My wife saw a picture of a cat that needs adoption and something sparked in her. On Sunday we went to visit the cat at its foster home. While the cat is loving and affectionate, we just did not feel that spark from the cat that indicated to us it was choosing us as its owners. A tad ironically, one of the foster owner's own cats seemed to spark and want to bond with us both and we sparked to immediately. But that pet is not up for adoption. For now, we'll continue being happy with our single pet.
What I have found over decades of pet ownership is that any time you force a selection on an animal, the relationship isn't as strong and the bond as pure as when you let the right animal choose you. Before getting our current cat, we visited a number of animals. Many were affectionate toward one or both of us, but generically so (similar to Sunday's cat). However, when we met and interacted with our cat, it was obvious he wanted to be with us. It was in the way he looked at us, the way he did not want us to leave, the way he puddled into our arms and seemed like he was at home and at peace.
Our cat has taken to our home easily, been easy to retrain from its previous owners, and easily fits into our lifestyle and ways of interacting with him. He makes just as much of an effort toward us as we make toward him. I am firmly convinced this is because he chose us.
Too often I see adults letting little children pick a pet based on color or activity level rather than on which pet takes an active interest in that family/person. Just as often, I then hear about them having problems training the pet, interacting with it, or that its personality just "changed" when they got it home and introduced it to its new environment. Whereas, when they were at the shelter or home and were interacting with the animals, there was likely one that came right up to the person and did its best to announce "Here I am, pick me!"
Awhile back, I had a cat die from liver disease. After a few months, I decide to replace the cat. When I went to visit a litter of kittens, there were a couple of kittens that immediately came over to investigate me. Two were orange, a male and a female. The male spent some time sniffing and playing with my shoelaces, but then got distracted by the other kittens playing and joined them, went and ate a little something, wandered back to me, and then went off to play with an old sock. The female cat, however, came over, stayed near me, and tried to climb my leg and get into my lap. She was totally focused on me the entire time and wanted to bond with me. She was picking me as the important thing and the thing to pay attention to and interact with. When I picked her up, she just melted into my arms and did not want to leave them. She purred and promptly fell asleep. It was obvious she and I had bonded, so she was my selection. And we had 10 great years together where she learned my routines, liked to be in my lap if I was reading or watching TV, and always waited for me watching the door when I came home from work. Had I insisted on the male orange tabby, I'm sure the relationship would have been very different and I might have even had trouble "taming" him. Instead, I went for the cat that chose me.
Pets are living beings with minds of their own. They need to pick their owners as much as their owners pick them. While you can take in an animal that does not chose you, the relationship simply will not be the same as when the selection, and the bonding, is mutual.
April 30, 2012
April 23, 2012
Genies and Bottles
Like it or not, the digital age is here to stay. We have smart phones (but dumb users), Facebook, Twitter, and the 24/7 news/opinion cycle. The moment one person hears something, it is out there for everyone to see, hear, read, and react to and cannot be taken back. You cannot delete something from the Internet, you can only remove the copy of something you posted at that time; all the other copies, reposts, reTweets, and spider-bots that look for and save copies of web pages will have their copies in perpetuity.
It astounds me that sports figures, celebu-tards, and politicians continue to try to use the "they hacked my account" excuse. That's so 2005. Haven't you learned yet that if you just apologize for the stupid, insensitive comment right away, the public is much more likely to believe you and move on to the next scandal? If you deny it, you just add wood to the fire.
One of my wife's family members died on Sunday, but the family waited until Monday to ask people not to post anything online about it. Too late. That should have been explicitly and clearly stated when they were making the phone calls announcing the death, otherwise it has become de rigueur to post whatever thoughts a person has immediately onto a Twitter, Facebook/Plus feed, or blog. In this case, a couple of family members were not told immediately, posted something, and the cat was out of the bag before the family could notify the rest of those they wished to call.
People need to remember:
It astounds me that sports figures, celebu-tards, and politicians continue to try to use the "they hacked my account" excuse. That's so 2005. Haven't you learned yet that if you just apologize for the stupid, insensitive comment right away, the public is much more likely to believe you and move on to the next scandal? If you deny it, you just add wood to the fire.
One of my wife's family members died on Sunday, but the family waited until Monday to ask people not to post anything online about it. Too late. That should have been explicitly and clearly stated when they were making the phone calls announcing the death, otherwise it has become de rigueur to post whatever thoughts a person has immediately onto a Twitter, Facebook/Plus feed, or blog. In this case, a couple of family members were not told immediately, posted something, and the cat was out of the bag before the family could notify the rest of those they wished to call.
People need to remember:
- Every single thing you post to the World Wide Web is permanent. You can never delete it or get every single copy removed. So think a second (and a third time) before posting it. Does not matter if it is a text message, email, blog, video, picture or other communication -- if it is posted to the Internet, it will always be on the Internet.
- Assume that everything you post to the World Wide Web is public. A personal email may be accidentally (or intentionally) forwarded to the wrong party or someone may CC/BCC someone you do not want to read it. Something you post to your Twitter or Facebook may be listed as "private" but can easily and quickly become public when the person you posted it to responds. And, once it is posted or sent, refer to rule 1.
- There is no such thing as "anonymous" on the World Wide Web. You may think what you are posting is done anonymously, but the government can requisition your information from the ISP, the content provider, or the social media site and quickly discover who you are. There are groups of "hackers" and never-do-wells who delight in breaking into accounts and posting your private information so that you can be publicly accosted (see the 4chan versus the little girl incident, for example). The best you can hope for is plausible deniability. Once it is posted or sent, refer to rules 1 and 2.
- Be respectful of others. This is the one most lacking in today's online communities. But if you consider rules 1-3, this one becomes a no-brainer. If you thought you could call someone names and bully them, just remember what happened to the little girl and her family when 4chan decided to make them a project. No one is truly anonymous, everything can be made very public, and all of it will be permanent, so be nice. If you disagree, do it respectfully.
Remembering and assuming these rules can keep you safe(r) in the digital age. It makes you think twice before posting that picture or video. It helps you not send that inflammatory email to your boss, coworker, client, subordinate that can get you fired. It makes you think again before posting that blog containing derogatory comments.
I only post a blog entry every week or two. But I write many more blog entries. It is just that I write them, let them sit in my Draft folder for a while, and then delete them when I realize I was out of bounds, did not want whatever it was about to be public, or was not being respectful. And I realize my anonymity to the general public is easily compromised both by those few who know who I am and by those who wish to make an effort to find out. It just is not worth it to me.
Actually, in reviewing the four rules I typed above, I think they are salient points for everyone's daily lives, regardless of Internet use. If we would all assume that everything we say and do is permanent, that everything we do or say can become public, that we cannot maintain our anonymity, and if we are respectful to others in all aspects of our lives, the majority of the scandals, situations, and issues we see reported in the news today would not happen.
It would be one small step toward putting the Genie back into its bottle.
April 16, 2012
The Woman in Black
Special Note:
I did not read the story this film is based on prior to seeing the movie. My wife did. She shook her head throughout, as it seemed most of the movie was only loosely based on the story from which it comes. I'd recommend not reading the story before watching the movie, as I was much more entertained by it, because I had nothing to compare it to, than my wife was.
----
I like a good horror story. Classic ghost stories can be some of the most effective to put on screen, because the forced perspective of a film allows the director and writer to really play up the tunnel-vision we get while watching a movie and startle you.
The Woman in Black, a Hammer Films production released earlier this year and starring Daniel Radcliffe is a decent horror/ghost story. It has the right use of mood, music, lighting, and startle moments to be quite effective as a ghost story. The acting is good enough that it pushes the story along, and the cinematography and effects are quite good.
However, it is how they tell the tale, and especially the ending, that lets the movie down.
*START SPOILERS*
The problem comes in that I was left wondering, well after the movie, why the rules failed and why the Woman is still haunting the village. Why didn't the discovery of her son work? Why didn't she find peace, being reunited with him? Why did she seek vengeance on Kipps for trying to help her? With no explanation, not even a hint, as to why this action failed, you are left feeling like most of what you just watched was superfluous and without meaning. Why did they provide you with all of that information about the ghost if none of it was accurate? If all of it was inaccurate, why in the world would anyone continue to live in the village?
I have a feeling that this movie had a very different ending until they test-screened it and found that they likely had a modest hit on their hands. Once that happened, my guess is that they tacked on that ending to show the Woman is still around so they could make a sequel (which, by the way, is being written and produced right now).
*END SPOILERS*
All in all, The Woman in Black is a good horror/ghost story, mostly effective in all the right ways. However, the very ending scene leaves a bad taste in your mouth and, story-wise, invalidates everything you've just watched. The 90 minute running time is just about right, there is a quality cast doing a good job, and the effects, cinematography, and music are all effective and done well.
I did not read the story this film is based on prior to seeing the movie. My wife did. She shook her head throughout, as it seemed most of the movie was only loosely based on the story from which it comes. I'd recommend not reading the story before watching the movie, as I was much more entertained by it, because I had nothing to compare it to, than my wife was.
----
I like a good horror story. Classic ghost stories can be some of the most effective to put on screen, because the forced perspective of a film allows the director and writer to really play up the tunnel-vision we get while watching a movie and startle you.
The Woman in Black, a Hammer Films production released earlier this year and starring Daniel Radcliffe is a decent horror/ghost story. It has the right use of mood, music, lighting, and startle moments to be quite effective as a ghost story. The acting is good enough that it pushes the story along, and the cinematography and effects are quite good.
However, it is how they tell the tale, and especially the ending, that lets the movie down.
*START SPOILERS*
Radcliffe is a solicitor named Kipps sent to a creepy mansion in the boondocks to go through a dead woman's papers and make sure everything is ready so that his office can sell the house and property. When he arrives in the small town close to the house, he is treated poorly; everyone in the town wants him to go back to London, but no one explains why. It becomes a little absurd how they so blatantly try to push him out of town -- I think anyone coming into that situation would become a bit belligerent and stay.
After getting a ride out to the house, Kipps starts experiencing all the classic poltergeist signs: he sees shapes and movement, hears noises, and sees things have moved around the house. He also senses some malevolence.
When he returns to the village, the village's children start killing themselves in spectacular ways, usually in front of him.
He goes to dinner at the rich man's house and the man's crazy wife starts to tell him things about the ghost haunting the manor. What she says is important, because she is the classic "seer" of the story -- the person who lays out the ground-rules for the horror story and what needs to happen. After a couple of times talking with her, he realizes that the Woman in Black, as she is known to the villagers, is a woman who lost her child in the marsh, and they never found his body. This drove her to suicide. As a ghost, she now finds the children of the village and lures them to their deaths so that she can be surrounded by children.
This leads Kipps to realize that the ghost needs closure by finding her lost son. He and the rich man take the man's car out to the marsh and Kipps dives for thee wreckage where the boy died. They are successful at finding the boy's body, and Kipps brings it to the house and leads the ghost to it. As soon as she finds the boy, all the supernatural events around the house seem to cease, and he and the rich man break open her tomb and lay the boy's body with his mother, at rest at last.
Or is she?
As Kipps meets his nanny and his son at the train station, the Woman in Black appears, along with most of the dead children, and lead Kipps' son onto the train tracks. Kipps dives after him and they are both killed. However, they meet Kipps dead wife (and his son's mother), who leads them to the afterlife.
Fade to BlackThe problem here is that the movie provides no explanation or reason why the rules of the world, as presented by the villagers and the seer, did not work. If the Woman found her son, which all the letters she wrote and what the dead children, through the seer, indicate needs to happen for the Woman to rest, there should be a happy ending to the story and the Woman in Black should not have killed Kipps and son. But she was not laid to rest by that action, which leaves the audience unsettled in all the wrong ways for a ghost story.
