get them on the radio. But I think they've answered their own question: or at least have always known the answer. If they want to be supported in Chicago you need to do one of two things (for a band like the Trailers): 1) basically set up shop in the city and live there for about 6 months, playing every place in the town that will have you - if you do that, the people will love you for the rest of your life (see Uncle Tupelo); 2) sign with Bloodshot Records. This is a city of loyalty. If you are loyal to the city, it will be loyal right back; if you treat the city as another stop on your way to Texas, or New York, or Boston, they may hold the door open for you on your way out (but only if you're any good).

They've gone from this to this. Congrats guys. It's interesting to watch a band grow up. I saw these guys shortly after they formed and they were eager to get out and play their music and experiment and try new things with their music and mix genres and styles and have fun. The last time I saw them, they were contentious with the crowd (flipping off a patron who had the nerve not to stand up for their show in front of a 1/4 full bar), their album, while good, was poorly mixed (see prior posts), and they have ignored the United States North of the Mason Dixon line. Now, their next album is going to be on the same record label as Kenny F-ing Chesney. They have been consumed by the Nashville Music Industry. I don't know if that's what they've wanted from day one, but I will say, that I expected more from them. I wish them all the luck in the world, and should they ever deign to grace the windy city (or, God Forbid, Madison, WI or Rockford, IL) with their presence I'll be the first to buy tickets.

Racism in Film

2005-10-04T16:43:00.000-05:00

An insightful, and extraordinarily well-written and researched (not to mention long!), article that discusses racism in film. Link
---And related Song of the South Website

Brought to you from the most excellent Cartoon Brew blog.

The Lost Trailers

2005-09-28T10:56:00.000-05:00

I had sent this as email to a few people I know, but I think this is as good a place for it as any.

I'm a dork. We all know that, so there's no point in the hiding the fact. In any event, I'm on a mailing list for The Lost Trailers. I received an email just today advising me that The Lost Trailers have changed records labels. They are still with RCA, the same record company, but they have been moved to a different label. They are now on BNA Records. Of course, you're all saying "what the hell is BNA Records?" And my answer is ... are you ready for the obvious? It is un-f-ing-believable how predictable the music industry can be. The "Nashville" music industry is even worse than your average bear though. They have taken what started as a roots-rock band like The Lost Trailers, had them tour exclusively in Texas and most of the South. They teamed them up on a tour with Pat F-ing Green. Released a record that sounded (production-wise) like every freaking country album in existence (that is: compressed to all hell, removing any amount dynamic range that ever existed in those songs). And now, they have put them on the same f-ing record label as the Ubiquitous Kenny F-ing Chesney.

I don't like Kenny F-ing Chesney. His music is terrible. I have never seen the man live. Yet, he hounds me. Everywhere I freaking turn, there's Kenny Chesney. Log on to a music discussion group. Kenny Chesney. Hear about tours in Rockford. Kenny Chesney. Television concert to raise money for the Hurricane Victims. Kenny Chesney. Renee Zelleweger. Kenny Chesney. I feel like John Malkovich. Chesney. Chesney. Chesney. For the love of God when will people realize that no one give two rats asses about Kenny Freaking Chesney?!??? And now this. The Lost Trailers. Ruined by Kenny F-ing Chesney. He'll probably appear on their freaking record or something. And then tour the Midwest (for the first time in 2 years I might add) opening for Kenny F-ing Chesney.

When I last saw the Trailers they were lamenting the fact that no one was showing up for their shows in Chicago. You want to know why???? PAT GREEN AND KENNY F-ING CHESNEY THAT'S WHY YOU FREAKING TWITS!

Bastard.

By the way; if you're interested in hearing the Trailers before they were ruined, I'll try to post some MP3s or something at some point. If you go to their website they have some CDs there, none of which are their true releases before "Welcome to the Woods" (their first major label album). Prior to "Welcome to the Woods," they had an EP that they distributed at their shows for free. Then they had Passport - 18 tracks, some of which are contained on the "Story of the New Age Cowboy" album - but most importantly contained the original renditions of "Dougherty County" and "Averly Jane" (perhaps the worst victim of the aforementioned compression). Their second independent album was "Rock Band." It was "bigger" than the first - meaning it had the guitars more upfront and it was louder. It tried to capture their live sound, but suffered from the same compression problems - every song sounded exactly the same, even though each of them had more dynamic range when played live. Both Rock Band and Welcome to the Woods sounded flat. Both Stokes and Rider have great voices, but Stokes comes off sounding like Kenny Freaking Chesney and Rider sounds like the lead singer of Foreigner. Anyway. Crap production. A common problem in recent music history. Everything is produced so that it sounds OK coming out of a 1987 Chevy S-10 speaker - and 87 S-10s were not exactly known for their great sound systems. As a result, it sounds like shit when played on a system of any quality - rather than sounding like shit on a shitty system.

OK. I'm done.

A Busy Day...

2005-09-27T16:59:00.000-05:00

Sorry to get caught up in stupidity: SG Not Contacted by FBI. In any event take the following post as a general claim against the waste of resources in tracking down porn depicting actions between two consenting adults and those who wish to view consenting adults taking baths in blood-like liquid and/or being tied up and/or whipped.

We went down to this bridge. It had some graffiti on it. It was supposed to say "I Love Satan." It said "I Love Satin."And that's some STUPID SHIT. - Scott H. Biram

For those familiar with the SuicideGirls site (see link above), this should be seen for the ridiculous shit that it is. For those not familiar with the site, there couldn't be a more "harmless" site; to target this one seems not only like a waste of time, but a waste of resources.

I'm all for cracking down on porn. But it seems like it would be more prudent to go after the beastiality sites (see below for an interesting discussion starter) and the kiddie porn and the midget wrestling porn and, hell, porn featuring ugly women - ALL should be higher priority than SuicideGirls. Anyway.

Topic Starter for Boring Dinner Parties (by the way, I've actually had this discussion - the participants shall remain nameless, but we never really arrived at a conclusive decision): Do you think that producers of beastiality porn have specialties? In other words does Producer (or Director) A only do horse porn? Director B will only work with goats? Does a particular horse get more business than others because it is known for being gentle on the girls? For that matter, are horses bred for porn or does the director just find a horse that an owner will let him use for porn purposes? Do human bestiality porn stars have limits "I'll only do dogs, but not horses"? What is the decision criteria for that decision? Geez, it seems that every question just raises more questions.

Trusting Consumers

2005-09-27T15:45:00.000-05:00

Another Shot At the Broadcast Flag

O'Reilly Op-Ed Piece on Google Library

The broadcast flag. AAC. DMCA. RIAA. Clickwrap. eBooks.

Everywhere I look lately there's more evidence that content producers don't trust the consumers. Of course, it's not like we're really trustworthy people. But, that's not really the point. Movie studios, record companies, and publishers are all pushing to restrict the ways in which you can use their content. If you want to buy a cd, they will make sure you can't rip it to your hard drive. If you want to buy a movie, ditto. If you want to download a song, they want to make sure you only buy a proprietary file type that will play on their player (and their player only supports proprietary file types). If you buy software, they want to make sure you don't know how it works (you might create a competing product!). If you buy an eBook they want to make sure you can only read it on an approved monitor.

Meanwhile, the consumer is left in cold. If I don't want to buy the proprietary player, I'm limited in the music I can purchase. Before buying a monitor I have to consider whether I'll be able to watch the movies I have or the books I've downloaded. If I download software I have to have faith that the developer will create patches to fix it (because it will inevitably be broken) or will update it (because it will inevitably be obsolete). Gone are the days when I can go and buy any music playing device I like and know that I can play any music that is released in that medium. The days are numbered that I can buy any monitor on the market and know it will work with my computer. Christ, even the days that I can buy a TIVO and know it will record the shows I want and keep them until I actually get around to watching them are rapidly dwindling.

The publishing industry is trying to prevent Google from creating a world-wide library catalog to be indexed by its search engine so that someone that searches for "George Washington" might just turn up a wonderful novel by a 3-time Pulitzer Prize Winner ("1776") that they may be interested in reading, or even buying. Or a student who searches for "Milton Friedman" for an economics class will be presented with all of his books that just might be of interest.

Each of these are examples of distrust of the general public. They don't trust the public because they are afraid that, well, I'm not really sure WHAT they are afraid of. They are afraid that if they don't protect the content we will share the content with everyone in the universe. That if I buy the new Arcade Fire songs that I may really like them and want to send them to my friend and that he won't subsequently purchase them. Of course, it's not that their DRM actually PREVENTS this, it merely makes it a bigger pain in the ass. (I can burn the AAC files to a CD, and then rip the CD to an unencumbered format) But, more precisely, and of more moment, is the fact that I become encumbered in the ways in which I can use the files I've purchased for MY OWN USES. Apple's files can only be used on 7 devices or burned only 10 times (down from 10, which they changed without asking first, thanks a lot Apple). So, hopefully, you don't run out of devices. Ever. And hope that they don't unilaterally decide to reduce it 5, or 3.

The "Broadcast Flag" and TIVO's little experiment is even worse. It would flag a TV Show as "broadcast" so that it cannot be redistributed over the web or saved to a hard-drive; or only saved for a certain amount of time. Sort of like if someone said "you can tape our show on your fancy VHS device, but after 10 days we're going to come in and take your VHS tape, so I hope you didn't go on vacation for 11 days."

The Copyright Act doesn't prevent you from reverse engineering software (it may prevent you from making a "copy" but not from reverse engineering). But that agreement that you clicked "I Agree" to does. In fact, under the Copyright Act, as interpreted by the courts there is often a "fair use exception" that allows reverse engineering. Not if you clicked "I Agree" though. That's breach of contract. You didn't actually BUY that software, you are only licensing it from the developer. And even that's a misnomer. I "true license" grants the licensee rights to do something they are otherwise not allowed to do. "I grant a license to you to come on to my property." In this case, the "license" prevents you from doing something you are otherwise allowed to do! Talk about co-opting a word! More precisely your use of that software is subject to a contract; in exchange for your money and your agreement to abide by the limited terms of that contract you are permitted to use the software.

In any event. It's not that we are losing these rights that makes me so perturbed. It's the underhanded way that they come about. The MPAA knows that no one actually WANTS the Broadcast Flag, so they stick it in obscure legislation that is sure to be passed. The RIAA knows that everyone hates DRM on the files, but it refuses to license to anyone that doesn't encode their files. The publishing industry knows that there is massive support for Google's book project, but is upset that someone else thought of it first. These organizations get it in their collective heads that they want something done, so they go out and buy Senators (Joe Biden, Orrin Hatch, etc.) to do it for them. 10 times out of 10 the general public is unaware that their Senator is being so underhanded (we don't tend to think about intellectual property decisions when we vote) - they just know that the new technology is more limiting than the old technology.
Look, the publishing industry thought photocopiers were going to mean an end to the publishing industry via rampant piracy - it didn't happen. The record industry though analog tapes would mean the end via rampant piracy - they didn't. The MPAA thought VHS would spell the end of the movie industry via rampant piracy - it didn't. Did some people infringe? Sure. That's more or less a way of life. But, each of these industries, once they figured out how to use the technology, flourished with each of these inventions. Instead of specialized legislation carving out individual niches in the Copyright Law or, more invasively, social norms, perhaps these industries should learn how to utilize the technology to provide content in an easy-to-use manner that people are actually willing to pay for.

Rather than closed standards (broadcast flags, DRM'd music, DRM'd eBooks, etc.), if the content providers produced with open standards everyone would be better off. Make files that everyone can use and everyone will be more likely to use them. Not everyone owns an iPod; Apple is therefore limited in the number of files it can sell on iTunes because only those that have an iPod can take advantage of it. And, there are folks like me out there, who - no matter how "cool" the iPod is - will never own an Apple product (pretentious fuckwits with terrible customer service). On the other hand, if they sold an open format and competed with ease of use, or price, or selection, I may be more tempted to buy from them. Hell, I don't even mind DRM as AN OPTION. I may be willing to pay less for something that I'm not completely free to use. But, I'd like the option of paying for something that I can do whatever I god-damn please with.

Man, talk about rambling. Hopefully, you get my point.

Football is BORING...yeah. I said it.

