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.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Racism in Film
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.
---And related Song of the South Website
Brought to you from the most excellent Cartoon Brew blog.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The Lost Trailers
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'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.
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
A Busy Day...
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Football is BORING...yeah. I said it.
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.
(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.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
An Outsider In San Francisco
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.
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.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Economic Impact of the New Orleans Disaster
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Why I'm a Materialist
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.
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.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Corporate (and Personal) Social Responsibility
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The Aristocrats
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.
The Aristocrats (IMDB)
South Park's telling of "the joke"
That's it for today.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Music
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
How Dumb Can They Be?
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.
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.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
The hunt for the perfect office chair
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Branding (not cows, but products)
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.
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.
Friday, July 22, 2005
GTA: San-Andreas
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.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
A Few of My Favorite Things
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
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
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Is someone trying to tell me something?
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.
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.
Friday, November 05, 2004
George the King...er...President
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.
Monday, November 01, 2004
I Don't Wanna Vote
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)