The problem comes in that I was left wondering, well after the movie, why the rules failed and why the Woman is still haunting the village. Why didn't the discovery of her son work? Why didn't she find peace, being reunited with him? Why did she seek vengeance on Kipps for trying to help her? With no explanation, not even a hint, as to why this action failed, you are left feeling like most of what you just watched was superfluous and without meaning. Why did they provide you with all of that information about the ghost if none of it was accurate? If all of it was inaccurate, why in the world would anyone continue to live in the village?
I have a feeling that this movie had a very different ending until they test-screened it and found that they likely had a modest hit on their hands. Once that happened, my guess is that they tacked on that ending to show the Woman is still around so they could make a sequel (which, by the way, is being written and produced right now).
*END SPOILERS*
All in all, The Woman in Black is a good horror/ghost story, mostly effective in all the right ways. However, the very ending scene leaves a bad taste in your mouth and, story-wise, invalidates everything you've just watched. The 90 minute running time is just about right, there is a quality cast doing a good job, and the effects, cinematography, and music are all effective and done well.
April 10, 2012
Shake It, Don't Break It!
Shaky-cam is ruining good films. Take The Hunger Games. A very good adaptation of a popular book that has good stars (Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland). The writers did a good job of paring down the book's plot and characters for the movie (although I think they left out some things that may become important in Catching Fire, later). The two things that make this movie annoying as hell to watch are the use of shaky-cam and the quick edits.
I have said it before, shaky-cam is the last bastion of the inept director. If a director feels that he needs to use shaky-cam to "get you into the action" or "make you feel a part of the action" then that director has failed his audience. The large screen in the theater, the acting, the story, and the shared experience is what gets me into the movie, not your ability to shake what has become my entire visual field in the dark environment of the theater. All that does is make me sick to my stomach.
Gary Ross, the director of The Hunger Games, also uses very quick edits and blurring effects in addition to the shaky-cam. The end result becomes action sequences that may be thrilling... but the audience does not know because they cannot focus on anything long enough to see what is going on. The constant shaking of the field of vision makes many nauseated and left unable to watch what is on the screen, for minutes at a time. Last time I check, movie watching was a visual activity. If you stop your audience from seeing and watching, what, then, is the point?
What is more interesting about this movie is that Ross uses a steadicam just as often as he uses shaky-cam. So you have a scene where Katniss is running through the forest using shaky-cam, then fireballs fly at her using steadicam, then more running with shaky-cam. The switches between the two make the shaky-cam work seem even worse because your brain has a moment to stop and process everything and start to relax.
Worse yet, the first 45 minutes or so of the movie have the worst shaky-cam use. Then it calms down for a while and you get more comfortable, and then the action starts up and it is sort of hit or miss whether a scene will use shaky-cam. This inconsistency, as mentioned above, makes the return of shaky-cam more jarring.
Back to the quick edits. I have watched music videos. They use so many quick cuts that you would think that someone with ADD would have trouble paying attention. Yet, in some scenes, The Hunger Games makes these look tame. The edits are so fast, and often involve going from lighter to darker scenes and blur effects, that your eyes cannot adjust to the changes quickly enough to realize what you just saw. In some ways, it almost seems like Ross is going for subliminal action scenes... if he cuts fast enough you get the impression of action without him actually having to film action.
Taken as-is, I would have to give The Hunger Games no more than a B-. I think it has an A cast, a B+ script, an A for music and general effects, an A for costuming, and an A for how closely they kept to the actual plot and story of the source material. But Ross gets a C- for his direction and a D for the poor editing (overall) and jump cutting (specifically during action sequences).
All in all, if you have issues with shaky-cam making you sick, I would wait and watch this on the small screen where, I find, the field of vision is broader and the shaking on the TV screen does not cause as much issue.
Addendum:
Apparently Gary Ross is negotiating a new contract/deal to direct the second installment, Catching Fire, and the production company is hard-balling him. Good! At this point, my hope is that Ross would not be back and they would get someone who is better with action sequences to direct the next movie.
And, in case you are wondering, I have nothing against Gary Ross. He directed Pleasantville, one of my all-time favorites, and Seabiscuit, a pretty good sports story.
Second Addendum:
Gary Ross is out. He couldn't get the money he wanted, but is saying it was the aggressive turnaround time on the production that caused him to walk away. Now they can hopefully hire a director that is more comfortable with action sequences and one who doesn't need to rely on the schlocky shaky-cam.
I have said it before, shaky-cam is the last bastion of the inept director. If a director feels that he needs to use shaky-cam to "get you into the action" or "make you feel a part of the action" then that director has failed his audience. The large screen in the theater, the acting, the story, and the shared experience is what gets me into the movie, not your ability to shake what has become my entire visual field in the dark environment of the theater. All that does is make me sick to my stomach.
Gary Ross, the director of The Hunger Games, also uses very quick edits and blurring effects in addition to the shaky-cam. The end result becomes action sequences that may be thrilling... but the audience does not know because they cannot focus on anything long enough to see what is going on. The constant shaking of the field of vision makes many nauseated and left unable to watch what is on the screen, for minutes at a time. Last time I check, movie watching was a visual activity. If you stop your audience from seeing and watching, what, then, is the point?
What is more interesting about this movie is that Ross uses a steadicam just as often as he uses shaky-cam. So you have a scene where Katniss is running through the forest using shaky-cam, then fireballs fly at her using steadicam, then more running with shaky-cam. The switches between the two make the shaky-cam work seem even worse because your brain has a moment to stop and process everything and start to relax.
Worse yet, the first 45 minutes or so of the movie have the worst shaky-cam use. Then it calms down for a while and you get more comfortable, and then the action starts up and it is sort of hit or miss whether a scene will use shaky-cam. This inconsistency, as mentioned above, makes the return of shaky-cam more jarring.
Back to the quick edits. I have watched music videos. They use so many quick cuts that you would think that someone with ADD would have trouble paying attention. Yet, in some scenes, The Hunger Games makes these look tame. The edits are so fast, and often involve going from lighter to darker scenes and blur effects, that your eyes cannot adjust to the changes quickly enough to realize what you just saw. In some ways, it almost seems like Ross is going for subliminal action scenes... if he cuts fast enough you get the impression of action without him actually having to film action.
Taken as-is, I would have to give The Hunger Games no more than a B-. I think it has an A cast, a B+ script, an A for music and general effects, an A for costuming, and an A for how closely they kept to the actual plot and story of the source material. But Ross gets a C- for his direction and a D for the poor editing (overall) and jump cutting (specifically during action sequences).
All in all, if you have issues with shaky-cam making you sick, I would wait and watch this on the small screen where, I find, the field of vision is broader and the shaking on the TV screen does not cause as much issue.
Addendum:
Apparently Gary Ross is negotiating a new contract/deal to direct the second installment, Catching Fire, and the production company is hard-balling him. Good! At this point, my hope is that Ross would not be back and they would get someone who is better with action sequences to direct the next movie.
And, in case you are wondering, I have nothing against Gary Ross. He directed Pleasantville, one of my all-time favorites, and Seabiscuit, a pretty good sports story.
Second Addendum:
Gary Ross is out. He couldn't get the money he wanted, but is saying it was the aggressive turnaround time on the production that caused him to walk away. Now they can hopefully hire a director that is more comfortable with action sequences and one who doesn't need to rely on the schlocky shaky-cam.
March 29, 2012
Privacy
I have not been writing much because I have been so livid about a number of privacy issues that I have not known where to begin.
The large number of anti-women laws being proposed has me at my wit's end (link). Why is it that old, white, male politicians feel they have any right to address any aspect of a woman's reproduction? It would be just as easy to introduce laws that require chemical or medical sterilization, neutering, or castration of men, so why not do that? And using religion or faith as an excuse absurd. No law that is founded on a specific religion's belief system, even if 80% of Americans follow that religion, will stand in the Supreme Court. That's the whole point of the separation of church and state; so that no one religion (or religious ideals) will be promoted above another.
I have no issues with having religious freedom clauses to some reproductive health laws. For example, "Obamacare" wants every health plan to offer reproductive health to women. Some companies/groups cry foul, like churches. If their faith specifically says providing condoms, birth control, and abortions are against their faith, and they actively teach that in their ministry, I have no issue with them asking for and being granted an exception. What will happen is that those companies that then hire women will find that the women will not stick around very long once they learn their heath care is compromised, unless they are of the same faith as the owners/operators and agree with having no coverage in this area. I have female friends in nearly every religion and of both stronger and weaker faiths and my experience tells me these companies will have to do away with this exemption or lose workers. Women will not stand for this.
As an addendum to this issue, many lawmakers are also proposing cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because "it provides abortions." Well, any quick search on the Internet can provide you with a variety of sources that show that, of all the funding provided to Planned Parenthood, only about 3% goes toward abortions. And even then only certain locations provide it. So, these lawmakers are planning to cease funding one of the nation's most effective and critical providers of reproductive health care and advice, that actively promotes ALL types of birth control (including abstinence and adoption, two favorites of most of these lawmakers) because of certain Planned Parenthood facilities in specific locations that are, frankly, just providing the services that the community in which they reside require.
The flaw in these lawmakers' plan is that they seem to only care for the child before it is born. Once born, they do not seem to care that it goes into an incredibly overtaxed adoption system that cannot handle the children it already has, let alone the thousands more that will inundate and overwhelm the system if abortion is made illegal. Why are they not proposing more funding for adoption services, foster care practices, and schools?
Another privacy-related article caught my attention (link). Basically, these companies have policies that say the first action you must do for them is break a binding legal agreement (the Facebook EULA) in order to gain employment there. If you are willing to break that legally binding agreement, why would you worry about what you say, following their edicts while working for them, or adhere to any stipulations with them if and when you leave their company? Do they give password access to you of all of the other people that work there, so that you can see if anyone there is saying anything that you do not agree with? Maybe you are Jewish and the owner constantly posts anti-Semitic jokes on his Facebook page. Knowing this could profoundly influence whether you want to work there. What you say and do outside of work, when on your own time, is none of their business.
I do like that Facebook posted a response to this, and told its users not to do what these HR people are asking (link).
Lastly, while America managed to (momentarily) stop the SOPA/PIPA laws, much of the rest of the world is still steaming ahead with similar laws. ACTA, Bill C-30, and Bill C-11 are still being pushed forward in various places, including much of western Europe (ACTA) and Canada (C-30, C-11). Each is just as horrible for internet privacy as SOPA/PIPA. In Canada, enough people mobilized that C-30 is at least momentarily stopped, and the lawmakers have made changes to C-11 but it still moves forward. (So many links, I won't even post. Just search on any of these bill names.)
It is funny how the entertainment industry has fought (and eventually lost) each time a new technology has come about that has "threatened [their] way of business." And yet, the business has always been more profitable afterward and continues to be incredibly profitable now. They do not need these laws, they need to use the technology to get their products out to the people in a cost efficient and equitable manner. What these industries really fear is that the Internet makes them obsolete. Artists can now produce their own albums and make their own movies, post them online for free or put them on eBay or Amazon for a fee and make money without them. These laws are, in essence, ways to stymie free enterprise and keep artists only options to be under draconian contracts to the MPAA and the RIAA.
Even the Trayvon Williams case breaks down to a privacy issue. This neighborhood was a gated community, but it still felt the need for a neighborhood watch. One watch member felt threatened enough by a kid about 100 lbs smaller and lighter than him, wearing a hoodie and carrying candy and a drink walking through "his" private domain that he decided to chase the boy (against the explicit request of the police), stop him, and shoot him. And, because of the way the laws are written in Florida, he may just get away with murder. All because he felt threatened by a boy who was a different color than he is.