2005-09-26T15:02:00.000-05:00

OK, I don't really believe football (the American kind, not the European kind) is that boring. (Perhaps some other day I will officially put in my vote for European Football as the superior sport, but until that day, I will limit this discussion to American Football) However, I AM really tired of hearing that Baseball is SOOOOOOO Boring by football Fans who are either ignorant of baseball, or really just don't know what they're talking about it. The most cited reason that Baseball is so boring is that there isn't any action: that football is ALL ABOUT the action. There are 22 players on the field running and slamming into each other, blah, blah, blah. In baseball everyone stands around until the pitcher throws something the batter feels like putting in play and then someone runs down the ball and we do it all over again. Ignoring the fact that the description is horribly simplistic of the skill and strategy involved in baseball I offer the following incontrovertible facts about the amount of standing around doing nothing in a typical quarter of NFL football:

(first, as a bit of a description, I was at the Colts/Browns game on Sunday Sept. 25, 2005)
Quarter: 2nd
Quarter Length: 15 minutes (extrapolated game: 60 minutes)
Actual Time: 47 minutes (extrapolated game: 3 hours, 8 minutes)
Amount of Time Actually Played: 4 minutes 2 seconds (or: about 1 minute of football for every 10 minutes of standing around doing nothing) (extrapolated: 16 minutes, 8 seconds) - and to answer the inevitable question: yes, I actually timed it with a stopwatch starting from when the ball was snapped to when the player was tackled or the play stopped.
Scoring: Browns - 3 points; Colts - 3 points

So, for a typical football game (there's nothing in this quarter, other than the low-ish score, to indicate that it was an aberation) that last a little over 3 hours, the players are standing around doing not much anything for 2 hours and 44 minutes. You could play most baseball games just during the time that no one is doing anything for a football game.

An Outsider In San Francisco

2005-09-15T13:45:00.000-05:00

I recently went on a week-long vacation to San Francisco/Napa/Sacramento/Tahoe. These are just some observations.

McAfee Coliseum needs to be re-renamed back to Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. Seriously. Why did anyone waste their money naming that piece of garbage. As far as toilet-bowl-stadiums go, I liked it the best of the ones I've been in (Pittsburgh, Cinci, Atlanta), but that's not really saying much. Mount Davis in the outfield is a joke - it's a standing testament to the jackass that Al Davis is. Having said that, it's really funny. The basic issue is this: Davis wants a new stadium and he doesn't want to pay for it - he wants the city/county to pay for it because he's already saddled with a crappy stadium. So, to force the city's hand he built an addition on to the stadium that is so huge and so far away from ANYTHING it that would never possibly be filled. The result is that Raiders games never sell out and therefore they are never shown on TV (local blackout rules apply). Davis figures that if the citizens complain loud enough on his behalf he'll get his new (smaller capacity) stadium. Of course, this is all incredibly stupid because no one would ever pay advertising money for a game that is never shown on TV. But it's Ok - because the NFL shares its revenue, Davis is sure to turn a tidy profit every year - his actions are subtracting from the general revenue pile of the league - which they don't mind because new stadiums are good for business. Anyway - it's all very amusing. And, by the way, the A's won the game we attended by scoring 5 runs in the bottom of the 9th. Luckily the Indians had also won that day.

Igor Medvedev's work is astonishing. Randomly walked into this gallery because the paintings were so vibrant and alive with color. If only I had a few grand to blow on paintings.

Bimbo's 365 is a pretty cool music venue. It looks like an old 30s or 40s club from the outside (and it looks like it hasn't been touched since the 30s or 40s!) and inside it ... well, it still looks like an old 30s or 40s jazz club - lounge seats in the back, nice open space up front. It reminds me a bit of the Park West in Chicago, except smaller and more velvety.

Someone once told me that Napa Valley was like an adult DisneyWorld (there's even a train to take you around to the different stops!) And I would say that's a pretty apt description. With some exception (see below) the local establishments exist to take your money from you in the most efficient manner possible. The food is EXPENSIVE (do not go to the restaurants, you will only be ripped off by passable food at silly prices) but not really good enough for the price (two glasses of wine, one grilled tuna sandwich, one pulled pork sandwich, plus tip = $53!?!???! Seriously, What The Fuck!?) There is a Dean and Delucca grocery store on the North end of "the strip" on 29 - just go and get some bread, some cheese, maybe some lunch meat or pasta salad and go to one of patios/verandas/terraces at one of the smaller wineries and enjoy a couple glasses (or bottles) of wine. You will make it out with less money invested and a CONSIDERABLY better meal. Other lessons learned - go to the smaller vineyards (I suggest Regguchi) or the smaller wineries (such as Franciscan - not 'small' but certainly not Mondavi or even "Stag's Leap" - one of these days I'll post on why that whole mess should have been avoided by just finding "Stags Leap" [note that one has an apostrophe and the other doesn't] to be an infringing trademark [I don't really care who's infringing who - one is infringing the other and the existence of an apostrophe is NOT a valid basis of differentiation when the two are FUCKING DIRECTLY NEXT TO EACH OTHER]). Finally, one other lesson learned - we stayed in Davis, CA - just outside of Sacramento and took the "back" way, through the Mountains in to "the strip" - it was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than putting up with the bullshit traffic on 29. Oh. One more thing. Avoid taking a left if at all possible.

I could live in Davis, CA.

Sacramento was pretty disappointing. We saw (and photographed) Governor Arnold (even from across the street the dude looked like he could kill me with his pinky).

I REALLY want to go back to Lake Tahoe/Olympic Valley in the winter when I can actually snowboard there.

It is far easier to get around San Francisco on foot/bus/train/metro than it is to pay $22-28 a FUCKING DAY to park (and then walk around on foot). Yerba Buena Gardens (or whatever the fuck they're called) are a fucking waste of fucking time. They should just be renamed "Sony's Backyard." Honestly - nothing there that isn't in your backyard and it's about the same size. The City Hall is damn impressive - in fact it's much cooler than the STATE CAPITOL in Sacramento. Golden Gate park is much bigger than it looks - and September is NOT the time to visit the gardens there. We saw just about everything Chinatown had to offer and I have determined, in my non-objective, professional opinion, that it is indeed the cat's pajamas (or was it the bee's knees?). We ate at House of Nanking on Kearny (thanks Sarah!) and it was most excellent - just tell the server person what type of meat you want for an entree (we specified chicken) and give her a second meat (we specified beef) and see what they bring you. We had the Nanking Chicken (most excellent) and some spicy beef appetizer/small meal thingy; every table looked like they had something different. Good stuff.

Pier 39 is a waste of time (unless you are looking for a "San Francisco" coffee mug or magnet). But Pier 41 (Alcatraz) was damn nifty. I wish we had more time to spend at Alcatraz. We only spent about an hour on the island, but I easily could have spent at least another 2 to 3 there. SBC Park was nice enough, but it's honestly not as nice as I expected. The outside is fairly bland and boxy. The inside was good looking, but the sight lines looked out into the bay. And water just isn't that interesting. Even worse, the prices there were ridiculous. $4.25 for a 20 oz soda! $8.50 for nachos (though they were the best ballpark nachos I've had - and I've had a lot of ballpark nachos - they barely beat out Miami's nachos and they are slightly above Milwaukee's Nacho Helmet. For a more detailed analysis of ballpark nachos ask me in person or I'll dig up the website address when I get a chance to point you at the comparison John and I have done). Additionally, the ballpark was windy. Really windy. And in September it ain't really that warm there, either. We had a beer at "The 21st Amendment" near the stadium before the game and it seemed like a great place to have a beer before (or after) a game.

Oh. And Dennis. Seriously, not a problem about the club. It looked nice from the outside though. We were asleep within 20 minutes of getting back to our hotel! I'll take the raincheck, though. Look me up when you find yourself contemplating coming out to Chicago. And let me know how that 30th goes in Colorado in Feb.

Economic Impact of the New Orleans Disaster

2005-09-01T09:20:00.000-05:00

A Topical Story from the Washington Post

It occurred to me this morning (I'm slower than the average bear) that there are impacts to the greater US economy outside of the obvious. First, the obvious - New Orleans doesn't, and won't for many months, exist. For all intents and purposes the city is dead in the water (excuse the pun). Any business that once flowed from and/or to there has now stopped and must find an alternate route.

But, just to take ONE example, New Orleans was a shipping hub. The ships will need to find a new place to dock. This may sound easy, but N.O. already had the employees and infrastructure in place to handle such a volume; whatever city gets that motherload will struggle to keep up with demand, requiring more employment of a fairly specific skill that may not exist in that community in the requisite numbers. This could have two impacts: first, some other city will find the employees and the shipping business will expand, causing the city to expand, and some city will reap great rewards; the other impact is that the city will struggle, the shippers will cast about looking for other docks that CAN handle their business, or they will find alternative, and cheaper (because now you have dock-search costs, plus extra labor costs for the extra days it days it takes, etc.) alternatives to move their wares from point A to point B - most likely plane or train or truck (all of which require lots of gasoline). In any event, once the shippers settle on a method, the city of N.O., once it is back up and running, may never get that business back. And even if they could, there is a high likelihood that the dock workers never moved back from Houston. And this is just a partial impact of ONE industry.

Which brings me to my second point. The outflux of people from N.O. While some of them may move back, many of them will not. Since none of them have jobs right now, the unemployment in Houston has just shot through the (Astrodome) roof. Indeed, unemployment all over the South will be at all-time highs. The most significantly impacted will be the lower and lower-middle-classes - those who couldn't afford to move somewhere else or get relocated to a different headquarters. Conservatively, there are 50,000-100,000 additional people out of work, mostly in Houston, but spread all over the South - where are they going to get jobs?

In any event, over the next few months we will begin to see the true impact to the US economy - and it probably will not be good.

Why I'm a Materialist

2005-08-30T09:32:00.000-05:00

Now, first off, let me just be clear: the kind of materialism I'm talking about doesn't have anything to do with money. Rather, the materialism I adhere to is in contrast to dualism, and is a claim about what kinds of stuff there are in the world. Dualism is the stand that there are two kinds of stuff: usually physical stuff on the one hand, and spiritual or mental stuff on the other. I reject this position, and think that there is only one kind of stuff: material or physical stuff ("materialism" is also known as "physicalism," with maybe some slight differences in connotation, depending on who you talk to). One of the important reasons I reject any kind of dualism is because of an argument based on the unintelligibility of interaction between two fundamentally distinct substances.

Basically, the argument is that if there is some kind of spirit-stuff that is fundamentally distinct from physical stuff, then there doesn't seem to be any way for the two substances to interact. It's not just that we haven't yet found the right theory, but that it doesn't seem possible for there to be a right theory. The reason is that there doesn't seem to be any way for the two kinds of stuff to causally interact. Just think about it: spirit-stuff is claimed to be fundamentally non-physical. So, it must not have physical properties, like mass or size or color, and cannot be acted upon by any of the physical forces. If the spirit (or mind) cannot causally interact with the brain, then the mind is left as an impotent rider on the brain: willing your hand to raise cannot cause your hand to raise.

This, of course, seems crazy. I mean, we raise our hands all the damn time. One way to go with this is to bring in God. For instance, we could posit that God (or whatever all-powerful supernatural force you prefer) set up the world such that, though there isn't any causal interaction between the mental and physical, things were arranged at the beginning so they would always correspond. There is a problem with this: it destroys any possibility of free will and responsibility for one's actions. In other words, this "solution" undermines the foundation of moral theory. If what you think and, more importantly, what you choose, doesn't actually cause your body to act, then "you" (your mind/spirit) cannot be held responsible for actions your body takes: it quite literally wasn't you that did it!

Another possiblity is to say that every time you make a choice, it is God that steps in and makes it happen in the physical world. That is, there isn't any causal interaction directly between the mental and physical, but each interaction is really a kind of little miracle. First off, I'm hesitant to just go with "it's a miracle!" before we've even tried to give an account. But second, and I think perhaps even more importantly, this kind of answer seems to shackle God to the whims of each and every human being on this planet. In order for us to have free will, God MUST step in each time we will anything at all. S(he) has no choice! This also has the unpleasant corollary that God is in a real sense directly responsible for each and every terrible thing any human being has ever done.

So, I'm very hesitant to attempt to "fix" dualism by bringing in God. Without God, there doesn't seem to be any possibility of interaction between spirit-stuff and physical stuff. Therefore, I'm left with materialism. Though I am the first to admit we do not yet have a physical account that explains mind, there has been progress. If we can give a physical account of mind, then we can have a mind that really causes our actions, and so we have a shot at retaining free will and personal responsibility (not to mention just having a coherent theory!).

And that's why I'm a materialist.

Corporate (and Personal) Social Responsibility

2005-08-22T10:45:00.000-05:00

Milton Friedman's Initial Article from the NYTimes
Becker's Post
Posner's Post
Posner's Response

The above are just a few links on what those much smarter than me think about the subject. A note: all of them are generally conservative and most take a very practical efficiency-theory approach to the subject (at least those linked to, others who hold similar opinions hold them for other reasons, but the efficiency-theory is, in my experience, the most logical reason for the opinion these folks hold). All of them conclude that it is not appropriate for corporations to intentionally engage in un-profitable charitable activity (is it possible for charitable activity to be profitable? I guess that's kind of the point of this post though, eh?).

Anyway. I don't know what the answer is. But I think those who espouse what is generally labeled "corporate social responsibility" have a personal belief that charitable activity (beyond mere donation) is a generally good thing. Handing money over to a charity is fine, but personally, I think it's a waste of money. Even the best charities use over half of the donation for purposes other than funding the activity of the charitable organization (paying salaries, etc.) I believe that donation of time (or tangible things more useful than money, like computers) is much more useful. Having that as a background, now on to the discussion.

If I donate my time to a charity, my firm doesn't really see any benefit out of that directly. And, to the extent I do anything for the charity during work hours, it takes away from the profitability of my firm. However, if I work for the charity long enough, or put in good enough work, or have some interesting, or particularly novel idea there may be a position on the board of directors for the charity. This ultimately is a useful networking opportunity with all of the attendant benefits that are typically associated with networking. Moreover, to the extent that my services for the organization are concomitant with the activities of my firm (or corporation), my work acts as an advertisement for the company - showing others that my firm is good at x service that I am providing. To the extent that this gets advertised (I use the word "advertised" in a very loose sense, beyond the strict "newspaper"-type advertising) me and/or my firm/company see benefits. So, for this reason alone, it would be incumbent on corporations to encourage their workers to perform charitable activity outside of the workplace and in their free time - it's free advertising.

As for proper corporate donation, I think it can be useful. Look, for instance, at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (okay, not donations by Microsoft proper, but close enough). Most of the donations from the foundation to charitable organizations are not just money, but also computers. This provides enormous benefit to the organizations that they are given to (especially the children's organizations who can never get enough computers). It has the side-benefit that all of the computers are loaded with Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft products. The users get accustomed to using the Microsoft (and have the goodwill of having been a beneficiary of the charitable donation) and they buy and use Microsoft products at home and tell their friends and family how great Microsoft is. In this respect, there is direct and indirect benefit to the charitable giving.

I'll concede that straight charitable cash donation is generally a money-losing investment (especially if you give it to United Way). However, there are many ways to make charitable donations, such as giving of time and services and tangible goods, that are can be profitable, or at least not as much of a sink.

The reason I wrote this post is because most firms like mine "strongly encourage" community participation and charitable work because of the massive goodwill and attendant network opportunities presented by that activity. In light of the strong disfavor by those whom I typically regard as extraordinarily intelligent and well-reasoned folks, I felt that I needed some sort of justification for this demand by my firm. This is what I've come up with.

The Aristocrats

2005-08-17T10:41:00.000-05:00

Seriously, one of the funniest things I have ever witnessed.

The Aristocrats (IMDB)
South Park's telling of "the joke"

That's it for today.

Music

2005-08-12T07:15:00.000-05:00

Arcade Fire: Funeral
I can't stop listening to it. Really. Every time I finish listening to it, I'm like "I'll put on something else now" (see below) and I'll get 75% through that disc and put the Arcade Fire back on. The disc, front to back, is unbelievable. I've described it to others as "Interpol" doing "Talking Heads" covers. But I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but it gets you sort of close (assuming you know who Interpol and the Talking Heads are). Anyway. They really only sound like the Talking Heads (a popular, though not entirely accurate, point of comparison) because of the lead-singer's lyrical phrasing which can be similar to David Byrne. But man, these guys heap on the instruments, something like 10 or 11 different instruments were used in the recording of this album, and on some songs it sounds like every one made the cut. Anyway, phenomenal album.

Th' Legendary Shack Shakers: Cockadoodledon't
Scott H. Biram: Dirty Ol' One Man Band
Both of these albums sound like hellfire and brimstone brought to you from a rusted-out Ford pick-up careening down a back-country dirt road spewing beer cans and buckshot. I've actually had the pleasure of witnessing the Shack Shakers in concert twice and these dudes just don't stop. The lead singer is a hella fine harmonica player and the guitarist can just flat-out rip. To call these preachers "country" though would be to give modern country too much credit. Likewise, Biram's songs take on a life of their own. Give the guy credit, for not really being a strong lyricist or even a particularly deft songwriter the songs manage to compel you to listen to them and laugh and raise hell. Rooted in southern blues, his songs are foot stomping sendups to John Lee Hooker, Lynard Skynard and Gospel music all at once. Never have I heard such profane music so soul-inspiring.

Le Tigre: This Island
Electrelane: Axes
I recently went to this concert in Chicago. As a bit of a disclaimer, I'll add that my cousin is in Le Tigre. But, nonetheless, I had picked up their album a few months ago and I have been amazed. There's no easy way to describe it other than electro-feminist-dance-punk. In a live setting they are a sight to behold; despite the band's complaints about the crowd in Chicago the night I saw them. Firstly, the fact that any of them actually play an instrument seems to be besides the point; in fact, many of the songs ran entirely from tape and the three girls just sang over top of it. But, while that may sound like a cheap way out, it leaves them free to use the music as a rally cry to inspire the multitudes. Throughout the night the band encouraged and challenged the audience (mostly female, mostly gay/lesbian) to stand up for their rights, to be proud of themselves, to resist oppression in all its forms, to speak out against George W. Bush, and to dance (almost in that order). This band has it figured out; by that I mean, they have managed to take very serious messages and convey them in a very serious way without sounding preachy or mean-spirited and without lyrical clumsiness of their contemporaries.
Electrelane, on the other hand, was there for one reason: to bring the rock. Holy cow, I have never heard four girls sound so huge. They came out and about knocked the audience out of their shoes from the first chord. The music is mostly instrumental, but when the keyboardist/part-time-second-guitartist sings, her voice is almost angelic. They have perfected the fast-faster-slow-fast-faster song structure and use it on almost every song. But, oddly, it never gets old. They use the song structure to create soundscapes and grooves that hit you in the gut (literally, if you were to see them live! the bass and drums are HUGE).

Oh, I'd remiss if I didn't mention these as well because they are damn cool:
Buddy Rich: Best of the Pacific Years - even if you don't like jazz Buddy will blow your socks off.
Jamie Cullum: Twentysomething - described as a male Norah Jones, I think this is true only in that he will be responsible for resurrecting the "male crooner" from the dead grip of Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra and will take the baton from Tony Bennett.

Anyway. Just a few bands that are pretty cool.

How Dumb Can They Be?

2005-08-03T08:46:00.000-05:00

Palmeiro tests positive for Stanozolol.
What is Stanozolol? (pictures) Or, more precisely for athletes ("the third most abused substance among athletes") And "athletes" discuss "Stanozol" (warning high humor content - these dudes are apparently serious)

Basic rundown: Palmeiro testifies before Congress "I did not use steroid." Fast forward a few months. Palmeiro tests positive for a banned substance that turns out to be a hardcore anabolic steroid and then gives a lame excuse that "I didn't know that's what it was." First of all, from the descriptions of this drug (anabolic steroid, usually stacked with other testosterone products) that is simply not a feasible excuse. He had to have known. And moreover, there's no way he "just started" using this stuff since his testimony at Congress.

The whole steroid issue in baseball is a shame. And it puts in the forefront the reasons why steroids are ruining baseball, and indeed every sport (cycling, running, football, basketball, hockey, etc.). It's cheating. Plain and simple. The athlete went outside of the bounds of the game to give himself an edge over other participants. However you want to define it (cheat), it is cheating. It's the same as hiding an ace up your sleeve or stealing Monopoly money from the bank when no-one is looking. In fact it's worse because neither of those activities will shrink your testicles or make you more pre-disposed to aggression.

But what's the solution? Identifying substances is a wild goose chase. In fact it's more like chasing an invisible wild goose. The drug manufacturers are constantly tweaking the drugs to be less and less identifiable. And everyone's body is so different that it is impossible to set hard limits on bodily reference statistics (white-cell counts, hemoglobin counts, oxygen levels, etc.) It seems that every time sports catches one drug, another is developed to circumvent the testing mechanism. To me it seems the only logical place to end the problem is at the source (rather than with the users) - make the drugs Federally restricted drugs and the manufacture, sale, or importation of them illegal. First of all its easier to track the manufacturers because they need to be licensed and its harder to set up a manufacturing facility without someone noticing. Importing can be stopped at the borders. Treat anabolic steroids as illicit (prescription) drugs - much like cocaine derivatives used in medical practice. Unless you are a federally licensed doctor or facility you cannot be in possession or distribute said drug. Period.

Honestly, these drugs serve no purpose other than to cheat. Well, that's not entirely true, they do serve a purpose; but those practicing the proper purpose should have no problem obtaining said proposed licenses. But for most of the use these drugs get, they serve no proper purpose other than to cheat. They are a danger to the person consumming them and they are a danger to the integrity of sports. Of course, a mention of kids here would serve the rhetoric well, but I think it's horseshit to blame pro athletes for the problems of kids - except for the fact that these kids see the pros and know that if they want to compete with the pros they will have to take steroids, etc. as well.

Finally, there's an issue of "what is a steroid" or a "performance enhancing substance?" Protein is the basic building block of muscle, but steak is not a performance enhancing substance. In some respects "aspirin" is a performance-enhancing drug or "caffeine." So, where do you draw the line? What makes Stanozolol morally different from eating raw eggs before (or immediately after) working-out? I don't know the answer to that, by the way. But it's a question that has to be answered before these drugs can be put on any sort of federal banned-substance list.

The hunt for the perfect office chair

2005-07-28T11:40:00.000-05:00

So as I begin to write this, I lean back in my Ikea office chair, and nearly fall flat on my back. This has been the case for months now. So, why haven't I already remedied the problem? The short answer:

Grad school.

The life of the student is rich, but the wallet of the student is slim. But, as has happened every year so far (though past performance is no guarantee of future success, or something like that), my birthday has come around giving me an excuse to splurge on a chair that doesn't consistently hurt my ass if I sit in it for more than ten minutes, and that doesn't attempt to dump me on the floor if I swivel too quickly or, God forbid, lean back (lean back.. yeah lean back...).

Which brings me, finally, to the real point here: the interweb is cool.

Now, you might ask, how exactly was I brought to this point? Well, before I go out to the local big box office retailer to blindly drop my birthday money on some crappy chair that will fall apart almost as quickly as my valiant though poorly constructed Swedish-made torture device, I navigated the aformentioned interweb to this wonderful search engine, Google. From there I branched off to several office chair buyer's guides and some reviews (though surprisingly few for office chairs) on epinions. My searches revealed several absolutely glowing reviews for the Herman Miller Aero chair. Unfortunately, it's like $600 bucks: too dear even on my birthday I'm afraid. But apparently you can adjust this thing to the point where it actually grasps your butt in a firm yet supple embrace every time you sit down.

So here's the thing: the internet makes me a better consumer. I now can walk into the big box office retailer (who I hear through the grapevine is currently having a big office furniture sale... Yes!!) having some idea what to look for. I want a chair that meets or exceeds ANSI/BIFMA standards; that has forward seat tilt, that has a cushion made of memory foam; and so on.

Aside: who the hell thinks of a name that gets you the acronym "BIFMA"? Sounds like the punchline to a bad joke.

I culled this information in the space of a bout half an hour, the results of hundreds or thousands of people's opinions and experiences. While any single piece of information may be misleading (there are some baaaad people out there), the ability to crosscheck across multiple sites leaves me with a good idea of which chairs are good and what to look for. I really never make a major purchase anymore without first having done some lookin' on the old interweb first.

And you know what?

I am rarely disappointed anymore with the things that I buy.

Branding (not cows, but products)

2005-07-27T09:15:00.000-05:00

Wired Article about Branding
Comment by Trademarks and Technology Blog

One of my favorite topics. So, sorry if this drags out. There are two basic points I want to make about these two articles and here are the quotes that I wish to discuss: "Americans have become less loyal" (from wired) and "If consumers don't actually have 'goodwill' towards a brand, in the sense of driving consumer behavior towards brands, then perhaps we run the risk of overweighting goodwill in our legal analysis" from Mr. Goldman's blog.