When 9/11 happened, people gave up some of their right to privacy in order to "catch the terrorists." And the government took those rights and asked for more. After ten years of taking, the people have had enough and are fighting back. The government (and the corporations that practically are the government these days) are shocked and surprised at the backlash. So much so that the new verb "SOPAed" has been introduced into the vernacular. It basically means "to be unexpectedly assaulted by large public backlash." After a decade of whitewashing the theft of our rights, the people are fighting back and government is frightened. And that is GOOD. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny."
It is time for governments and corporations to start fearing the people again. It is time to take back our rights. It is time for a revolution.
Addendum
This article will make you never want to use a PC again! Basically it tells you that every IT and company on the planet is trying to subvert your PC and allow spying. The part about the PA school was particularly disturbing; who thought taking photos of nude, under-aged students was a good idea?
The large number of anti-women laws being proposed has me at my wit's end (link). Why is it that old, white, male politicians feel they have any right to address any aspect of a woman's reproduction? It would be just as easy to introduce laws that require chemical or medical sterilization, neutering, or castration of men, so why not do that? And using religion or faith as an excuse absurd. No law that is founded on a specific religion's belief system, even if 80% of Americans follow that religion, will stand in the Supreme Court. That's the whole point of the separation of church and state; so that no one religion (or religious ideals) will be promoted above another.
I have no issues with having religious freedom clauses to some reproductive health laws. For example, "Obamacare" wants every health plan to offer reproductive health to women. Some companies/groups cry foul, like churches. If their faith specifically says providing condoms, birth control, and abortions are against their faith, and they actively teach that in their ministry, I have no issue with them asking for and being granted an exception. What will happen is that those companies that then hire women will find that the women will not stick around very long once they learn their heath care is compromised, unless they are of the same faith as the owners/operators and agree with having no coverage in this area. I have female friends in nearly every religion and of both stronger and weaker faiths and my experience tells me these companies will have to do away with this exemption or lose workers. Women will not stand for this.
As an addendum to this issue, many lawmakers are also proposing cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because "it provides abortions." Well, any quick search on the Internet can provide you with a variety of sources that show that, of all the funding provided to Planned Parenthood, only about 3% goes toward abortions. And even then only certain locations provide it. So, these lawmakers are planning to cease funding one of the nation's most effective and critical providers of reproductive health care and advice, that actively promotes ALL types of birth control (including abstinence and adoption, two favorites of most of these lawmakers) because of certain Planned Parenthood facilities in specific locations that are, frankly, just providing the services that the community in which they reside require.
The flaw in these lawmakers' plan is that they seem to only care for the child before it is born. Once born, they do not seem to care that it goes into an incredibly overtaxed adoption system that cannot handle the children it already has, let alone the thousands more that will inundate and overwhelm the system if abortion is made illegal. Why are they not proposing more funding for adoption services, foster care practices, and schools?
Another privacy-related article caught my attention (link). Basically, these companies have policies that say the first action you must do for them is break a binding legal agreement (the Facebook EULA) in order to gain employment there. If you are willing to break that legally binding agreement, why would you worry about what you say, following their edicts while working for them, or adhere to any stipulations with them if and when you leave their company? Do they give password access to you of all of the other people that work there, so that you can see if anyone there is saying anything that you do not agree with? Maybe you are Jewish and the owner constantly posts anti-Semitic jokes on his Facebook page. Knowing this could profoundly influence whether you want to work there. What you say and do outside of work, when on your own time, is none of their business.
I do like that Facebook posted a response to this, and told its users not to do what these HR people are asking (link).
Lastly, while America managed to (momentarily) stop the SOPA/PIPA laws, much of the rest of the world is still steaming ahead with similar laws. ACTA, Bill C-30, and Bill C-11 are still being pushed forward in various places, including much of western Europe (ACTA) and Canada (C-30, C-11). Each is just as horrible for internet privacy as SOPA/PIPA. In Canada, enough people mobilized that C-30 is at least momentarily stopped, and the lawmakers have made changes to C-11 but it still moves forward. (So many links, I won't even post. Just search on any of these bill names.)
It is funny how the entertainment industry has fought (and eventually lost) each time a new technology has come about that has "threatened [their] way of business." And yet, the business has always been more profitable afterward and continues to be incredibly profitable now. They do not need these laws, they need to use the technology to get their products out to the people in a cost efficient and equitable manner. What these industries really fear is that the Internet makes them obsolete. Artists can now produce their own albums and make their own movies, post them online for free or put them on eBay or Amazon for a fee and make money without them. These laws are, in essence, ways to stymie free enterprise and keep artists only options to be under draconian contracts to the MPAA and the RIAA.
Even the Trayvon Williams case breaks down to a privacy issue. This neighborhood was a gated community, but it still felt the need for a neighborhood watch. One watch member felt threatened enough by a kid about 100 lbs smaller and lighter than him, wearing a hoodie and carrying candy and a drink walking through "his" private domain that he decided to chase the boy (against the explicit request of the police), stop him, and shoot him. And, because of the way the laws are written in Florida, he may just get away with murder. All because he felt threatened by a boy who was a different color than he is.
When 9/11 happened, people gave up some of their right to privacy in order to "catch the terrorists." And the government took those rights and asked for more. After ten years of taking, the people have had enough and are fighting back. The government (and the corporations that practically are the government these days) are shocked and surprised at the backlash. So much so that the new verb "SOPAed" has been introduced into the vernacular. It basically means "to be unexpectedly assaulted by large public backlash." After a decade of whitewashing the theft of our rights, the people are fighting back and government is frightened. And that is GOOD. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny."
It is time for governments and corporations to start fearing the people again. It is time to take back our rights. It is time for a revolution.
Addendum
This article will make you never want to use a PC again! Basically it tells you that every IT and company on the planet is trying to subvert your PC and allow spying. The part about the PA school was particularly disturbing; who thought taking photos of nude, under-aged students was a good idea?
March 21, 2012
Wildcat
The Wildcat offense in the NFL can work, and has been proven to work, for the last 4 years or so. But its impact has lessened over the last few years for one reason only: teams aren't actually running the Wildcat.
The main component that makes a Wildcat offense work is the threat by the QB/RB controlling the ball at the snap to either run it, throw it, or hand it off. When the Dolphins started using it in 2008, they did each of those things about 1/3 of the time. Sometimes Ronnie Brown would throw it, sometimes he would run it, and sometimes he would shovel it to Ricky Williams. Not knowing what was coming, the defenses were always playing catch-up and Miami went on a bit of a winning streak.
And then they stopped throwing the ball. The reason it stopped being so successful is that it became 75% run by Brown, 24% shovel pass to the other RB, and 1% pass or pass fake. So defenses loaded up against the run and it became just another running play. NFL defenses can stop just about any play if they know what is coming.
The same happened with Tebow and the Broncos last season. They had excellent success initially, because Tebow was throwing, running, and shoveling it to the RB. And then the offense coordinator, realizing that Tebow was not very accurate, started to limit it. Defenses started gearing for the run and it became just another running play for the Broncos. Once that happened, once teams realized that it was nearly always going to be a run and that Tebow was not accurate, they dared Tebow to read the defense and throw to the open man by putting eight in the box and stopping the run. And that's how Tebow was able to make so many "miraculous" game-winning plays at the end of the game. Even a blind mouse finds some cheese occasionally.
To run the Wildcat in the NFL, you must have QB/RB personnel that is a threat to do any of the three options available on any play. In that way, the defense has to gamble. If they load the box and stop the run, you pass it. If they play man to man, you run or shovel pass it. If they go into zone, you pick your poison for the situation. And that has to happen on every play. Until someone figures out that the threat of a pass or a run has to be there on every play, the defenses of the NFL are just too fast and too savvy to let the Wildcat work for too long when it is predominantly a running play.
The main component that makes a Wildcat offense work is the threat by the QB/RB controlling the ball at the snap to either run it, throw it, or hand it off. When the Dolphins started using it in 2008, they did each of those things about 1/3 of the time. Sometimes Ronnie Brown would throw it, sometimes he would run it, and sometimes he would shovel it to Ricky Williams. Not knowing what was coming, the defenses were always playing catch-up and Miami went on a bit of a winning streak.
And then they stopped throwing the ball. The reason it stopped being so successful is that it became 75% run by Brown, 24% shovel pass to the other RB, and 1% pass or pass fake. So defenses loaded up against the run and it became just another running play. NFL defenses can stop just about any play if they know what is coming.
The same happened with Tebow and the Broncos last season. They had excellent success initially, because Tebow was throwing, running, and shoveling it to the RB. And then the offense coordinator, realizing that Tebow was not very accurate, started to limit it. Defenses started gearing for the run and it became just another running play for the Broncos. Once that happened, once teams realized that it was nearly always going to be a run and that Tebow was not accurate, they dared Tebow to read the defense and throw to the open man by putting eight in the box and stopping the run. And that's how Tebow was able to make so many "miraculous" game-winning plays at the end of the game. Even a blind mouse finds some cheese occasionally.
To run the Wildcat in the NFL, you must have QB/RB personnel that is a threat to do any of the three options available on any play. In that way, the defense has to gamble. If they load the box and stop the run, you pass it. If they play man to man, you run or shovel pass it. If they go into zone, you pick your poison for the situation. And that has to happen on every play. Until someone figures out that the threat of a pass or a run has to be there on every play, the defenses of the NFL are just too fast and too savvy to let the Wildcat work for too long when it is predominantly a running play.
March 7, 2012
Future Imperfect
My wife's aunt is dying from liver disease. This last weekend we went up to hang out with her and to scan in and save a bunch of photos from her large collection. While the weekend was tough for my wife, for all of the obvious reasons, it may have been just as tough on me. You see, I have liver disease and visiting someone dying from the same illness was like looking into the future.
Her aunt was in better shape than we could have hoped. While she is yellow, it is not as all-pervasive as shows like House make it seem, meaning she isn't as bad as she could be. The whites of her eyes, for example, are still mostly white, and her gums and nails aren't yellow yet. But her skin definitely has an unnatural jaundice to it, especially around her neck and her ankles. She has a lot of fluid build up, and that is slowing her down more than anything, she says. She estimates she's carrying around 40 extra pounds of simple fluid build up in her body.
I have been diagnosed with liver disease since 1995. I take my medications regularly and see my doctors multiple times a year with blood tests. All signs point toward my liver doing well and maybe even regenerating some from the disastrously bad cirrhosis found during a biopsy in 1997 (where they estimated I was between 15 and 20 percent functionality... or just above the minimum levels for a functional liver). But I still have swelling and fluid build up fairly often, even with the medications, although, so far, nothing like the aunt is experiencing. Since mine is autoimmune related, I also have other autoimmune issues to worry about, namely rheumatoid arthritis. And, as anyone who knows about autoimmune issues understands, autoimmune issues tends to snowball into more autoimmune issues as the patient gets older.
The good thing about liver disease in general is that it is not a painful way to go, which the aunt confirms. The medications she takes cause her more distress than the disease itself. But it is still hard to watch someone become jaundiced and die, especially when that fate may be my future. If I needed it (which I didn't, but still), it certainly is a wake-up call to continue taking my medications religiously and continue seeing my doctors regularly.