I think it is generally true that Americans have become less loyal. I think that is a good thing. No longer are Americans wow-ed by a manufacturer's primateur. They demand the product sell itself rather than rely on the manufacturer's name alone in making a purchasing decision. As both articles point out, this is made possible by the plethora (cornucopia, if you will) of information about products on the web. The most well known, of course, being epinions.com but almost every retail site has consumer reviews of products in some form or another (see amazon.com, buy.com, mysimon.com, fatwallet.com, etc.) Mr. Goldman seems to think there is too much information available. In the land of retail consumerism I fail to see how this is possible. If you know what product you want it's pretty easy to go to Google or Amazon's A9 site and instantly retrieve information about any product you can dream of. This is not a bad thing. In the past consumers were afraid of new products because they were unknown quantities, if your friends/family had never heard of it, it was hard to compare against products that nobody had any complaints about. For this reason, it was difficult to break into oligopolistic markets; particular ones where the big names had been around for a long time and advertised heavily. This was true even if the product was superior - history is rife with superior products squeezed out of a market by bigger names with bigger ad budgets. A few factors have contributed to the general reversal of this problem: more cable channels (to sub-divide interests and provide more advertising time at a lower relative cost); the internet (low-cost advertising, low-cost customer service mechanisms, product reviews and ratings); increased competition in the delivery channels (there are more package carriers now, rates are lower, and it is generally easier to get product from point A to point B) These three factors alone have contributed to the large influx of individual producers who can distribute from their garage rather than try to get into a big-box retailer; in fact the individuals can be sold in the same channels (amazon.com, ebay, etc.) as the big-box retailers. All of these together have eroded the need by consumers to rely on brands as an indicator of quality.

That is not to say that branding no longer serves a purpose as the Wired article suggests. Mr. Goldman is correct that branding provides an important product-distinction fuction - it is still necessary to brand so that consumers can differentiate product A from product B consistently. Moreover, Mr. Goldman suggests that "goodwill" may be out the door if consumers are willing to jump from product to product. He views "goodwill" as "brand loyalty" and I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I believe it's not entirely accurate because I disagree with the Mr. Goldman's assessment of the primary function of brands and trademarks. No doubt branding is changing, and companies are moving from a paradigm of product-quality to a paradigm of lifestyle-association. Now, instead of spreading one brand across multiple demographics we are starting to see the same (or very similar) products, with multiple brands (and perhaps with tweaked options) depending the targeted demographic. In trademark-law terms, I think it will begin to manifest itself in tradedress terms rather than strictly trademark terms. Niche marketing is beginning to take hold and I think we'll see more of it before we start to see less of it. To this end the brand becomes part of the product itself rather than a designation of the product. Consumers begin to see the product (which is virtually identical to competing products) differentiation as the brand and accept that across the product category quality will be approximately equal. In this way, the brands that pay more to advertise will be able to continue to charge a premium on the brand because there is a certain "cool" factor attached, rather than any assumption of quality. People are seeing off-brands not as of "inferior quality" but rather as "not as cool" and that is an important distinction because it allows competitors into the market if they brand themselves as a "stripped down" version of the product or if they market themselves as "uber-chic." So, producers are playing not with our perceptions of quality but rather our perceptions of ourselves and Americans' desires to differentiate themselves. So, people are no longer "Sony" people because they believe Sony has superior products, but rather because they like the consistent styling that Sony uses on their products and want to project that style to others. In this way, the brand now encompasses much more than the name "Sony" but it also encompasses the "brushed steel" look and the "steel and white" coloring. Look at Apple, they've virtually hypnotized an entire nation with the color white. So, while the brand as an indicator of quality is rapidly disappearing, it is being replaced by brand as an indicator of self; and this designation one could argue would engender even greater "goodwill" because people are more loyal to themselves than they have ever been to quality.

GTA: San-Andreas

2005-07-22T09:21:00.000-05:00

The hub-hub seems to be about over. The basic problem is this: the makers of GTA had created a "sexually explicit" version of the game, but changed it to get from an "adult" rating to a "mature" rating by ESRB. However, instead of removing the content, they had merely "disabled" it. Some enterprising young fellows "enabled" it. Hilarity ensues as the ESRB revokes the "mature" rating. Anyway. Thought you might be interested what is so "sexually explicit" about this game.

A Few of My Favorite Things

2005-07-21T10:45:00.000-05:00

I wanted to try to get back into this, but I don't really have the time today. So, to get things started, here are a few of my (currently) favorite things: (note this not an "all-time" list, just a list of stuff I'm currently digging)

Web-Comics:
http://www.boasas.com/
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/
http://www.indietits.com/
http://www.little-gamers.com/
http://www.wigu.com/overcompensating/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
http://www.questionablecontent.net/
http://www.reallifecomics.com/
http://www.scarygoround.com/
http://www.whiteninjacomics.com/comics.shtml
http://www.wigu.com/
http://www.alpha-shade.com/www/pages/pages.htm

Books (by Title):
Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time; Haddon, Mark
Rabbit is Rich; Updike, John
Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay; Chabon, Michael
Crime and Punishment; Doestoyevsky, Fyodor
Pale Fire; Nabakov, Vladimir
Darkness at Noon; Koestler, Arthur
Jitterbug Perfume; Robbins, Tom

Music:
Old 97's - Drag It Up;
Scott Biram - Dirty Ole One Man Band;
Th' Legendary Shack Shakers - Cockadoodledon't;
Nine Inch Nails - With Teeth;
The Kinks - Village Green Preservation Society;
Ted Leo and the Pharmacists - Hearts of Oak;
The Arcade Fire - Funeral;
Wilco - A Ghost is Born;
Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks;
Talking Heads - 77

Is someone trying to tell me something?

2005-01-19T09:40:00.000-06:00

Last week I finshed reading this book by Dan Brown called "Angels and Demons." It wasn't a particularly good book. The action was ridiculous and the themes were presented and explored much like typical genre crime novels explore themes; that is to say, poorly. However, in reading between the lines, it appears that this book was supposed to be about technology and religion. Whether the two are compatible or whether they are inherently at odds with one another. Can one believe in (a Christian) God and still believe in evolution? Dogmatic adherence to Christian principles says "no," the two are inherently in conflict; either you believe that God created man in His likeness or you don't; and if you don't, you are a heathen destined for Hell. The book really presented only these two options; it explored none of the grey area between the two. It presented this struggle as a literal struggle between Satan (the Illuminati), God (Roman Catholicism), Technology (CERN) and the world-saving-hero-scholar (behold the mighty professor!). Ultimately, the message got pushed to the background by a stupid plot that kept getting in the way.

So, after putting this train-wreck of a book down (and out of my misery), I picked up Tom Robbins' "Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates." I knew exactly NOTHING about it what it was about. I had read one prior Robbins book ("Jitterbug Perfume") and absolutely loved it. So, I was curious to read more of his material and this book had been given to me. Surprisingly, it dealt with similar themes as "Angels and Demons." The only difference is that it explored ONLY the grey area between non-belief and belief. More precisely, the book examined WHY we have religion, faith and/or belief in the first place; what does it get us? To believers that seems like a heretically self-centered thought? God isn't about YOU, it's about OTHERS. Blah, blah, blah. Horseshit. We wouldn't be suckered into it, if we didn't get something out of it. So, what do we get out of religion. The book concludes (not as in 'ends' but rather as in 'comes to decision about') that we get out of it, what we put into it. I'm not sure Robbins would agree that's what the book is about. But, I think that sums it up nicely. We, as individuals, can choose not to believe and we will get nothing out of it. God, Mohammed, Mary (how come no one ever sees Joseph in their bagels?), Christ, the Pope, Adam, Eve, Vishnu, Buddha, Shamans, they mean nothing if you don't believe what they're telling you. Sometimes extraordinary things happen that cause people to re-think their position on the matter, and the majority of the world calls these 'miracles.' And they exist. Or rather, they exist in Robbins' world in this novel.

Regardless, we have gotten rather far afield of my rather simple purpose. After I started reading "Fierce Invalids" but not after the shell-shocked disappointment of "Angels and Demons" wore off, the book club I have reluctantly agreed to grace with my presence decided they hated "Angels and Demons" so much, we had to read a proper novel about the Illuminati. A novel long, and convoluted and filled with more obscure words than a Webster's Dictionary (literally. seriously, there were words in this book that are not in the dictionary). It's by Umberto Eco and is called "Faucault's Pendulum" or something like that. Anyway. All about God and Satan and the usual rigamarole. So, that will make 3 consecutive books about God, Satan, Cardinals, Popes, Nuns, and world-saving-hero-scholars (the hero of "Fierce Invalids" had an advanced degree in linguistics).

Why is this weird? Well, it's not weird that someone would read 3 straight books with such a theme. People read thematically similar books all the time. But this is weird: the receptionist at my office comes in today and hands me a bag of cookies and says "you have to eat these because I can't" - the cookies are made by real, live nuns at the St. Roger Abbey in Oak Park, Illinois. Now, that, my friends, is fucking weird.

George the King...er...President

2004-11-05T06:24:00.000-06:00

I'll admit I was surprised this morning by a number of things. First, Ohio still didn't have its votes in. My first reaction was "uhhh.ohhh...it's Florida all over again." Then after some reading I discovered that Bush led in Ohio by 130,000 and that it was 'statistically impossible' for Kerry to make up the difference with the provisional ballots. THEN, on the way to work I hear John Edwards blathering about not giving up until all votes have been counted. Then I thought "Oh Christ, it really WILL be another Flordia." The second surprise was Kerry conceding defeat in the early afternoon. At least he accepted defeat when it was staring him in the face. So, now there are two questions:

First, when we will first start hearing "Hillary in '08" advertisements? My guess is sometime next summer.

Second, when will Barack Obama run against Arnold Schwartzenegger for President? I'm putting my money on 2012.

I Don't Wanna Vote

2004-11-01T11:39:00.000-06:00

With Election Day tomorrow, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, papers and television and the web are gearing up for a heated battle between Bush and Kerry. This year the expected voter turnout is near 70%. In the 1996 election voter turnout was at an all-time low for a Presidential election; somewhere near 50%. In the ‘ideal’ world, according to many of the papers, the voter turnout would be 100%. But why is this ideal?

MTV and the candidates and virtually every political outlet in the country is urging citizens to “Rock the Vote” or some other similar nonsense. Why? Why is it so important that I vote? Indeed why is it important that ANY of us vote? Of course, SOME of us need to vote, otherwise no one would win an election that tied at 0. But do ALL of us need to vote? Probably not. And it’s probably best that some of us don’t. And some us should refrain.

George Bush has told me I need to vote. John Kerry has told me I need to vote. But do they really want me voting for the other guy? Of course not. They get to mask their “non-partisan public service announcement” in political propaganda. They only tell me to vote so that the next clause “FOR ME” doesn’t sound out of place and pushy. Voting should be an well-reasoned, intelligent, decision. Almost by definition that excludes most of MTV’s viewership. But even MTV, indeed every ‘news’ outlet has a clause equivalent to “FOR ME” that they follow up the “get out and vote” statement with. Just look at the media and look at who they endorse. Dave Matthews, Bruce Springsteen, Foo Fighters, Rolling Stone, MTV, CNN, AFL/CIO all want you to “Get Out and Vote” – FOR KERRY. While the NRA, Religious Right, Fox News and Chicago Tribune also want you to “Get Out and Vote” – FOR BUSH.

I know I’m ALLOWED to vote. I don’t need MTV, the NRA, or certainly not the candidates, to tell me, in a non-partisan condescendingly friendly voice, to “get out and vote.” Instead, provide me with a REASON to vote. Why should I vote for John Kerry over George Bush? Or vice versa. Tell me, exactly, what Kerry will do differently from George Bush; and be honest about it.

One of John Kerry’s recent ads suggests that we are ‘too dependent’ on Middle East oil. But, duh. That isn’t going to CHANGE under John Kerry. First of all, it’s not, physically possible. Something like 70% of all the oil in the world is concentrated in the Middle East. The reserves in the US are not sufficient to sustain our economy for more than 1 month, let alone for years into the future. Where else are we going to get our oil if not from the Middle East? I hear Kerry and the Democrats telling me that the war is bad because it over oil, and that’s not disputed; of course it’s over oil – they have it, we need it, and they want to bleed us dry for it. But is Kerry’s solution ‘find alternatives to the internal combustion engine’? No, the auto-lobby won’t let him put that one on the platform. So, what, exactly is Kerry’s plan for the Middle East? To date I haven’t heard one.