Her aunt was in better shape than we could have hoped. While she is yellow, it is not as all-pervasive as shows like House make it seem, meaning she isn't as bad as she could be. The whites of her eyes, for example, are still mostly white, and her gums and nails aren't yellow yet. But her skin definitely has an unnatural jaundice to it, especially around her neck and her ankles. She has a lot of fluid build up, and that is slowing her down more than anything, she says. She estimates she's carrying around 40 extra pounds of simple fluid build up in her body.
I have been diagnosed with liver disease since 1995. I take my medications regularly and see my doctors multiple times a year with blood tests. All signs point toward my liver doing well and maybe even regenerating some from the disastrously bad cirrhosis found during a biopsy in 1997 (where they estimated I was between 15 and 20 percent functionality... or just above the minimum levels for a functional liver). But I still have swelling and fluid build up fairly often, even with the medications, although, so far, nothing like the aunt is experiencing. Since mine is autoimmune related, I also have other autoimmune issues to worry about, namely rheumatoid arthritis. And, as anyone who knows about autoimmune issues understands, autoimmune issues tends to snowball into more autoimmune issues as the patient gets older.
The good thing about liver disease in general is that it is not a painful way to go, which the aunt confirms. The medications she takes cause her more distress than the disease itself. But it is still hard to watch someone become jaundiced and die, especially when that fate may be my future. If I needed it (which I didn't, but still), it certainly is a wake-up call to continue taking my medications religiously and continue seeing my doctors regularly.
March 5, 2012
CGI Effects
When James Cameron made Terminator 2, he was interviewed about the groundbreaking special digital effects he used to make the T-1000. The claim at the time was that CGI effects would make film making less expensive, as it would allow people to reuse animation and effects shots, or only need slight tweaking and adjustments. This would make special effects heavy movies less expensive to make over the long haul.
Cut to 2012. In the last decade, there have been numerous films that have been almost entirely done using CGI effects, and they are some of the most expensive films made. The move John Carter, for example, uses an enormous sum of CGI effects and is reputed to have a production cost of around $250 million, not including advertising. Since it has no big-star price tags, and nearly every shot has a CGI element to it, the vast majority of the cost must be for animation and effects. Assuming a modest advertising budget, the film needs to break $300 million worldwide in order to make a profit.
I guess CGI is not making films less expensive.
T2 had a production budget of about $100 million in 1991. It made about $200 million domestic (and a little above $500 million world wide). It was actually considered a bit of a financial failure at the time, due to only breaking $200 million, even though, back then, $100 million was still considered the gold standard to reach for a movie. Now you have films costing north of $200 million, and yet we still use the $100 million mark as the gold standard. These skewed numbers are why international numbers have become so much more important in today's film economy; without those grosses, most films fail to make a profit.
I have really enjoyed some of the big summer blockbuster failures of the recent past not because I want to see the film industry fail but rather because I want to see the film industry evolve. The time of the big star salary guaranteeing a film's success is over (see the recent strings of failures by Cruise, Diaz, and others as evidence of that). The time of a film being a success just because it has CGI is over.
I have also enjoyed many of the smaller films doing so well despite competition from the big-budget, Hollywood, summer blockbusters. These films often have pretty good effects done in some guy's basement, and that realize the promise of those effects that James Cameron talked about so many years ago. A small film like Monsters (2010) can have really nice, believable effects and the film can be made for under a million dollars. Hell, District 9 (2009) was made for an estimated $30 million and was a high-quality movie with great production values and good effects throughout; compare that to the majority of CGI-heavy movies of the last decade, most of which were made for between $150 -$250 million and simply weren't as good.
I think Hollywood needs to take a long look at its production system and decide if they can afford to make so many movies with so little profit. It needs to learn from the indie producers who can make a film of equal value and quality at half, a quarter, or even less than the production values of the same film made in the Hollywood studio system. And it needs to always remember that story and acting come first and foremost to any production; CGI and other effects should enhance the quality of the story being told, not replace it.
Cut to 2012. In the last decade, there have been numerous films that have been almost entirely done using CGI effects, and they are some of the most expensive films made. The move John Carter, for example, uses an enormous sum of CGI effects and is reputed to have a production cost of around $250 million, not including advertising. Since it has no big-star price tags, and nearly every shot has a CGI element to it, the vast majority of the cost must be for animation and effects. Assuming a modest advertising budget, the film needs to break $300 million worldwide in order to make a profit.
I guess CGI is not making films less expensive.
T2 had a production budget of about $100 million in 1991. It made about $200 million domestic (and a little above $500 million world wide). It was actually considered a bit of a financial failure at the time, due to only breaking $200 million, even though, back then, $100 million was still considered the gold standard to reach for a movie. Now you have films costing north of $200 million, and yet we still use the $100 million mark as the gold standard. These skewed numbers are why international numbers have become so much more important in today's film economy; without those grosses, most films fail to make a profit.
I have really enjoyed some of the big summer blockbuster failures of the recent past not because I want to see the film industry fail but rather because I want to see the film industry evolve. The time of the big star salary guaranteeing a film's success is over (see the recent strings of failures by Cruise, Diaz, and others as evidence of that). The time of a film being a success just because it has CGI is over.
I have also enjoyed many of the smaller films doing so well despite competition from the big-budget, Hollywood, summer blockbusters. These films often have pretty good effects done in some guy's basement, and that realize the promise of those effects that James Cameron talked about so many years ago. A small film like Monsters (2010) can have really nice, believable effects and the film can be made for under a million dollars. Hell, District 9 (2009) was made for an estimated $30 million and was a high-quality movie with great production values and good effects throughout; compare that to the majority of CGI-heavy movies of the last decade, most of which were made for between $150 -$250 million and simply weren't as good.
I think Hollywood needs to take a long look at its production system and decide if they can afford to make so many movies with so little profit. It needs to learn from the indie producers who can make a film of equal value and quality at half, a quarter, or even less than the production values of the same film made in the Hollywood studio system. And it needs to always remember that story and acting come first and foremost to any production; CGI and other effects should enhance the quality of the story being told, not replace it.
February 28, 2012
Fiscally Conservative
The Repubicans today are constantly referring back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan's presidency and trying to convince Americans that we need to go that route in order to recover from the current economic disaster that started in 2008. What is interesting is how they are going about it. For example, the current Congress, and all of the Republican candidates for president, are insisting that tax cuts are needed. John Boehner believes this so strongly he has led multiple Republican sallies against any action by President Obama to raise taxes. He said repeatedly they will have zero tolerance for any bill that attempts to raise taxes.
Now, let's look at their hero, Ronald Reagan. During Reagan's eight years in office, he raised taxes 11 times. He raised them every year except his first. His advisors recognized that raising taxes, bringing more money in to pay for what the government needed to do, was the only way to cover the government's spending at the time. The money was also used to fuel the recovery options they put in place, such as job creation, military spending, space research, and infrastructure. All things that Obama wants or has tried to do.
In addition, Reagan and Obama both inherited nearly identically high unemployment figures from the previous administration (7.6% and rising). Reagan's ballooned to a high of 10.8% in 24 months before his policies stemmed the tide. Once in place and functioning, his policies reduced it to 9.6% within 30 months of taking office. Compare that with Obama's inherited unemployment ballooning to a high of 10.1% within 10 months, and then his policies reducing it to the same 9.6% rate within 21 months of taking office. It took Reagan an addition 10 months (40 months total from taking office) to get unemployment back to 7.6%. How long will it take Obama? It remains to be seen. But without money to enact his job creation plans, it may take longer.
Basically, today's Republicans are attacking Obama at every chance they get, without offering a plan of their own. Yet, by every measure, Obama is actually following a similar plan and path to their hero, Reagan, with similar success. Obama's plans are more fiscally conservative than he's being given credit for and he has turned around a bad economy faster than Reagan did (so far). Yet the Republicans in office (or that seek the presidency) continue to vilify him at every opportunity.
After looking at some important numbers, it sure looks like we HAVE gone back to the glory days of Reagan and ARE following his economic plans to solve the economic crisis. So why are they continuing to block virtually everything the President sends to them?
It makes me wonder if any Republican today would actually follow Reagan's economic plan if he were President today. My guess is no; Reagan, that bastion of right-wing politics, would likely be considered too Liberal for today's Republican.
Now, let's look at their hero, Ronald Reagan. During Reagan's eight years in office, he raised taxes 11 times. He raised them every year except his first. His advisors recognized that raising taxes, bringing more money in to pay for what the government needed to do, was the only way to cover the government's spending at the time. The money was also used to fuel the recovery options they put in place, such as job creation, military spending, space research, and infrastructure. All things that Obama wants or has tried to do.
In addition, Reagan and Obama both inherited nearly identically high unemployment figures from the previous administration (7.6% and rising). Reagan's ballooned to a high of 10.8% in 24 months before his policies stemmed the tide. Once in place and functioning, his policies reduced it to 9.6% within 30 months of taking office. Compare that with Obama's inherited unemployment ballooning to a high of 10.1% within 10 months, and then his policies reducing it to the same 9.6% rate within 21 months of taking office. It took Reagan an addition 10 months (40 months total from taking office) to get unemployment back to 7.6%. How long will it take Obama? It remains to be seen. But without money to enact his job creation plans, it may take longer.
Basically, today's Republicans are attacking Obama at every chance they get, without offering a plan of their own. Yet, by every measure, Obama is actually following a similar plan and path to their hero, Reagan, with similar success. Obama's plans are more fiscally conservative than he's being given credit for and he has turned around a bad economy faster than Reagan did (so far). Yet the Republicans in office (or that seek the presidency) continue to vilify him at every opportunity.
After looking at some important numbers, it sure looks like we HAVE gone back to the glory days of Reagan and ARE following his economic plans to solve the economic crisis. So why are they continuing to block virtually everything the President sends to them?
It makes me wonder if any Republican today would actually follow Reagan's economic plan if he were President today. My guess is no; Reagan, that bastion of right-wing politics, would likely be considered too Liberal for today's Republican.
February 22, 2012
I Do Not Have Chinese in My Armor!
Jeremy Lin is of Asian descent. Recently, a big brouhaha occurred over a few sports analysts using the term "chink in the armor" when Lin's penchant for turnovers led to a loss by the New York Knicks. One headline editor was fired, an analyst was suspended for 30 days, and many people weighed in the matter.
What pretty much every person who weighed in seemed not to know is that the phrase "chink in the armor" and the word "chink" have been around for centuries before it became a pejorative word for Asians (Chinese specifically).
My research shows that the word chink has been around since approximately the 1300s and means a small crack, hole, or opening in something. The phrase "chink in the armor" has been around just as long, and means, literally, a hole or opening in an armored suit of mail, which an enemy can exploit. The term can also be onomatopoeic and mean to make a short, sharp, ringing sound, as of two coins or two glasses hitting. The use of the word as a pejorative is much, much more recent, coming around the 1900s, when America brought a bunch of Chinese to America and forced them to work on building the railroads. They were treated as less than human, so pejorative terms were used to further denigrate them.
The sports analysts used a phrase that would be perfectly acceptable to use for any other race, and has been, when talking about finding the possible weakness of a sports player who has otherwise shown no weaknesses. Lin made a huge splash by righting the Knicks' ship, helping them to win their first seven games with him as the starting point guard. However, people noted that his turnovers were high and, when those turnovers finally led fairly directly to a Knicks loss, the analysts rightly thought that those TOs might be the "chink in Lin's armor."
One of the comments I read was that (paraphrased) "you wouldn't use an African-American pejorative to describe an athlete, so why would you use a Chinese-American pejorative?" Well, here's the problem with that thinking. The word "nigger" has no other meaning than as a pejorative for black people. Whereas, as I mentioned above, the word chink has two meanings that have been around for centuries prior to it becoming a pejorative. It has legitimate uses in everyday conversations. Many pejoratives are simply that. But some have had meanings and value prior to becoming a pejorative, and those meanings and value should not be lost.
The sports analysts in question used the phrase and the term correctly. I would be willing to bet they have used that same phrase on other athletes at various times throughout their careers without any backlash or media sensation. At this point, I think this backlash is actually proving racism in another fashion; why can't people use a legitimate word in a legitimate fashion without being vilified in the press?
An interesting side-note to this discussion: I play Dungeons & Dragons. This is a game that takes place in a fantasy medieval setting and has characters who wear medieval style armors. On one of the forums for the game, I was discussing the ability for someone to find and exploit literal chinks in the armor of players who wear these armors. When I posted the comment, the line read "... *****s in the armor ...". Now, if anywhere should allow the legitimate use of the phrase "chinks in the armor" it should be a fantasy game that actually uses armor and has ways of exploiting weaknesses in it.
The political correctness pendulum has been too far to the right for way too long. We need to grow thicker skin and a sense of humor, as well as become educated enough to know when a word has more than one meaning. We should also learn to look at meaning and use and determine if the person intended a slight. With some pejoratives it is easy, because they have no alternate meaning. But some do, and care should be taken with them to determine intent before raising an uproar.
What pretty much every person who weighed in seemed not to know is that the phrase "chink in the armor" and the word "chink" have been around for centuries before it became a pejorative word for Asians (Chinese specifically).
My research shows that the word chink has been around since approximately the 1300s and means a small crack, hole, or opening in something. The phrase "chink in the armor" has been around just as long, and means, literally, a hole or opening in an armored suit of mail, which an enemy can exploit. The term can also be onomatopoeic and mean to make a short, sharp, ringing sound, as of two coins or two glasses hitting. The use of the word as a pejorative is much, much more recent, coming around the 1900s, when America brought a bunch of Chinese to America and forced them to work on building the railroads. They were treated as less than human, so pejorative terms were used to further denigrate them.
The sports analysts used a phrase that would be perfectly acceptable to use for any other race, and has been, when talking about finding the possible weakness of a sports player who has otherwise shown no weaknesses. Lin made a huge splash by righting the Knicks' ship, helping them to win their first seven games with him as the starting point guard. However, people noted that his turnovers were high and, when those turnovers finally led fairly directly to a Knicks loss, the analysts rightly thought that those TOs might be the "chink in Lin's armor."
One of the comments I read was that (paraphrased) "you wouldn't use an African-American pejorative to describe an athlete, so why would you use a Chinese-American pejorative?" Well, here's the problem with that thinking. The word "nigger" has no other meaning than as a pejorative for black people. Whereas, as I mentioned above, the word chink has two meanings that have been around for centuries prior to it becoming a pejorative. It has legitimate uses in everyday conversations. Many pejoratives are simply that. But some have had meanings and value prior to becoming a pejorative, and those meanings and value should not be lost.
The sports analysts in question used the phrase and the term correctly. I would be willing to bet they have used that same phrase on other athletes at various times throughout their careers without any backlash or media sensation. At this point, I think this backlash is actually proving racism in another fashion; why can't people use a legitimate word in a legitimate fashion without being vilified in the press?
An interesting side-note to this discussion: I play Dungeons & Dragons. This is a game that takes place in a fantasy medieval setting and has characters who wear medieval style armors. On one of the forums for the game, I was discussing the ability for someone to find and exploit literal chinks in the armor of players who wear these armors. When I posted the comment, the line read "... *****s in the armor ...". Now, if anywhere should allow the legitimate use of the phrase "chinks in the armor" it should be a fantasy game that actually uses armor and has ways of exploiting weaknesses in it.
The political correctness pendulum has been too far to the right for way too long. We need to grow thicker skin and a sense of humor, as well as become educated enough to know when a word has more than one meaning. We should also learn to look at meaning and use and determine if the person intended a slight. With some pejoratives it is easy, because they have no alternate meaning. But some do, and care should be taken with them to determine intent before raising an uproar.
February 9, 2012
Giving Advice
My wife and I like to see the opinions and reviews of people before we buy a product. To that end, we almost always read through the vast majority of comments made by people on sites like Amazon.com, Consumer Reports, Newegg.com, and others.
One thing we have been grousing about lately is the fact that a number of people are marking down products for things outside of the control of the product itself. For example, I was on Amazon.com reviewing "Justice League: Doom," an upcoming DVD cartoon I'm looking forward to. Today, there are 22 reviews with the majority either in 5 stars (6) or in 1 stars (8). However, when reading the 8 1 star reviews, not one of them is complaining about the cartoon. Instead, each and every one of the reviews is 1 star because of the choice of Warner Bros to release the digital copy using the new Ultraviolet format.
Now, I agree with them that this Ultraviolet format has issues. It is ONLY available when you have internet access and the ability to stream the product. Which means that, for example, if you are going on a trip and want to take this cartoon with you, you cannot. It will only be available at those times when you can connect to the internet and stream it; if your children start screaming to watch it mid-flight, you're pretty much SOL. If your internet is down, or someone is using it for something important and there is not enough bandwidth left, you cannot get to the movie at all.
But all of those are problems and issues that have nothing to do with the quality of the cartoon itself. Amazon.com is a site where people are supposed to review the product itself, not the parent company's business decisions. There is no reason to mark down a product for what may be wonderful -- the best cartoon you've ever seen.
When I was looking for products to purchase for our rebuilt PCs, I stumbled on this issue often. People would mark monitors and hard drives down for reasons other than the quality, affordability, or features of the product itself. You had an issue and the manufacturer was a dick to you? Okay, fine. Mark that in the text for the product but don't mark the product itself down because of it. You bought a hard drive that you admit and agree was awesome, ran quietly, was a great value for the price, yet you give the product only 1 or 2 eggs because the manufacturer was slow at honoring, or did not honor at all, the mail in rebate for the product? That's not fair to the product or to those using reviews to choose which product is the best for them.
If you were unsure about a theatrical release and you asked your friends, you would be left scratching your head if they responded in a similar fashion.
"Hey, you watched Safe House. What did you think?"Are you going to see the movie? You were on the fence before, and the information you got from the review had nothing to do with the movie and didn't help you to make your decision. It was, for all intents and purposes, worthless. Yes, you may look at boycotting Universal for their kitten killing policies, but that is superfluous to your desire to know more about the movie and decide if you'll watch it.
"I only gave Safe House one star. Did you know that Universal, the company that is distributing it, kills kittens by putting them in bags and throwing them in rivers? I can't have that happening."
"Er, that's horrible. But what about the movie, why did you give it only one star?"
"Didn't you hear me? They kill kittens, damn it!"
"Yes, that's horrible. But I really want to know about this movie right now. Is it worth seeing?"
"Kittens, man!"
People need to step back and remember their purpose when they are reviewing a product. They need to remember who is reading the reviews and their purpose for doing so. And then they should put a review in that reflects that. If they have a problem with the corporation behind the product in some fashion, they should contact that company directly and complain to them about that particular action or issue. In that way, those who may want the product get the information they need, and the company receives the feedback they require.
Heaving True
If I have the least bit of congestion in my head, it all comes out of my sinus cavities by going down the back of my throat. I rarely, even under the most intense flu symptoms or colds, have to blow my nose. Nearly all of it always goes down the back of my throat and rarely comes out the nose. Which, ironically, makes people think I'm not sick, because we have all been trained that a red, runny nose is the primarily indicator of sickness. In addition, every single time I swallow, I swallow air. This combination of large amounts of air bubbles in the digestive system and a near-constant intake of mucus from my nasal passages means that I wake up a bit nauseated and often am triggered to vomit or dry heave each morning.
Take this morning as an example. I got up and went to take my shower. My stomach was rumbly from the night of air swallowing (anyone who says you stop swallowing when you are asleep is outright wrong) and my congestion issues slowly get worse during the night. During the shower, where the hot water made my congestion issues start really flowing, I started to feel a bit worse in the stomach.
Sure enough, after I was done with the shower and was starting to dress, I felt it come on: a strong desire to throw up. Unfortunately, after a night's rest, there simply wasn't anything in my stomach, so I dry-heaved into the sink for many moments until the most recent amount of mucus (snot, really) came up. This completely wore me out and made me feel worse for wear as my first activity in the morning. Most mornings I have to limit my speaking because the sheer act of moving air to speak can cause the regurgitation response to start; my guess is that mucus is around or on the vocal cords and the moving air causes it to irritate and start the regurgitation process because my body thinks there is an obstruction there.
The air-swallowing issue is an additional problem. I think that my epiglottis is not properly closing the flap that connects the nasal passages with the throat, causing more stuff to go down than is supposed to. This is also, in my estimation, why I swallow air with every single swallow that I make; due to the flap not properly closing, a little bit of air is passed through the opening during the swallowing processes, and then gets sent to my stomach with the saliva, drink, or food that I'm eating.
In general, it takes about 30 minutes up to about two hours before I feel in control of my gag reflex enough to eat or drink something. Once I can eat or drink a little something, my stomach calms down and the gag reflex eases back into a controllable area. At this point, I can then take my medications or finish eating/drinking and have a fairly normal day. If I actually reach the point of vomiting or dry-heaving, however, it takes longer for me to get control and get going on my day.
I have talked with my doctor about this twice now. He pretty much completely ignored it the first time and the second time he felt that a nasal spray would solve the problem. I plan to make an appointment, press the issue, and insist on a referral to an ear/nose/throat specialist to help me with this problem, as the spray was completely and totally ineffective. I think I need a specialist to figure out why my congestion always goes down my throat, why I have so many bloody noses (a side issue that I don't think is related), and why I am swallowing so much air. In figuring this out, I feel, the doctor can do something that will ease these issues and help me have normal mornings again.
ADDENDUM:
I have an appointment with the doctor for April 2. I also asked the receptionist to take a note to the doctor reminding him that he promised to provide a referral at the last appointment if things didn't improve. Hopefully he wrote it in his notes or remembers, so we can skip this appointment and go straight to seeing the specialist and solving this problem. We'll see.
Take this morning as an example. I got up and went to take my shower. My stomach was rumbly from the night of air swallowing (anyone who says you stop swallowing when you are asleep is outright wrong) and my congestion issues slowly get worse during the night. During the shower, where the hot water made my congestion issues start really flowing, I started to feel a bit worse in the stomach.
Sure enough, after I was done with the shower and was starting to dress, I felt it come on: a strong desire to throw up. Unfortunately, after a night's rest, there simply wasn't anything in my stomach, so I dry-heaved into the sink for many moments until the most recent amount of mucus (snot, really) came up. This completely wore me out and made me feel worse for wear as my first activity in the morning. Most mornings I have to limit my speaking because the sheer act of moving air to speak can cause the regurgitation response to start; my guess is that mucus is around or on the vocal cords and the moving air causes it to irritate and start the regurgitation process because my body thinks there is an obstruction there.
The air-swallowing issue is an additional problem. I think that my epiglottis is not properly closing the flap that connects the nasal passages with the throat, causing more stuff to go down than is supposed to. This is also, in my estimation, why I swallow air with every single swallow that I make; due to the flap not properly closing, a little bit of air is passed through the opening during the swallowing processes, and then gets sent to my stomach with the saliva, drink, or food that I'm eating.
In general, it takes about 30 minutes up to about two hours before I feel in control of my gag reflex enough to eat or drink something. Once I can eat or drink a little something, my stomach calms down and the gag reflex eases back into a controllable area. At this point, I can then take my medications or finish eating/drinking and have a fairly normal day. If I actually reach the point of vomiting or dry-heaving, however, it takes longer for me to get control and get going on my day.