As for domestic issues, Kerry spouts the typical liberal bullshit but I actually agree with him on some regards. We do need a balanced budget. But that’s not possible with an on-going war. We simply can’t produce the money fast enough to cover war costs AND domestic programs. So, the alternative is ‘stop the war.’ But given that it’s started, what’s the best way to do that? I haven’t heard any suggestions from Kerry’s side. We also need universal health care and better schools. Both of those programs cost money. Where is the money going to come from? I’d put down my last dollar to bet that the insurance industry is no fan of universal health care, so their lobby will make sure that stays off the agenda. Meanwhile, real reform of the education system will require pissing off teaches, because, quite frankly too many of them don’t know what they’re doing. But will Kerry alienate one of his most solid backers in the teacher’s union?! Doubtful.

Meanwhile, President Bush has been a walking disaster. His presidency has gotten us into a stupid war and his cabinet has pulled the blanket off of government chicanery and exposed his staff for the frauds they are. To his credit, the economy isn’t really his fault, but he’s getting the blame for it anyway. The only program that he’s had even minor success with might just prevent his re-election – The No Child Left Behind Act is bringing up the bottom of the education system, but at the expense of the top of the education system and by imposing national standards on a local problem.

So, we, the people, are left with a choice between bad and worse – I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is who. Will it matter who is in office? That’s a question that goes to the heart of your faith in the political system as it exists today. Some argue that as the leader of the most influential nation in the world, that of course it makes a difference. The President influences policy and sets the basic tone for the country. But does he really do anything? The Secretary of State is usually in charge of foreign affairs, and by all accounts Colin Powell hasn’t been a complete disaster. As for domestic matters, given the gridlock in Congress, nothing remarkable, let alone revolutionary, will ever get done there.

And besides, very little that the President personally does will affect my life in any way in the next four years. Kerry might cut taxes for the middle class, so that’s a good thing, but it’s also a very Republican thing for Kerry to do and probably won’t get done because money for his ‘programs’ has to come from somewhere. Kerry’s also promised to roll back tax cuts for the richest Americans; but by all accounts they are temporary anyway and will naturally get rolled back as the economy comes out of its recession. Besides, the tax cuts were one of the few more inspired moments of the Bush presidency that actually instigated capital spending and kept the markets afloat through a very mild recession. Otherwise, universal health care and a balanced budget are not going to happen in the next four years. So, I’m left with a decision that I don’t really care about. Do I vote for the guy who will say anything to get elected or the guy who did a pretty bad job (though not terrible job, given the circumstances) in his first term. Well, it doesn’t really matter to me, one’s as bad as the other so I’ll let the American people decide and I’ll stay at home and play the new Grand Theft Auto.

Justifying the Electoral College

2004-10-28T15:26:00.000-05:00

The Constitution provides that: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.” This is the clause that establishes the Electoral College system. Why use this manner rather than a popular vote of the people? It goes to the very fundamental nature of the democratic system, checks and balances. The Legislative System is entirely elected by popular vote. Each state holds elections and Representatives and Senators are chosen by popular vote to represent the people in the centralized government. The federal judicial system is entirely appointed; the executive branch makes appointments and the legislative branch approves the appointments. The executive branch on the other hand is meant to be the representative of the states.

An individual is best represented at the state level. For the most part, ours is a government where the central, federalized, government leaves the states to rule for themselves. The federal branches only interfere, in theory, where one state’s action would impact another state, or for the benefit of all the states. If a citizen wants action that directly affects him, he can vote for his governor, or mayor, or towns’ select-man or whatever local government exists. On the other hand, the federal government merely tells states what they can and cannot do; in theory, it has no (or at least very little) direct influence over the individual. At the time the constitution was written this was even more pronounced as the taxing clauses were mostly unused and federal subsidies were non-existent. As a result, the executive branch was deemed to be the mouthpiece of the states that would check the mouthpiece of “the people” in the federal system, the legislature. The veto power was vested in the President because ultimately it is the states that the federal government controls, not the people.

The Governor of each state appoints members to sit on the state’s electoral college. Each state gets a number of votes in the Electoral College equivalent to the number of representatives (a popularly represented group determined by the population of the state who represent each local interest) plus the number of senators (those that represent the interests of the whole state). In this way, the state appoints its officers to elect the president on its behalf. The members of the Electoral College are, of course, free to vote in way they see fit and in most states every member of that state’s Electoral College vote as determined by the popular vote in that state. This is all the popular vote is for in a Presidential election; to determine how that state’s Electoral College members should vote. In deed, the State could develop a system whereby the Governor simply tells the Electoral College how to vote and this would be Constitutional. The people are not voting for their representative, the President, as the head of the executive branch, does not represent the people, he represents the states. The Speaker of the House and President of the Senate represent the people. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court represents the non-partisan judiciary. Each of these people stand on equal footing in the governing process, with the caveat that the President gets to veto the legislature because ultimately the federal government rules the states. The judiciary simply ensures that the each group does not over-step its bounds. The states rule the people.

Recently there has been a movement in the United States (note: United STATES, not United PEOPLE) to remove the Electoral College system. Most see it as an inequitable façade and an impediment to the wishes of the people. Given the above, I fail to see how this is the case. It is what it is. It is the system by which states elect the President. A popular vote for the President is not necessary, and would throw the system of checks and balances out of balance. If the President were popularly elected, he would, then be the voice of the people and the people would control all aspects of the government, leaving out the interests of the state from the federal government.

What interests do the states have that cannot or should not be expressed by the people? First and foremost, the states have an entire executive system charged with enforcing state laws that need to be considered separate of the will of the people for the purposes of domestic tranquility. Take, for example, the Patriot Act. At the urging of the President Congress passed a bill establishing the regulations that consist of the Patriot Act because the President believed that the federal government, and the state enforcement systems needed the things outlined, sometimes to the detriment of the People. It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President, to determine the needs of its constituents and properly balance proposed legislation in the best interests of the people. If the bill unfairly affects the people, it is the responsibility of the representatives and senators to ensure that the people are adequately protected. The President’s job is to ensure that the legislation is properly imposed on the states where it will be the State’s duty to implement and execute that directive (if appropriate).

If the President were in charge of the will of the People, he must consider the need of the people rather then the need of the state when determining whether to veto given legislation. Not only is this determination duplicative, it removes the State interest in governing itself from the equation, and is improperly determined. One person cannot be responsible for the will of 250 million people; it is physically impossibly and logically unwise. As it is, one person is responsible for the will of approximately 20,000 people (the approximate number of people each representative represents). If the people take issue with legislation passed by Congress, it is the duty of the people to complain to their representatives and senators, those responsible for the will of the people.

But, the complaint is, that the people should not be ruled by a person whom they did not elect. But, that’s obviously the point. The people did not elect the person, the states did. That one state has more people than another is largely a matter of chance. If we remove the Electoral College, the whole function of the state within the federal system is removed. If the state is removed from the federal system, what good is the federal system? If it simply becomes a large state ruled by the will of the people, why have states at all? The United States would simply become the United People of America with 50 very large counties.

Second Amendment Hypocrisy

2004-05-07T16:06:00.000-05:00

I've been kinda rethinking my view on guns/2nd Amendment. And, oddly enough, in the direction you might not expect. I've heard the debate for years, with my mom (in the past) being a tree-hugging granola-munching liberal, and my dad being a card-carrying, gun-toting, puppy-kicking member of the NRA. And I've typically sided with my mom.

As an aside, many folks assume that policemen would, by the nature of their jobs, be some of the biggest proponents of gun-control. From my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Most cops are ex-military and avid hunters, plus they wouldn't have joined the police had they an aversion to guns. So how do they answer the question, "Wouldn't your job be so much easier with gun control laws that would help limit the number of people who could shoot at you?" The standard answer I've heard is, "Any law you could draw up could not keep 'the bad guys' from acquiring guns...it would just punish the law-abiding folks."

My way of thinking is this: When the constitution/bill of rights were first being devised, the founding fathers were basically making things up as they went along based on social theory they had read, their previous experiences, and their own values. So, they set the "rules of the game". And one of those rules was "the right to bear arms" (although the language of the 2nd amendment is really goofy). For better or worse, that's the rule. The more laws we compile on top of it inhibits those rights that the Constitution promised us, and slowly dilutes the original document.

In conveying these rights to the people, I view it (as they probably did) as a big experiment. "Let's see, if we give all these rights and freedoms to people, can they handle it and live within that framework." And, by and large, it has worked. But there is a down side, and drunk idiot Cub fans packing heat is one of those. All things considered, the benefits from freedoms outweigh the down sides.

Plus, I've always (since, like, a few days ago anyway) felt it's extremely hypocritical for the ultra-liberals to rail against guns, the 2nd amendment and the NRA, all-the-while blasting those freedom-hating conservatives for trying to confine free speech and religion.

And it's hypocritical on the other side for the conservative Christian folks, most of whom are deer-huntin' good ole boys who would shoot you before relinquishing their guns, screaming to put an end to that "damned filthy internet and porn and swearing and homasexy-ality and abortion and Islam and all that other satan activity.

With one comes the other. We can't have it both ways. The early bird catches the worm (??).

- John

Why Steve Jobs in Full of Shit

2004-04-29T10:14:00.000-05:00

From: http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/42503/windowspaulthurrott_42503.html

Furthermore, the subscription music services that are gaining traction on the PC side are unsuccessful, Jobs says. "People want to own their music," he noted in a conference call yesterday.

Jobs is full of shit. Rather, he's not full of shit, people do want to own their music. He's just full of shit because he implies that his company allows you to do that via his ubiquitous iPod. You don't own your music on iTunes. If you owned your music you wouldn't be restricted from playing it on only 7 devices (can you only use your toaster on 7 surfaces?). If you owned your music you wouldn't be restricted from burning it on only 10 cds (can you only use your books 10 times?). If you owned your music you wouldn't be prevented from using any other software player on your computer (can you only use one software to play DVDs on your computer?).

Each of these things are distorting our copyright law (which provides that limitations are the EXCEPTION not the RULE) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it because consumers buy into it.

2004-03-11T10:04:00.000-06:00

Unbelievable

2004-03-09T12:47:00.000-06:00

How about the Patriot Act? I have only one thing to say: I told you so. Back in late September of 2001 millions of people were crying for the downfall of terrorism; we can't allow this to happen; millions of Americans are going to die; this is an infestation in our country that must be controlled; etc. etc. etc. And everyone was warned that we could improve security, but by necessity basic freedoms would have to go and we would be inconvenienced. You'll have a background check and thorough search at the airport. Employers will have more access to background information. Security will be tighter everywhere. Police will be able to respond more quickly. And the American public said "Do it. We must stop 9/11 from happening again. I don't have anything to hide, and I'm not a terrorist so why should it affect me."

So the legislators did it. And now all anyone can do is bitch. Airport security is back to normal except that now they put the scanners out front so people can see their bags being scanned. And the legislation that allows background checks and faster response by the police is being criticized by everyone with a pen and some paper. Look folks, you asked for it. You got it. Luckily, they included "sunset provisions" so that the legislation will go away. But you would have passed it without them.

The complaints are mostly about the lack of privacy. I thought you didn't have anything to hide? Oh, NOW you care about your privacy. I thought you weren't a terrorist? Oh, you don't want to know that sometimes terrorists aren't muslim, middle-easterners; that sometimes the terrorists are the white males across the aisle from you on the bus. That's certainly inconvenient; you can't look like a patriot for refusing to sit next to a white male on an airplane. I thought you wanted to be able to electronically track terrorist activities? Oh, you must not have realized that the feds could also see how much porn you look at on a yearly basis with the same technology - that somehow the terrorist activity was conveniently labelled so that they could filter out anything not labelled "terrorist activity." I thought you were sick of the CIA having information about terrorists but the FBI had no clue, or vice-versa? Oh, you didn't realize that the same databases also contain your public information, too.

Look, the Patriot Act doesn't really do anything that couldn't already be done, anyway. It just makes it easier for law enforcement to do. It makes information sharing easier. It makes task force coordination easier. But, hey, if you want to go back to pre-9/11 security and bureauocracy, that's your perogative; you're the American public. If you bitch enough you'll get your way.