I have talked with my doctor about this twice now. He pretty much completely ignored it the first time and the second time he felt that a nasal spray would solve the problem. I plan to make an appointment, press the issue, and insist on a referral to an ear/nose/throat specialist to help me with this problem, as the spray was completely and totally ineffective. I think I need a specialist to figure out why my congestion always goes down my throat, why I have so many bloody noses (a side issue that I don't think is related), and why I am swallowing so much air. In figuring this out, I feel, the doctor can do something that will ease these issues and help me have normal mornings again.
ADDENDUM:
I have an appointment with the doctor for April 2. I also asked the receptionist to take a note to the doctor reminding him that he promised to provide a referral at the last appointment if things didn't improve. Hopefully he wrote it in his notes or remembers, so we can skip this appointment and go straight to seeing the specialist and solving this problem. We'll see.
February 3, 2012
Writing Right
For a variety of reasons, I have been reading more on the Internet than usual, including blogs, forums, and news articles from various sites and of various types. It strikes me that the vast majority of people cannot write well.
I make my living writing, so I am both personally and professionally biased, I realize. However, by writing professionally, I also know that nothing I write is ever "perfect." The first rule of my profession is to never edit your own work. When reviewing and rereading your own work, your brain fills in the gaps, ignores misspellings, and generally lets you down in subtle ways that cause errors to creep into your writing. However, that is not to say that I do not do this step; I reread, edit, and re-edit my own work and posts a few times, using different techniques designed to minimize the number of errors that can creep in. Yet, still, when I go back to a previous post, I usually find at least a couple of errors.
While I do not expect anyone to be absolutely perfect online, the average person's blog, Facebook status, or Twitter feed is littered with issues, which shows the decline in communication skills in general. However, I am especially appalled by the number of news magazine and other professional sites that have frequent issues with grammar, spelling, punctuation, and contextual writing. While I deplore what I see as a general lack of even basic skills in these areas, it is one thing to have a non-professional making mistakes and another to have professional sites, which should have copy editors, making egregious, frequent, and consistent mistakes in these areas.
With my current bent on reading more online articles and posts, I see that majority of sites have the following errors:
Each sentence, paragraph, or, in the case of something really lengthy, topic or heading, should then establish your position, support your thesis, or explain your reasoning. There are many ways to do these steps, and I will not go into them here. It is safe to say that many people that saying, "Because I said so," is in some way an erudite and insightful way of stating their opinion. Yet, we do not know why they think as they do, how they came to their conclusion, or what could be done differently to appease their worries.
For example, if you were to speak with a friend about a new movie and the friend said, "It sucked," you would not be satisfied with that answer. You would likely follow up that statement with questions to delve into the reasons why he/she thought it sucked, what about it sucked, if there were any redeeming qualities to the movie, and then make up your own mind on whether to see it. These questions you would ask your friend about the qualities that made the movie suck are the same types of questions a writer should be asking him/herself about the thesis of their statement and then providing useful, relevant, and specific examples to showcase their knowledge of the subject. For example, the friend could say, "The movie used shaky-cam, which I find very distracting." Further, "The actors didn't seem to have any chemistry at all, but the movie was supposed to be a love story." And, "I had a very hard time following the convoluted story. There are so many twists in it, that I stopped caring what happened and simply focused on trying to figure out what was going on." These responses all provide you with much-needed information that could sway you one way or the other on whether to see the film yourself.
While it is true that literacy rates have fallen to new lows over the last decade, some argue that the Internet is actually helping to get young people to read and write more and that literacy rates are slowly trending upward. While I do agree that I young people are texting more often, texting does not equate with reading or writing skills. In fact, I argue the opposite; the use of so many short-cuts and acronyms in place of real grammar is hurting people's writing skills more than helping it. Because they are starting texting at young ages, the bad habits of texting often supersede the information they should be learning in grade school about sentence creation, thought formation, and general writing skills. This keeps compounding until they graduate high school with little ability to read or write anything above a fourth-grade level.
What many people forget is just how much writing we need to do in today's society. Unless you have a fairly basic blue-collar job, chances are that you will need to email your bosses. Most white-collar professions require constant reading and writing as you take in data and then must disseminate it to others through emails, fliers, memos, speeches, specifications, and other forms of, generally, written communication. Those who can write well often get promotions and raises that others may want or even deserve simply on the foundation that they can communicate better than those who cannot write well.
When I see that educators and education budgets are under constant attack by politicians, I shake my head in wonder. By firing teachers and gouging the budgets, the ability to teach the next generation proper grammar, spelling, and writing techniques will get even worse. Soon, we'll have a monosyllabic culture that cannot express itself in the written form. This does not bode well for our country's ability to compete in a global economy, where clear communication is becoming more important, not less.
My online reading has made me aware of a lack of communication and writing skills in the general population. While a small number of errors can be attributed to the usual mistakes that creep into one's work when one is editing his/her own writing, the vast number, consistency of, and quality of the errors and writing lead me to believe that America's communication skills have atrophied. Short status sites like Facebook and Twitter, and quick contact applications like instant messaging, seem to be further eroding our ability to write coherent communications. I wonder what affect this will have on America in the next 10-20 years, as global communication via the Internet continues to climb and the world continues to shrink?
I make my living writing, so I am both personally and professionally biased, I realize. However, by writing professionally, I also know that nothing I write is ever "perfect." The first rule of my profession is to never edit your own work. When reviewing and rereading your own work, your brain fills in the gaps, ignores misspellings, and generally lets you down in subtle ways that cause errors to creep into your writing. However, that is not to say that I do not do this step; I reread, edit, and re-edit my own work and posts a few times, using different techniques designed to minimize the number of errors that can creep in. Yet, still, when I go back to a previous post, I usually find at least a couple of errors.
While I do not expect anyone to be absolutely perfect online, the average person's blog, Facebook status, or Twitter feed is littered with issues, which shows the decline in communication skills in general. However, I am especially appalled by the number of news magazine and other professional sites that have frequent issues with grammar, spelling, punctuation, and contextual writing. While I deplore what I see as a general lack of even basic skills in these areas, it is one thing to have a non-professional making mistakes and another to have professional sites, which should have copy editors, making egregious, frequent, and consistent mistakes in these areas.
With my current bent on reading more online articles and posts, I see that majority of sites have the following errors:
- Bad grammar. People are constantly using the wrong word(s) in the wrong syntax. Homophone usage is particularly poor, where someone will use "their" when they want "they're."
- Bad Punctuation. People misuse punctuation, especially putting punctuation marks outside of quotation marks and sprinkling either commas or semi-colons throughout sentences that do not need them.
- Bad typos. Many writers also do not take the time to reread their work and look for simple typos (I see a lot of "doe snot" rather than "does not" cropping up lately). Too many writers appear to be relying on spell-checker to get everything right, even though spell-checker cannot tell the difference between a congested fawn (doe snot) and something that works differently than you think it does (does not). Spell-checker is a useful tool, but not a panacea.
- Bad topic/idea creation or support. Many people do not know about what they wish to speak. They start with one idea but, by the time your each the end of the post, it has morphed into something else entirely or the person cannot support his original thesis in any relevant, coherent way.
Each sentence, paragraph, or, in the case of something really lengthy, topic or heading, should then establish your position, support your thesis, or explain your reasoning. There are many ways to do these steps, and I will not go into them here. It is safe to say that many people that saying, "Because I said so," is in some way an erudite and insightful way of stating their opinion. Yet, we do not know why they think as they do, how they came to their conclusion, or what could be done differently to appease their worries.
For example, if you were to speak with a friend about a new movie and the friend said, "It sucked," you would not be satisfied with that answer. You would likely follow up that statement with questions to delve into the reasons why he/she thought it sucked, what about it sucked, if there were any redeeming qualities to the movie, and then make up your own mind on whether to see it. These questions you would ask your friend about the qualities that made the movie suck are the same types of questions a writer should be asking him/herself about the thesis of their statement and then providing useful, relevant, and specific examples to showcase their knowledge of the subject. For example, the friend could say, "The movie used shaky-cam, which I find very distracting." Further, "The actors didn't seem to have any chemistry at all, but the movie was supposed to be a love story." And, "I had a very hard time following the convoluted story. There are so many twists in it, that I stopped caring what happened and simply focused on trying to figure out what was going on." These responses all provide you with much-needed information that could sway you one way or the other on whether to see the film yourself.
While it is true that literacy rates have fallen to new lows over the last decade, some argue that the Internet is actually helping to get young people to read and write more and that literacy rates are slowly trending upward. While I do agree that I young people are texting more often, texting does not equate with reading or writing skills. In fact, I argue the opposite; the use of so many short-cuts and acronyms in place of real grammar is hurting people's writing skills more than helping it. Because they are starting texting at young ages, the bad habits of texting often supersede the information they should be learning in grade school about sentence creation, thought formation, and general writing skills. This keeps compounding until they graduate high school with little ability to read or write anything above a fourth-grade level.
What many people forget is just how much writing we need to do in today's society. Unless you have a fairly basic blue-collar job, chances are that you will need to email your bosses. Most white-collar professions require constant reading and writing as you take in data and then must disseminate it to others through emails, fliers, memos, speeches, specifications, and other forms of, generally, written communication. Those who can write well often get promotions and raises that others may want or even deserve simply on the foundation that they can communicate better than those who cannot write well.
When I see that educators and education budgets are under constant attack by politicians, I shake my head in wonder. By firing teachers and gouging the budgets, the ability to teach the next generation proper grammar, spelling, and writing techniques will get even worse. Soon, we'll have a monosyllabic culture that cannot express itself in the written form. This does not bode well for our country's ability to compete in a global economy, where clear communication is becoming more important, not less.
My online reading has made me aware of a lack of communication and writing skills in the general population. While a small number of errors can be attributed to the usual mistakes that creep into one's work when one is editing his/her own writing, the vast number, consistency of, and quality of the errors and writing lead me to believe that America's communication skills have atrophied. Short status sites like Facebook and Twitter, and quick contact applications like instant messaging, seem to be further eroding our ability to write coherent communications. I wonder what affect this will have on America in the next 10-20 years, as global communication via the Internet continues to climb and the world continues to shrink?
January 25, 2012
Building a Road Map
The President of the United States cannot really make any laws. Executive Orders are pretty limited in scope and use. Therefore, the President must challenge Congress and the people by being the "big picture" guy and leave the details to those who can write laws.
In last night's State of the Union address, the President laid out what I thought were generally fairly bipartisan challenges and asked Congress to get busy writing the laws that would do what he recommended so that he could sign them into law. During a surprising number of those challenges and "big picture" blueprints, both Republicans and Democrats cheered, stood up, and/or clapped. Yet, when it came time for the Republican responses to the President's address, they pretty much toed the same line they have been for the last 18 months: we are not going to do anything to help this President get reelected.
The problem with this philosophy is that they also are not helping the people they are supposed to serve. Independent polls consistently show approval ratings of Congress at single to very small double digits; otherwise known as the worst in history. Independent polls also show that people want a lot of what the President proposed during his address. The only quibble among the people is on how it gets done, not what needs to be done. Yet the Republicans don't seem to care about this; their agenda is simply to block the President, make him look weak and ineffectual, and to get him out of office.
I used to proudly be a member of the Republican party and voted party often. Bush 2 ("W") changed all that. His politics, in my opinion, were so biased, were so based on helping the few and damning the many, and, in some very specific instances, so illegal and unconstitutional, that I changed my political stance to Refuse to State. Bush was warned about the housing bubble and chose to do nothing. He was warned about Wall Street and chose to remove even more regulations instead of policing the situation. He had a clear objective to go after terrorists and then, by all evidence both at the time and now, manufactured a reason to go into Iraq and get us into a war we couldn't really afford and for which we had no clear plan, strategy, or exit.
I didn't join the Democrat party because I didn't see much better from them. They blindly voted with W for war, without doing their due-diligence or questioning it. They ignored or passed many of the bills that helped W loosen regulations and damage the economy long-term. When I felt W had gone so far as to be provably doing things illegal, I even contact each representative and asked them to start Impeachment proceedings. My reasoning was that the Repubs impeached Clinton for lying, but not really breaking the law. Bush actually broke the law, in my estimation, with his unconstitutional practices toward Muslims in America and detainees everywhere, and he lied to get us into a war, Impeachment proceedings should have started immediately, as this, and the end result of thousands of Americans dead and many more Iraqis killed was much worse than Clinton lying about an affair with an intern. Yet they all wrote back with very weak excuses as to why they didn't feel impeachment was the right choice for that time. Hunh?
America needs help right now. Party politics are at an all-time low, infighting, backstabbing, and rhetoric are at an all-time high. The President consistently has asked for bipartisan cooperation in Congress and he consistently hasn't received it. We, the people, need to start demanding it of our representatives and kick them out of office when they don't perform up to those expectations. We need to be emailing, mailing, phoning, telegraming our representatives with our opinions. I strongly believe that the vast, quiet majority of people can come to a compromise that works for them, regardless of party politics, and get things moving. We just have to push, prod, pull, browbeat, and force our representatives to work toward that same goal.
Americans seem to be in a feedback loop where all they watch, hear, or read are items that share and reinforce their existing opinions. They don't seem to be seeking out antithetical opinions or challenging their thought processes. They don't seem to be questioning their leaders, regardless of party affiliation, and insisting on accountability. We all need to step up and start doing this and make our voices heard. The politicians will come into line or get kicked out of office.
In last night's State of the Union address, the President laid out what I thought were generally fairly bipartisan challenges and asked Congress to get busy writing the laws that would do what he recommended so that he could sign them into law. During a surprising number of those challenges and "big picture" blueprints, both Republicans and Democrats cheered, stood up, and/or clapped. Yet, when it came time for the Republican responses to the President's address, they pretty much toed the same line they have been for the last 18 months: we are not going to do anything to help this President get reelected.
The problem with this philosophy is that they also are not helping the people they are supposed to serve. Independent polls consistently show approval ratings of Congress at single to very small double digits; otherwise known as the worst in history. Independent polls also show that people want a lot of what the President proposed during his address. The only quibble among the people is on how it gets done, not what needs to be done. Yet the Republicans don't seem to care about this; their agenda is simply to block the President, make him look weak and ineffectual, and to get him out of office.
I used to proudly be a member of the Republican party and voted party often. Bush 2 ("W") changed all that. His politics, in my opinion, were so biased, were so based on helping the few and damning the many, and, in some very specific instances, so illegal and unconstitutional, that I changed my political stance to Refuse to State. Bush was warned about the housing bubble and chose to do nothing. He was warned about Wall Street and chose to remove even more regulations instead of policing the situation. He had a clear objective to go after terrorists and then, by all evidence both at the time and now, manufactured a reason to go into Iraq and get us into a war we couldn't really afford and for which we had no clear plan, strategy, or exit.
I didn't join the Democrat party because I didn't see much better from them. They blindly voted with W for war, without doing their due-diligence or questioning it. They ignored or passed many of the bills that helped W loosen regulations and damage the economy long-term. When I felt W had gone so far as to be provably doing things illegal, I even contact each representative and asked them to start Impeachment proceedings. My reasoning was that the Repubs impeached Clinton for lying, but not really breaking the law. Bush actually broke the law, in my estimation, with his unconstitutional practices toward Muslims in America and detainees everywhere, and he lied to get us into a war, Impeachment proceedings should have started immediately, as this, and the end result of thousands of Americans dead and many more Iraqis killed was much worse than Clinton lying about an affair with an intern. Yet they all wrote back with very weak excuses as to why they didn't feel impeachment was the right choice for that time. Hunh?
America needs help right now. Party politics are at an all-time low, infighting, backstabbing, and rhetoric are at an all-time high. The President consistently has asked for bipartisan cooperation in Congress and he consistently hasn't received it. We, the people, need to start demanding it of our representatives and kick them out of office when they don't perform up to those expectations. We need to be emailing, mailing, phoning, telegraming our representatives with our opinions. I strongly believe that the vast, quiet majority of people can come to a compromise that works for them, regardless of party politics, and get things moving. We just have to push, prod, pull, browbeat, and force our representatives to work toward that same goal.
Americans seem to be in a feedback loop where all they watch, hear, or read are items that share and reinforce their existing opinions. They don't seem to be seeking out antithetical opinions or challenging their thought processes. They don't seem to be questioning their leaders, regardless of party affiliation, and insisting on accountability. We all need to step up and start doing this and make our voices heard. The politicians will come into line or get kicked out of office.
January 17, 2012
GAO
What Americans need is for the General Accounting Office to release the base figures for each program the government spends money on, the amount of money received from all taxes in an average year, and then show, preferably in simple graphics, the discrepancy. At this point, the people could then see the huge issue with constantly lowering taxes and why corporations getting a steady stream of tax breaks hurts the economy.
America became great because of the huge middle class. They made enough money, were where there majority of wealth was held, and were constantly consuming more items so that the economy was strong. Now, about 25% of that wealth has moved into the hands of the ultra-rich, which means that the middle class has one quarter less of the wealth with which to pay those taxes, while less than 1% has one quarter more of the wealth with which to pay taxes... and doesn't.
If you could make a simple graph that showed the government spends W on the military, X on social security, Y on medicare, and Z on all the other programs (with the ability to break these out), and then showed how much that taxation brings in, you could then ask Americans which programs to cut or successfully lobby for higher taxes.
For example, let us say that America spends 10 dollars on military spending. Then let us say it spends 5 on social security, 3 on Medicare (and related programs), and about 5 on all other programs. That means we spend a total of 23 dollars on the government programs. But, right now and for the last about 15 years, we have only been bringing in about 18-20 dollars on average. So we are spending more than we bring in, regardless of the state of the economy. The government ONLY brings in money via taxes, so either we have to cut those programs or we have to bring in more taxes. This would be a simple way to get Americans talking about that simple necessity: does the government really need to spend so much on the military? Does it need to spend so much on social security and medicare? Does it need to spend so much on all the other, smaller programs? It would allow the people to see and chose what to keep and what to cut or eliminate more obviously. But, I believe, in the end you will still have a discrepancy between the dollars brought in and the dollars spent, so the GAO could then show what a small change in everyone's taxes would do to defray the costs of the programs the majority has decided to keep.
It used to be that, in terms of percentages, the middle class had the vast majority of the money held by the vast majority of the people, so having a small taxation rate was not felt by any one person too much. Taking 15% of $35,000 from 150 million taxable middle-class people was enough to hit or exceed the budget needed by the government. However, since a quarter of the wealth has left the middle class and fewer of the middle-class are currently working, that money has to be made up somehow. Taxation should, quite simply, follow the money; whoever has the money/wealth needs to pay the taxes in order to keep the economy strong and the government functioning. If that money has moved from the middle class, then wherever it has moved to is where the gov't needs to collect the money. Right now, that money is in the hands of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich need to make approximately a quarter more in taxation payments to the government until such time as that money moves to someone else.
It is actually a fairly simple equation. And having one quarter of all of the wealth of America moving from the hands of the majority into the hands of a(n extreme) minority means that you are asking the majority to pay more of a tax burden with a quarter less money. Which, in turn, moves more money to the minority and means the majority has to pay even more with even less... it becomes an endless cycle until there is no middle-class, just the ultra-rich and the poor. And this hurts the entire nation and will collapse the economy.
What made America the strongest nation in the world for so many years was the strong middle class. By having the majority of its people in a position to consume (spend money), you could fund a government without overly hurting any one person with a tax burden. Because of this, people had the ability to move between economic strata and go from poor to middle-class to wealthy to ultra-wealthy. Without this strong middle class and without having the majority of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the majority, movement between economic strata becomes much more difficult, the majority has to pay more and more to keep the government functioning, and the very rich get richer while every other strata gets poorer.
And, with all those tax breaks and incentives the government has given the ultra-rich to create jobs and add wealth to the economy, what have they done with that? Across the board they have kept the money, moved jobs overseas, or fired workers such that we have record unemployment. This is what the ultra-rich have done for going on 30 years now, regardless of which party is in office. All this does is move more money out of the middle-class, making it even harder for the government to function.
Here's my plan: after 30 years of not living up to what the government wants them to do, let us enforce some rules on the incentives we give the ultra-rich to create jobs. If, after 1 year of incentives the ultra-rich do not have demonstrable X percentage of new jobs created, they must pay back the incentive in full, plus interest, and they move to the next higher tax bracket for a year. They can reapply for a tax incentive after all the owed money is paid back and they have paid the new, higher tax rate for a minimum of six months. At that point, the same rules apply. And, the more of a tax break they ask for, the more job creation they must be able to demonstrate. As the economy righted itself and a stronger middle-class was re-established, we'd have to modify the rules to be about economic processes outside of job growth. But we should continue to keep the emphasis on maintaining a strong economic foundation and the middle-class is key to that... as has been proven by over 100 years of American history.
I think, with this plan, you'd suddenly see a lot of support jobs come back from India. I think you'd see quite a few manufacturing jobs return to America from China, Mexico, and elsewhere. It would be in their best interest to have those jobs here and to give wealth back to the middle-class so that they (the ultra-rich) don't have to pay the taxes. And, frankly, a strong middle-class makes the rich richer, as the middle-class picks up and starts consuming again.
It really is a simple equation in the end.
America became great because of the huge middle class. They made enough money, were where there majority of wealth was held, and were constantly consuming more items so that the economy was strong. Now, about 25% of that wealth has moved into the hands of the ultra-rich, which means that the middle class has one quarter less of the wealth with which to pay those taxes, while less than 1% has one quarter more of the wealth with which to pay taxes... and doesn't.
If you could make a simple graph that showed the government spends W on the military, X on social security, Y on medicare, and Z on all the other programs (with the ability to break these out), and then showed how much that taxation brings in, you could then ask Americans which programs to cut or successfully lobby for higher taxes.
For example, let us say that America spends 10 dollars on military spending. Then let us say it spends 5 on social security, 3 on Medicare (and related programs), and about 5 on all other programs. That means we spend a total of 23 dollars on the government programs. But, right now and for the last about 15 years, we have only been bringing in about 18-20 dollars on average. So we are spending more than we bring in, regardless of the state of the economy. The government ONLY brings in money via taxes, so either we have to cut those programs or we have to bring in more taxes. This would be a simple way to get Americans talking about that simple necessity: does the government really need to spend so much on the military? Does it need to spend so much on social security and medicare? Does it need to spend so much on all the other, smaller programs? It would allow the people to see and chose what to keep and what to cut or eliminate more obviously. But, I believe, in the end you will still have a discrepancy between the dollars brought in and the dollars spent, so the GAO could then show what a small change in everyone's taxes would do to defray the costs of the programs the majority has decided to keep.