Just don't be surprised when you find out you've sacrificed more of your American citizens for privacy.

2004-02-26T12:45:00.000-06:00

I'm going to chime in about the war because ... well ... because I can. It seems to me that a lot of people have some false understandings about the war. Primarily, I hear things like "This war is bad because it's only about oil." Well, there are many things wrong with that sentence. First and foremost, of course war is bad. It's not supposed to be good. War, by necessity, involves death and bloodshed. So, of course, war is bad. But there is a reason we have an army; to fight wars. No person in the Armed Forces is deluded into thinking that they couldn't be killed at any possible moment; they all understand that their job is to fight and they might end up dying because of it. We've been spoiled since Vietnam (which was also a 'wrong' war) in that: a) the cold war didn't actually involve any fighting and b) that the Persian Gulf War was over in an hour and half.

But, about this war particularly. Of course, to understand it you have to go back to the first Persian Gulf war which was about Saddam Hussein abusing his power, and about oil. In the early 90s Iraqi Kurdish minorities started complaining about being oppressed by their country's leader (Saddam). Neighboring countries also started complaining about Iraq's political issues disrupting the region; to stop the complaining and to free up better access to the ocean Saddam marched his military into Kuwait. When the US complained, Saddam started cutting off oil supplies to countries in the area that were friendly to the US (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.). His solitary actions affected oil supplies and prices around the world. Pres. Bush 1 managed to get support from the UN to go in and stop the abuses and free the oil lines that were being tied up.

Of course, after we 'won' the war, Saddam said "Ha ha, I was just kidding," and promised to be good. Since then he has done everything in his power to taunt the US and the UN. He has violated OPEC regulations and varied oil output to cause wild fluctuations in oil prices, he has allowed his military to continue to oppress the kurdish minorities, he has given his sons free reign to terrorize the populace, and he has given aid and support to known terrorist organizations (including Al Quada). Reliable intelligence by countries other than US showed that he was assembling a nuclear program (which he was, but only now are we finding out it was power-related, not weapons-grade) and had factories producing biological weapons in contravention of numerous UN treaties. Of course, those reports now seem to have been wrong, but how were we to know that when Saddam stood in the way of every inspector to ever step foot in the country.

Our nation is very oil-dependent. We need it to power our precious automobiles; and if anything our SUV nation has become even more oil dependent. The GM Hummer gets 11 MPG on the HIGHWAY and the average SUV gets a little under 20 MPG. Meanwhile, auto manufacturers can't make the things fast enough. Our country needs oil and it needs it at a cheap price; otherwise we'll have to start using mass transit and we all know that Americans love their cars entirely too much for THAT! So, until you are ready to get rid of your SUV and jump on a train or at least drive something a little more gas-friendly, you can't complain about the need for oil.

Having established that Americans need oil, Iraq is one of the most powerful oil-producing nations in the world; behind Saudi Arabia. Given the worldwide (and US-specific) need for oil and the lack of stability from a country run by a leader gone amok, something had to be done. While there doesn't appear to be any 'tipping point' that is usually unmistakable in war-scenarios, it was clear from shortly after the Gulf War ended that Saddam had to go. He was de-stabilizing the region and de-stabilizing gas prices around the world. In the US prices fluctuated wildly from $1.00/gallon to unheard-of prices in excess of $2.50/gallon. Bill Clinton was too preoccupied (perhaps rightly) by domestic issues, but when the situation presented itself, we took advantage of it.

We were already in the region looking for Osama bin Laden and reports started leaking that Saddam was helping him out. Having the largest military in the world allowed us to keep pressure on Al Quada to keep them on the run and in disarray while we committed the rest of the military to a task that should have been accomplished years ago. Did we rush in prematurely or hastily? Probably, but we didn't really expect to be there prior to 9/11/2001. And, as I said, since we're there, we might as well just take care of it.

Problems have creeped up, mostly how to let the country run itself since we seemed to have worn out our welcome. But, "luckily" our President and Vice-president come from oil families and have significant contacts in companies that are large enough and diversified enough to control the situation without a whole lot of babysitting. Have things gone wrong with Halliburton? Sure. But the same types of things you would expect from any company that was handed free reign to rebuild an infrastructure (namely the "3 for you, 1 for me"-type shenanigans). Overall, having one company control the physical rebuilding is certainly more efficient than the government having to supervise/babysit/coordinate multiple companies. Such a situation leaves the government free to undertake other activities, like establishing a democracy and hunting down Bin Laden.

I'll be the first to admit that perhaps our administration is being something less than direct with the American Public. But hasn't every President? ("I did not have sex with that woman", "No new taxes", "I forget, I think it was Ollie North's fault", "We'll get the hostages from Iran", "I am not a crook", "Russians are getting ready to attack from Cuba", etc.) Regardless, I believe that ousting Saddam Hussein was the right move. And everytime you go to the gas station to fill up your SUV you can thank President Bush.

2004-02-12T15:47:00.000-06:00

Post No Bills 01/09/04

OK...back to posting...I suppose...for now.

I don't understand why Andre3000's "My Favorite Things" is so reviled by the critics who seem to love the album. I have a feeling that this album reached a critical mass (pun intended) and now people are jumping on the bandwagon and don't even know why. Undoubtedly Speakerboxxx/The Love Below is a great (set of) album(s). As many know by now, Speakerboxxx, Big Boi's effort, is fairly traditional for Outkast (if such a statement exists). The album is straight up (for the most part) hip-hop-funk in the Outkast/Southern Rap style. As such, it is well-executed but boring. Of course, many are offended that I would call such a work 'boring,' but compared to Andre3000's effort almost all prior hip-hop is now boring and irrelevant.

The Love Below has set a new standard for rap and hip-hop. Like Beck before him, Andre has transcended the idea of mixing genres to achieve an entirely new genre unto himself. "Happy Valentine's Day" could have been written by Parliament (if George Clinton hadn't been smoking crack) and "Pink & Blue" does a good imitation of Sly and the Family Stone. But where do you stick a song like "Hey Ya!"? It's quite possibly the most perfect, brilliant pop song written since REM released "Stand" back in 1988. Some of the songs on "The Love Below" are on the money and only held back by Andre's absurdity; for example "Dracula's Wedding." DW is a great song, the tune is memorable and the melodies are catchy, the lyrics are absurd and just get in the way. Often, Andre's absurdity works in his favor (for example, Happy Valentines Day) but on this particular song, it keeps a good song from being great.

And where does a song like "My Favorite Things" sit? It's a bit of an enigma, that song. Created as a show tune, it sat for many years relegated to status as a childhood favorite to keep the kids quiet. Many people (most notably reviewers who tend not to like Andre's re-imagining of it) I'm guessing have never heard John Coltrane's version. Even knowing that John Coltrane re-worked the song, instantly makes Andre's version a little more understandable. The song, as performed by Andre, is a jazz masterpiece. DJ Shadow and all of the nu-electro-jazz leaders could take notes from Andre here. Floating in and out of the song structure is what made the Coltrane-Davis-Monk-era jazz so refreshing and vital. Of course, listeners now want their hands held. They don't want to have to strain too hard to get the melody and they want their solos concise, to the point and in time with the rest of the song. Jazz doesn't work that way. The song goes where it goes, it's up to the players to take it there. And here, Andre takes modern instrumentation and takes where no one expected. In my eyes that's a good thing.

2002-11-22T12:46:00.000-06:00

Regarding Iverson: my diatribe was on a topic that is only partially applicable to Iverson, just something that burns my arse in general. I agree with you that he would pretty much be the same guy regardless of his fame, wealth, and other spoils. I don't necessarily think that is a good thing (not that you said it was a good thing, but I'm just saying). I realize it is all the rage these days to "keep it real" and continue to live the "thug" lifestyle despite success. But once a person reaches material and professional suceess, he has the opportunity (note: not neccessarily obligation) to help others in the community, especially coming from a poor neighborhood. Part of helping others is not only inviting your less-priviledged friends to your parties and tossing a few bucks to local charities, rather setting a good example in lifestyle. Recognizing that while "thug" life is an unfortunate part of living in economically depressed communities, it is not an admirable lifestyle. Nor is it one that should be continued, much less glorified, by someone who is free to live any lifestyle he wishes.

I think it is equally dishonorable to completely abandon one's roots like what (according to what is said) the pre-homicide OJ did. To reach material success, then look down your nose at your former neighborhood, and do nothing to help, is also an irresponsible way to go.

Then there is the third direction, which is to give back to the community to the extreme to which it completely bankrupts you (see: MC Hammer). While certainly admirable, it's ultimately not too smart.

There is a balance to be struck. I can't think of a good example. I would say that I admire Jim Brown, then he beat his wife. Having said all this, while AI and such people irritate the hell out of me by squandering their opportunities to help people out, I don't think they have any obligation to do so. They can live their lives however the hell they want to. It’s just that people like that, along with their apologists, annoy me.

- John

2002-11-22T10:19:00.000-06:00

Concert Review:
Saw Rhett Miller (the lead singer of the Old97s) last night (11-20-2002). He kicked ass. Ran through all of his current album (The Instigator) and quite a few Old97s tunes. There's a trend in music right now to make 'radio friendly' cds for bands that are essentially 'live' bands. The most popular example of this I can think of is Counting Crows. Their cds tend to be a bit more 'clean' and layered while their live shows tend to just rip shit up. Well Rhett and the Old97s are no different. His solo cd at times sounds a little too pop-y and radio-ish while in concert he and his 3 bandmates just get up and destroy their instruments playing these pop songs. As for the show itself; I've been dying for years to get an Old97s show and just haven't been able to; so when I had the chance for the next best thing I took it. Tix were $15 and was among the best $15 I could spend on music (although that Puffy Ami Yumi show was right up there!). Rhett is a tall gangly fellow and to see him bop and flail around on stage is quite a site indeed; imagine a combination of Kurt Cobain and Pete Townsend with a dash of 60's soul. Oddly, the music sounds a bit like that as well. I've come to the conclusion that Rhett (even his writing for the 97s) is a natural progression from Buddy Holly (also from Texas). While Rhett's music is a little harder I've got to imagine Mr. Holly would approve. They're both songwriters with a gift for capturing the essence of life and love in a 2:00 minute song.

As for the show itself: throughout the show Rhett played his entire "The Instigator" cd (12 songs) and some Old97s songs from each of their 5 albums taking quite a bit from Fight Songs and Satellite Rides. In the middle of his set the band left the stage and Rhett just played a handful of 97s songs (including TimeBomb, which came off quite well) on his acoustic guitar. If and when he and/or the 97s are back in town; I will DEFINATELY have to check them out again.
---Jeff---

2002-11-22T10:03:00.000-06:00

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/23727

It's Toledo related. Apparently some folks in T-Town were "uncapping" cable modems to get more bandwidth. Paul Block (owner of Buckeye Cablevision and The Toledo Blade and ABC5 among others) sent in the cavalry (the FBI) and is prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law. Some seem to be pretty harsh penalties for 'bandwidth theft.' Not really sure where I stand on this though; it seems to be a perfect case of over-reaction. Most cable companies just disconnect the users. But the law allows them to be criminally prosecuted. Further, what they are doing is technically stealing property (the bandwidth belongs to Cablevision). However, while they had access to much greater bandwidth, in reality they weren't realizing that benefit. So, one could argue that when they bought their subscription they just bought a right to use the bandwidth;if someone else wasn't using it, they had every right to it. There's considerable law against this for most analogies (water, power, etc.) but it could be argued that this is different because bandwidth isn't 'really' a limited resource like the other two. Further most of the situations that ARE analogous (water, power, etc) have 'pay for use' policies. You pay x/usage. I wouldn't be too surprised to see broadband companies go to this type of fee schedule (i.e., $.01/MB ~$1.00 for 100MB or about 1.00 for every 2 cds' worth of bandwidth you use). This type of schedule would make someone like me who uses a LOT of bandwidth pay more than someone like Erin who uses very little bandwidth (of course, that's not a good example because we both live in the same house); further it would SERIOUSLY impede the amount of illegal copying that goes on. You'd think twice before downloading that cd (while only $1.00 it's still cheaper than buying) or 20. The movie industry would love it. To download a DVD rip is usually around 1.5GB or about $15 under my fee schedule; it's cheaper just to BUY the damn thing. Right now, the more I download the more efficiently I'm using my bandwidth. The biggest downfall would be serious impediment to technology research; no one would provide streaming video because no one would for the service PLUS the bandwidth. Anyway. I got off topic, but I'm tired of typing now.
---Jeff---

2002-11-21T13:43:00.000-06:00

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1121/1463950.html

First, ANOTHER baseball team in Montreal!? I think it's hilarious that Canada is starting up a Canadian Baseball League; gotta be pissing off Butt Selig to no end. We'll see where it goes. hope it does well.

Second, about Iverson I guess:
My general thoughts on feeling bad for the rich and famous is: I don't feel any worse for them than I do anyone else. I feel bad for anyone living Philly. Why? BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN PHILLY. But, beyond that, I'm not sure Iverson's really complaining about anything that he wouldn't complain about if he WEREN'T famous; but because he is famous there's someone there to write it down. Iverson's lifestyle, before and during pro basketball, is one of the streets; and if you live or associate with the street you either are, or feel as if you are, being repressed by 'The Man'. Allen, regardless of fame, would bitch about 'The Man.' That's what he does. I don't feel bad for him, just like I don't feel bad for anyone else who lives their life antagonizing police officers. I don't think Iverson's saying "feel bad for me, the press just won't leave me alone." (see Michael 'the hypocrit' Jordan for that: Which, by the way, I am loving EVERY MINUTE of) Iverson's saying "Damn The Man", and he's just using the press (a privilege and burden of fame) to say it, and I can respect that. Iverson's a street punk, always was, always will; I wouldn't read anything into what he says anymore than I would anything else some street punk has to say.
---Jeff---

2002-11-20T15:19:00.000-06:00

I know we’ve discussed this before, but I saw this article on espn.com and wanted to post it because it uses Allen Iverson to convey the general disdain for the “poor, tortured celebrity” better than I can. It focuses on Iverson specifically, but I think a lot of it is applicable for Barry Bonds, George Clooney, and other celebrities who “have it so rough.”

--Begin Article--
Leaving Philadelphia is not the answer

Allen Iverson says he likes Philadelphia, but he's afraid of Philadelphia. He also says he fears that a crooked Philadelphia policeman could someday kill him, just on G.P. "Allen Iverson could end up dead tomorrow if a crooked cop wants him dead,'' he said.

76ers star Allen Iverson says he fears for his life in Philadelphia, but it doesn't appear as though he's looking at the entire picture.
And the first thought that comes to mind is this: So where would it be different?

Iverson, his wife Tawanna and some miscellaneous lawyer spent 90 minutes Monday with John Smallwood of the Philadelphia Daily News and Stephen A. Smith of the Philadelphia Inquirer in what can best be described as an unburdening session.

Well, an unburdening session except for Smallwood and Smith, of course. They had to sift through 90 minutes of Allen and Tawanna Iverson.

But they did, leaving us with a view of Iverson The Profoundly Conflicted. You know, the burdens of stardom and incalculable wealth, the loss of privacy, the legal entanglements, and the knowledge that he neither can nor would change anything about it.

The key passage?

"If you told me I'd have to go through this in any city, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.''

This is an odd statement to make for a man who fears being cut down by a crooked cop, unless it's a man who believes that, for him, every town would be like Philadelphia.

And maybe for him it would be. Allen Iverson is, after all, Allen Iverson, for all the good and ill that implies. To a certain extent, he asks for this scrutiny. To a certain extent, it comes to find him. Nothing is black and white, even the issue of black and white.

But to call this black and white is too simple. This is Allen Iverson, the world he made and the world he chooses to live in. He knows Philadelphia isn't all it's cracked up to be -- or maybe it is; Philadelphia isn't like anyplace else.

And you know what other place isn't like any place else? Every place. Home is what you make it, and home is what makes you; if that were false, Detroit would have emptied long ago.

Putting it the way he put it, though, Iverson will be fingered for bashing his adoptive home, the place that enriched him and made him beyond famous. That other sentence, the one that sits so low in Smallwood's story and not at all in Smith's, suggests that Iverson isn't declaring war on Philadelphia as much as he is finally realizing the trap sprung upon him with his own active connivance.

You see, there are rules, and then there are facts of life. The rules say you are entitled to a private life. The facts of life say that when you live outside the box created for you by fame, there will be lens caps on your front lawn.

So here's Allen Iverson's trap. He plays a game that other people want to pay to see, so he's rich and famous. When he was a young boy, he played for the fun of it, but also because of the chance at wealth and fame. He sought it out, and he was one of the rare men to actually get it.

And yet, he is not going to conform to the strangling preconditions of that fame. To his mind, he cannot, and the interview he gave Smallwood and Smith proves it yet again. He will speak in bold colors and broad strokes, and you don't get bolder and broader than wondering aloud for a million readers if a crooked policeman somewhere is thinking about putting a couple of slugs in your head.

But it's the other line, the one about wanting to stay in Philadelphia, that makes you wonder if maybe Allen Iverson doesn't already know that the problem he speaks of is a lot bigger than Philadelphia ... that maybe Allen Iverson knows that there are a lot more Philadelphias than just Philadelphia ... that maybe the Philadelphia you know is better than the Philadelphia you don't.

Now there's a lesson for all of us. Now you all go out and have a Philadelphia kind of day ... whatever that means.

--End Article—

One more point a want to toss in: 99.9% of us will never know the feeling of fame, extreme wealth, or any of the other benefits most celebrities enjoy. We don’t even have the option to live that lifestyle. However, the reverse is not true. Each and every celebrity (save for maybe Tiger, Madonna, and David Beckham) has the ability and freedom to discontinue that lifestyle and live the remainder of his/her days in virtual anonymity. And it can happen in a very short period of time. Just ask Ickey Woods or Joyce DeWitt, or Bell or Biv or even Devoe. So, whether or not they are aware or appreciative of it, celebrities—even the “tortured” ones like Bonds and Iverson—enjoy many more freedoms than 99.9% of us will ever have. And to attempt to illicit a response of pity from the general public on a life full of freedoms many of us would love to have and very few of us ever will, is absurd.

2002-11-12T16:44:00.000-06:00

Following is my essay I am submitting for a fellowship for the Intellectual Property Colloquium. It must be less than two pages, hence its brevity. Doubt it's of interest, but just in case:
Practically every area of IP law from gene patenting to music licensing to catching hackers influences every person in our global community in some capacity. One area that is particularly influential is software and its development. Today, and in the future, software is king; our cars, phones, TVs and refrigerators all operate on software of some kind. In this area, the one issue that IP law is just being presented with, even though it is far from a new concept, is open-source software. The concept that source code is by its very nature collaborative and should be freely distributed is by no means new; there are, and will continue to be, battles in the courts over the process of software development and access to information against issues of copyrightability, patentability and profitability.
Software development, by its very nature, is a collaborative and derivative effort. Every programmer when they are first starting learns the value of stealing code. Stealing code in the programmer’s world means looking at other’s code to learn how a program works. Take for example someone wishing to learn to program in HTML. The person wishing to learn to program in this language, before buying a book on How-To Program in HTML, before even looking at a website on How-To Program in HTML, would probably open a web browser, go to a website, right-click and choose ‘view source’. This person would then copy-and-paste and rearrange bits and pieces of code to see what happened. This act alone would, strictly speaking, make the person liable for copyright infringement. Of course, he probably could claim ‘fair use’, but why should the issue even be raised in the first place? All software development uses, in some form, this method of derivative creation.
More importantly, source code embodies the essence of idea and expression. When a programmer sets out to write a particular bit of software, ideally the end-result is the most efficient and practical method possible of achieving this goal. In copyright terms when a programmer has an idea, the very goal of the software is to be the simplest expression of that idea. Computer Associates Int’l v. Altai, Inc., the seminal case in this area, upheld the merger doctrine as it is applied to source code; while doing so, that court recognized that the copyright for software protects little more than the literal code itself from infringement. They found, rightly, that virtually every form of expression embodied in software-development is either a merger of idea or some method central to the nature of development (i.e., scenes-a-faire or public domain). In the language of other copyrights, it appeared that a software copyright was extremely thin.
However, through the practical operation of the thin copyright and its attendant End-User Licensing Agreements (“EULA”) and compiled nature, the idea ends up being copyrighted as well. If programmers wish to build upon the idea embodied in a piece of software, they are prohibited from doing so unless they re-develop the entire work from scratch only to add a tiny modification. EULAs often prevent reverse engineering software, and the compiled nature of the code makes de-compiling difficult and, often, unreliable rendering access to the idea impossible.
In many respects, protecting software is much closer to patent than copyright; it is inherently functional and highly technical. The benefits of moving software into the patent world would eliminate many of the issues found in copyright. This is not to say that patenting software would not cause problems as well; it certainly has its own albatross’. However, the primary benefit of a move to patent protection would be the elimination of the public harm while providing the same incentive to create (protection of the literal code).
Perhaps a move not quite so drastic would work, but a change is needed; the public harms of the copyright paradigm far outweigh the private benefits. As consumers and users of software, we should not be controlled in the pursuit of our own education. To developers, the primary source of creation, the work upon which to derive another useful work, is removed from their grasp. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Free Software Foundation (GNU Project) are just two of the organizations that are helping to solve these important issues. While they have made some strides, these issues are far from settled and are only starting to be recognized by our courts.

2002-11-12T11:57:00.000-06:00

As a disclaimer, I only copy the response because think the author says it better than I possibly could; I'm copying the NYTimes article because the NYT is a bastard about copyright protection and it gives me satisfaction to copy from them. I'm copying an interesting article and NYTimes and response from www.velvetrope.com:

This Generation Gap is 38 Million Strong
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT: ONCE every marketer's sweetheart, Generation X is finding itself lost in the shadow of two generational giants. This became clear during a recent speech by Dieter Zetsche, the chief executive of the Chrysler Group.

"The next decade will include the coming of age of the most promising new generation of buyers since the baby boomers," Mr. Zetsche proclaimed to a conference hall full of industry executives, analysts and journalists.

On projection screens behind him, a chart appeared with three bars. A tall blue bar on the right side represented the baby boomers — from 38 to 57 years old and 82 million strong, by Chrysler's calculation. Boomers, Mr. Zetsche's chart said, are motivated by comfort, luxury and safety when they buy a car.

On the chart's left side was a bright orange bar representing millennials, also known as Generation Y, the offspring of the boomers. From 6 to 25 years old, Generation Y numbers about 78 million. They want technological gadgets in their cars and an ability to connect to the Internet on the road, and they are loyal to brands.

In the middle of the chart was a faded gray bar, a short shadow that represented the 38 million members of Generation X, from 26 to 37 years old in Chrysler's analysis. The company hadn't bothered to forecast their tastes at all.

Many businesses define generations by statistical peaks and troughs, though there are different schools of thought on just where one generation starts and another begins.

A decade ago, youth-obsessed marketers were riveted on Generation X. Television shows and movies explored its trials ("Beverly Hills 90210," "Reality Bites"), while the recording industry poured venture capital into Seattle grunge rock, the signature sound of a generation. The reigning aesthetic, seen in perfumes like cKone and Gap clothes, was unisex and casual.

But Gen X's time as a marketing darling was short-lived.

"They go directly from boomers to Y's," said Ann A. Fishman, president of Generational Targeted Marketing, a consulting firm. "The reason is not because of numbers. It's because Generation X is harder to understand."

Neil Howe, a historian who has written on both Gen X and Gen Y (he defines the latter as everyone born since 1982), said Gen X was difficult to target because it never liked being categorized as a troop of goateed slackers in the first place.

"It's a generation that celebrates its diversity and individuality," he said. "So that's one huge strike against X-er marketing. It's easier to explicitly target millennials than Gen X. They think they have a great future and a special role in the future of this country, because of the way they were raised."

Boomers, Ms. Fishman said, had a favorable economic and historical ride, and Generation Y is made up of bull-market babies. That makes both groups generally more optimistic and brand loyal, even now.

X'ers are less so. Yes, they grew up during Ronald Reagan's "morning in America." But they also came of age at a time when corporations downsized, when crack made the drug culture increasingly dangerous, when suddenly sex could kill you.

As a generation they have trouble trusting network news, the main political parties and many businesses that try to court them, Ms. Fishman says. Some businesses no longer bother.

"Generation X is the first truly tough generation to sell to," said Charlene Stern, a senior vice president at NewGround, a bank services firm with headquarters in Chicago. "They don't give you more than a second to slice through and earn your keep."

Not every industry is specifically Gen-X-averse. Many companies, like soda makers, are perpetually focused on youth because that's where their consumer base lies.

For Chrysler, the focus on Gen Y has as much to do with what it sees as an industrywide mishandling of the boomer generation, which turned to foreign brands like Toyota and BMW, as it does with an inability to reach Gen Xers.

"Detroit didn't do a very good job of connecting with the baby boom," said Jeff Bell, marketing chief for Chrysler's Jeep. "When we see this huge group building, Gen Y, we say never again. It's not a slight to Generation X. We do wish to sell products today. But we have to be ready for the next big boom."

Still, said Richard Thau, the president of Third Millennium, a nonpartisan Gen X research organization, giving up on reaching his generation is "like driving around Europe and getting to the border of a country where you don't have a map and turning around because you don't want to find one."

Then again, what does it matter?

"Gen Xers don't drive cars," he added. "We only pedal to work, right?"

And the response, by Spookypants, from Brooklyn, NY:

Interesting article...A thought I had...I think the reason Gen Xer's are a tough nut to crack is because unlike BabyBoomers (Teens in the 50-60's, very optimistic, saw America as Nixon did) and Gen Y (Spoiled brats who've had a metric assload handed to them, reared on Teen Pop and the Net) we have seen tough times. We've seen how hard jobs are to come by not once but twice in our professional post-university lives.

We sat there and heard the last "Republican guard" (Reagan and Bush Sr.) lie to us with smiles on their faces (Iran-Contra, No new taxes) not to mention what the article listed (Crack, AIDS). Don't even get me started about 80's pop culture.

And now, we see the new generation (wh)Y and what they expect and respond to. It's sickening, they are lead by the nose by major corporations and are completely oblivious, or don't care, about the consequences.

The sad part is that Gen X sorta stood for something to it's members, much like Hippie's in the 60's, but we will be forgotten because we don't buy into bulls*it as easily and are hard to market to. Awww, poor marketers, can't do it if it isn't easy. OR can't do it period beacuse they don't have the goods.

My new mantra: Never trust anyone over 45 or under 26.

No wonder Winnona's having such grief...

###End rant###

2002-11-12T10:28:00.000-06:00

If the Bucs play like they did last week, they wont make it past a pathetic Illinois team. Their O and D lines got manhandled, their running game was impotent sans Clarett, and Krenzel looked almost Couchian (confused, overwhelmed, and ineffective). But you know what the real bi--h of it is...that if Washington State wins the remainder of their games, and we lose to a pretty damn good Michigan team...W.St. most likely goes to the national championship game rather than OSU even though we beat them head-to-head. Thank you BCS.

Thanks for your post on the grunge thing...I know it was 10 years ago, but my recollection of the era was far different than was what portrayed on the Behind the Music.

- John

2002-11-12T07:00:00.000-06:00

Go OSU Buckeyes! $20 says they blow it against Michigan this year. They did it 1995, too. They were undefeated going to a bad Michigan team and they got destroyed at the Big House. Tressel is 1-0 against Michigan though.

2002-11-11T21:43:00.000-06:00

To answer the 'grunge' thing; I can't fathom that by the year 1992 Grunge was considered 'dead'. The 10 major bands of the grunge movement were (in order of 'importance'):

1. Nirvana: had released 3 albums by 1992 (bleach, nevermind and incesticide); In Utero and their UnPlugged didn't come until 1993/94. By 1995 they were (no pun intended) dead

2. The Pixies: Without The Pixies grunge would never have existed. If you need proof, listen to "Doolittle". They broke up in 1992; but that's saying that grunge died when the PARENTS of grunge died. This would be like saying that Prog Rock died when Peter Gabriel left Genesis. Absolute rubbish.

3. Radiohead: Perhaps the one band to escape grunge unharmed. The reason is, that unlike other bands they were able to disguise their sloppy rock-and-roll. But they were just starting in 1992 and in fact at that point were just 'one hit wonders'.

4. Pearl Jam: By 1992 had just release 1 album, the seminal Ten; they still had a whole career in front of them and although one could argue they left grunge for the pastures of Rock-and-Roll only means that they learned how to play their instruments.

5. Rage Against The Machine: Released one of the most important albums of the 90s in 1992 (Rage Against the Machine) and went another 8 years before breaking up.

6. Soundgarden: Had released 5 albums by 1992 with their most identifiable album (Superunknown) - perhaps the quintessential grunge album - still 2 years away.

7. Mudhoney: The most 'underrated' of the Seattle bands; they had released 4 albums by 1992 and are still selling out shows. While they never made it big, they're probably just as responsible for kids starting bands as Nirvana if you want to talk sheer numbers.

8. Alice in Chains: Released Dirt in 1992. If you sense a pattern here it's because almost every band RELEASED an album in 1992; but keep in mind grunge is a combination of punk and rock-and-roll; the punk genre is KNOWN for its prolific (if not high-quality) album releases with bands not-uncommonly releasing 2 albums a year.

9. Stone Temple Pilots: released 'core' in 1992; it took 2 more years for people to realize the album wasn't by Pearl Jam. Regardless, it seems counter-intuitive that all of these grunge bands who were just STARTING signaled the DEATH of a genre.

10. REM: while they released 'automatic for the people' in 1992; in 1994 they released Monster, signalling that grunge had reached the pop-masses. No longer was grunge for your pissed-off malcontents, it was also for your arty-malcontents and female-malcontents and everyone else. To this day, all people know of the phrase "What's the frequency, Kenneth" was that REM wrote a song of that name.

Given the longevity of these bands on a whole, I find it odd that the genre they defined would be called a fad. If you want to pick a year that signalled the end of grunge I would argue that 1995, the first full year without Nivana is the year to choose.

To answer the socio-economic question, I would think that there absolutely is. When times are good, the music is forced on you; people have unlimited disposable income and are willing to dole it out to the latest ms. thing that comes along; when times get rough the chaff separates from the wheat as people have to pick and choose which bands are worthy of their money and deep inside while people want to see Brittney, they don't want to pay any 'real' money for it, because they know it isn't any good.

Well, I've gone on much longer than anticipated and probably short-shrifted the last argument because I think it's a question worth looking at. Just not today.

---Jeff---

2002-11-11T18:06:00.000-06:00

I was watching VH1-Behind the Music profiling the year 1992 and there were a few things that bugged me that I wanted to ask about.

They portrayed the "grunge" movement as nearly dead by the end of 1992.
Is this everyone's recollection?
Wasn't it just starting to REACH the mainstream by 1992?
Or was it almost dead by default because somebody like me (not exactly on the cutting-edge of the music scene) had now recognized it as being a legitimate movement?

Also, on the same show, "grunge" was characterized as mainly a "fad". That struck me as somewhat insulting. Granted, I wasn't exactly a part of that scene, but it is something that defined a large part of my generation to varying degrees. To characterize it as a "fad" devalues it, in my opinion. Isn't something that's born out of certain socio-economic conditions, and changes the landscape of the music industry--if for only a while--by definition, more than a "fad"?

Speaking of which. Is there a strong correlation between socio-economic conditions and the music industry? It would make sense to me, but I'm looking to get expert opinion here. If so, should we be so surprised when we have a time of relative economic prosperity, to have the music landscape dominated by the Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Blink 182's of the world? And, can we eagerly anticipate some actual decent music coming out of the post 9/11, economic recession period?

Oh, and about "gangsta" rap....bah....I'm not even going to start.

- John

2002-11-11T17:37:00.000-06:00

Well, I just erased my big, long response and am now really pissed. So I'll make my reply shorter this time.

I'm very pleased to see my favorite professional college basketball team reap what they have sewn. As far as I'm concerned the Chris Webber time-out is one of the top ten moments in sports history (I rank it just below Mark McGwire's 62nd HR).

As far as the marketing issue. You bring up a great point in that many things occur for many reasons that are "marketing-related". "8 Mile" probably became a reality not as much because it was a great story that needs to be told, as marketing Eminem and his consortium of rappers. But, if the story is great, and would not have been told otherwise, do the ends justify the means. The solution I've devised for myself is to attempt to develop something of a mental filter. In essence that is 1) attempting to recognize the marketing aspects of whatever I'm experiencing 2) attempting to block out/filter or even boycott whatever is being marketed. For instance, my TV has not come anywhere near the Fox network after the conclusion of the World Series despite the "can't miss" episodes of "Boston Public" and "24". Though I do miss Jeri Ryan's magnificent "talents".

- John

2002-11-08T14:04:00.000-06:00

Two things, both relating to everyone's (or at least everyone from Ohio) favorite whipping-post state, Michigan.

First, I am thrilled and ecstatic to see University of Michigan basketball going down in flames. In the early 90s when "C-Web", et al were there it was hard to watch SportsCenter (let alone local news) without seeing someone from the Michigan basketball team bragging about being the greatest collection of basketball players in college basketball history. It's debateable, the truth of that statement; they were a very good team. But, it's also easy to see why there was so much animosity towards them. I have to admit that my greatest moment in college sports history is NOT seeing Christian Laetner sink the winning the shot against Kentucky; it was seeing Chris Webber call a timeout in the NCAA finals with 2 (9?) seconds left only to find out they didn't have any timeouts remaining. ESPN Classic could show that over and over and I would never get bored; maybe do a 'Behind the Scenes' like they did with Christian Laetner's shot; THAT I would watch. This whole 'scandal' is only unfortunate in that it doesn't show that they were a worse team than originally thought; it only shows that they were a better paid team than originally thought. I like that the NCAA lets teams sanction themselves; I think it forces schools to be creative. All the schools have seen what the NCAA imposes (Miami, Arkansas, etc. I'm looking in YOUR direction) and they'd rather be strict and creative themselves than have to give up recruiting for a decade or any of the other sanctions that the NCAA might impose.

Second, I admit I have not yet seen the movie (I plan to this weekend), but I have a feeling that this whole '8 Mile' thing is just a big commercial for Eminem. Companies, especially companies charged with marketing someone 'anti-corporate' like Eminem, need to find a way to get people to buy their product and let's be honest, the RIAA wants to see people buying more CDs. Consumers are becoming more jaded and are paying less attention to traditional advertising means (billboards, commercials, etc.); partly because, I think, those 'traditional means' have become so pervasive. You can't 10 feet without seeing 800 signs urging to buy some 'hip' new product; eventually rather than waste your time sorting out the good from the bad, you ignore them all and buy what you want. The problem is that most companies don't want you 'buying' what you want because you end going to the store and buying some 'local' brand over the nationally-available product that is spending (wasting?) their money advertising to you. As a result, companies have resorted to product placement to sell well-known products by putting them in context; if you see James Bond using a Sony (BMW, Mercedes, Astin Martin, etc.) you want a Sony because James Bond is cool and he can do cool things with his cool product. You go out and buy it; of course, you have to buy the top-of-the-line one because the intro products don't do what James Bond can do with them. This type of advertising is much more lucrative and effective for everyone involved; the movie/tv studios get to charge more, the manufacturer gets exclusive advertising for a full hour of your time and the consumer gets to see the product in use. Many marketing people seem to think this is the wave of the marketing future; jaded consumers need to be advertised to more subtly and by attaching a product to a person it allows the manufacturer to optimally position their product. If they want white, males with lots of disposable income and discerning taste they attach to James Bond, if they want black, males with strong family values and a strong sense of race they attach to Damon Wayans, etc. It's not stereotyping, it's marketing, these are the majority markets and if the manufacturer wants their product in front of that eyeball they can either run a commercial during the show and hope you didn't get up to go to the bathroom or they can pay for product placement and just have the person/character use their product. So, where is all this going and what does it have to do with "8 Mile"? Well, my 'jaded consumer' outlook tells me that even Eminem can only support so many albums (without touring, which he - or any rapper - does very little of) before people stop buying them. This has traditionally been a problem with Rap music; it's a very fickle (note: not discerning!) market whose tastes and attitudes change quickly. Sustaining selling-power over 3 albums is difficult; Puffy couldn't do it, Jay-Z couldn't do, Tupac had trouble doing it, and those are just some of the black rappers. Music stars, have a history of using film to exploit themselves; The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Yes, Brittney Spears have all done it to some extent (successfully or not) or another. Is "8 Mile" just a case of placing the product at the center of the film?

---Jeff---

2002-11-08T12:27:00.000-06:00

Hi.

- John