It used to be that, in terms of percentages, the middle class had the vast majority of the money held by the vast majority of the people, so having a small taxation rate was not felt by any one person too much. Taking 15% of $35,000 from 150 million taxable middle-class people was enough to hit or exceed the budget needed by the government. However, since a quarter of the wealth has left the middle class and fewer of the middle-class are currently working, that money has to be made up somehow. Taxation should, quite simply, follow the money; whoever has the money/wealth needs to pay the taxes in order to keep the economy strong and the government functioning. If that money has moved from the middle class, then wherever it has moved to is where the gov't needs to collect the money. Right now, that money is in the hands of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich need to make approximately a quarter more in taxation payments to the government until such time as that money moves to someone else.
It is actually a fairly simple equation. And having one quarter of all of the wealth of America moving from the hands of the majority into the hands of a(n extreme) minority means that you are asking the majority to pay more of a tax burden with a quarter less money. Which, in turn, moves more money to the minority and means the majority has to pay even more with even less... it becomes an endless cycle until there is no middle-class, just the ultra-rich and the poor. And this hurts the entire nation and will collapse the economy.
What made America the strongest nation in the world for so many years was the strong middle class. By having the majority of its people in a position to consume (spend money), you could fund a government without overly hurting any one person with a tax burden. Because of this, people had the ability to move between economic strata and go from poor to middle-class to wealthy to ultra-wealthy. Without this strong middle class and without having the majority of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the majority, movement between economic strata becomes much more difficult, the majority has to pay more and more to keep the government functioning, and the very rich get richer while every other strata gets poorer.
And, with all those tax breaks and incentives the government has given the ultra-rich to create jobs and add wealth to the economy, what have they done with that? Across the board they have kept the money, moved jobs overseas, or fired workers such that we have record unemployment. This is what the ultra-rich have done for going on 30 years now, regardless of which party is in office. All this does is move more money out of the middle-class, making it even harder for the government to function.
Here's my plan: after 30 years of not living up to what the government wants them to do, let us enforce some rules on the incentives we give the ultra-rich to create jobs. If, after 1 year of incentives the ultra-rich do not have demonstrable X percentage of new jobs created, they must pay back the incentive in full, plus interest, and they move to the next higher tax bracket for a year. They can reapply for a tax incentive after all the owed money is paid back and they have paid the new, higher tax rate for a minimum of six months. At that point, the same rules apply. And, the more of a tax break they ask for, the more job creation they must be able to demonstrate. As the economy righted itself and a stronger middle-class was re-established, we'd have to modify the rules to be about economic processes outside of job growth. But we should continue to keep the emphasis on maintaining a strong economic foundation and the middle-class is key to that... as has been proven by over 100 years of American history.
I think, with this plan, you'd suddenly see a lot of support jobs come back from India. I think you'd see quite a few manufacturing jobs return to America from China, Mexico, and elsewhere. It would be in their best interest to have those jobs here and to give wealth back to the middle-class so that they (the ultra-rich) don't have to pay the taxes. And, frankly, a strong middle-class makes the rich richer, as the middle-class picks up and starts consuming again.
It really is a simple equation in the end.
January 4, 2012
SOPA Explained
American politicians cannot understand the internet. They are primarily old, white males who are taking literally millions of dollars from the entertainment industry to put SOPA in place and end the Internet as we know it today. In addition, the restrictions put in place are so nebulously explained and so widespread in content that it would allow the RIAA, MPAA and others to effectively control all content on the internet, internationally.
To explain why this is bad, I figure we need an analogy that these old "I'm not a nerd" politicians, who are ignoring reams and reams of data provided by those who created and who continue to innovate the Internet, can understand. Since most of them are idiots, but likely drive, I think using the roadway system in America as an example.
The internet is very like the roadways in America. There are nodes and servers equivalent to cities and towns spaced here and there, with connections between them that carry data, like the highways, freeways, and streets that connect those cities and towns to each other. Right now, without SOPA, the internet works just like the roadway system: you can travel from city to city, from state to state and from coast to coast without anyone stopping you for no reason. If they suspect you are doing something wrong, the cops have to have probable cause, get a warrant, and then pull you over as you drive along. And the cops only pull over your car; it is very rare that they have to shut down an entire street.
SOPA will change all that. SOPA makes it so that the cops can pull you over for virtually no reason. "You've been driving between this city and that city an awful lot, which is suspect behavior, so we're shutting you down and checking into everything you've done to make sure you aren't doing something wrong."
SOPA also makes it so that if someone anywhere buys a billboard and puts it up next to Interstate 10 in Los Angeles, the police have the right to shut down the entire interstate, from LA to Florida. They don't just look for the person who posted the billboard; everyone on the Interstate is assumed guilty, the interstate itself is shut down, and no one can use it.
Now, the area where my analogy falls down is this: Interstate 10 only goes from California to Florida. Imagine that it actually continues on to Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, South America and then back to North America. Now you can see how shutting down the entire freeway can affect the entire world, not just Americans.
Do we need to curtail our rights, especially to freedom of speech and freedom from illegal search and seizure, among others, in order to catch a very small number who misuse the internet?
What the RIAA, MPAA, and the other companies like Disney that have signed on as proponents of this bill and are paying our Congressmen absurd amounts to pass are not realizing or are ignoring outright are:
To explain why this is bad, I figure we need an analogy that these old "I'm not a nerd" politicians, who are ignoring reams and reams of data provided by those who created and who continue to innovate the Internet, can understand. Since most of them are idiots, but likely drive, I think using the roadway system in America as an example.
The internet is very like the roadways in America. There are nodes and servers equivalent to cities and towns spaced here and there, with connections between them that carry data, like the highways, freeways, and streets that connect those cities and towns to each other. Right now, without SOPA, the internet works just like the roadway system: you can travel from city to city, from state to state and from coast to coast without anyone stopping you for no reason. If they suspect you are doing something wrong, the cops have to have probable cause, get a warrant, and then pull you over as you drive along. And the cops only pull over your car; it is very rare that they have to shut down an entire street.
SOPA will change all that. SOPA makes it so that the cops can pull you over for virtually no reason. "You've been driving between this city and that city an awful lot, which is suspect behavior, so we're shutting you down and checking into everything you've done to make sure you aren't doing something wrong."
SOPA also makes it so that if someone anywhere buys a billboard and puts it up next to Interstate 10 in Los Angeles, the police have the right to shut down the entire interstate, from LA to Florida. They don't just look for the person who posted the billboard; everyone on the Interstate is assumed guilty, the interstate itself is shut down, and no one can use it.
Now, the area where my analogy falls down is this: Interstate 10 only goes from California to Florida. Imagine that it actually continues on to Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, South America and then back to North America. Now you can see how shutting down the entire freeway can affect the entire world, not just Americans.
Do we need to curtail our rights, especially to freedom of speech and freedom from illegal search and seizure, among others, in order to catch a very small number who misuse the internet?
What the RIAA, MPAA, and the other companies like Disney that have signed on as proponents of this bill and are paying our Congressmen absurd amounts to pass are not realizing or are ignoring outright are:
- Online piracy is an incredibly small percentage of overall usage. Every independent (i.e., not paid for by the entertainment industry) report states this categorically. Even those reports done by groups in the pockets of the MPAA, RIAA, and others have to be incredibly doctored in order to support their results. These reports do not consider the many who download movies and music illegally, like it, and buy the album, DVD, or whatever legally later. It does not consider much easier, simpler means of piracy, like getting a Netflix subscription and then copying the DVDs a person receives each week.
- There are plenty of technological systems in place where these companies can legally sell and provide their data reasonably. Amazon.com and iTunes stores prove this; people are willing to pay reasonable amounts for access to the data they want. These companies choose not to use them, choose to hinder or subvert these systems if they do use them, choose not to sell them at reasonable rates, and they want Congress to allow them to continue using old technology and practices that never worked when dealing with an increasingly savvy purchasing public.
- Technology allows individuals to bypass the MPAA and RIAA altogether, and publish directly to their audience (be it music, movies, art, etc.). Artists can no circumvent these old establishments and make money directly, one to one, with their audience. This is the real root of the problem that SOPA is designed to fix. The entertainment industry is bleeding money, cannot reconfigure itself for a new technological truth, and doesn't want to lose decades of power and influence over the public.
The last point is this: the internet is out there. The entire world uses it. If America passes SOPA it will be a huge knock and will affect the entire world. Entire websites will be shut down by SOPA agents for one or two bad apples breaking the rules. The tenuous world economy will spiral into flames.
But the people will not stand for it for long. A new, different, and once again unregulated internet will crop up, as people rebel. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle at this point. Too many people have the technology and know how to use it.
Each American (and even those who aren't) should contact their representative and state clearly, "I'm not in favor of piracy, but I'm also not in favor of SOPA." There are plenty of laws already in place that actually do what SOPA claims to intend; let's try actually using those.
Contact your representatives through: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
January 3, 2012
Movie Round Up, 2011
My annual round up of movies I saw in the theater over the preceding year.
True Grit (1/13/11)
An excellent movie. Deserving of the awards it reaped. I felt that Hailee Steinfeld deserved more credit -- she was the centerpiece of the movie and held it together extremely well. I look forward to seeing more from her. My one complaint was that I sometimes couldn't understand Jeff Bridges.
The King's Speech (1/30/11)
Incredible acting highlights this movie. Each of the main three stars are superb in their roles. The direction was a tad uneven, as sometimes the director went for subtlety and other times just the mundane shot. Some characters seemed miscast (like the brother, played by Guy Pierce, who is a fine actor and a favorite of mine, but was not right for that role). It certainly deserved the Oscars it won.
Limitless (4/5/11)
I really enjoyed this movie. I thought all the performances were dead on, including Bradley Cooper, an actor I don't normally like all that much. I enjoyed the plot and thought most of it worked even when it was a bit over the top. DeNiro gave one of his better late-career acting jobs in this.
Note: Like Unstoppable the year before, I'm not sure why this film didn't do better in the theater. All the elements were there and yet the film barely made back its budget. I think it may go on to have a decent life in rentals/sales.
Thor (5/18/11)
This was a fun comic-book movie. Hemsworth was excellent as the God of Thunder and Tom Hiddleston was incredible as Loki. The effects were excellent. The story was a bit dodgy at times, and Portman, normally a favorite of mine, seemed miscast here. Branagh's direction held the whole thing together and made it work.
Note: Hiddleston's performance was surprisingly nuanced and powerful for a "comic-book movie." Maybe not worthy of any sort of acting award nomination, but I would argue it is close. He shows pathos, empathy, rage, loss -- sometimes all in the same scene. I'm going to keep an eye out for his name in the future.
Super 8 (6/25/11)
The parts of this movie about the children growing up, growing together and apart, and making a cheesy zombie movie in the 1970s are fabulous. The parts about an alien that is killing/stealing people and items and wants to go home were dull and uninteresting. It is really too bad that JJ Abrams didn't trust that his coming of age story was interesting enough to hold an audience and he added the alien. Not a bad film, at all, but could have been an incredible kids come of age movie up there with Stand By Me.
Note: Elle Fanning was incredible in this movie. Expect great things from her.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (7/31/11)
A very satisfying ending to a very good series. It hit all the right notes from the novel, even as it changed some things in order to fit with the screen story being told (which varied and changed from the books to some degree). At this point, I'm not going to convert any haters out there, so I'll just say if you liked the HP movie series, this will be a satisfying conclusion to it.
Captain America: The First Avenger (8/1/11)
This was a very good comic-book movie. Probably a top 10 all-time comic book movie. It has the "golly-gee-whiz" feeling that you want in this type of movie, added to a fairly coherent story and plot. All the actors are at least solid if not very good in their respective roles. There were some over-done plot points, and the ending needed to be better written (Why couldn't he fly away in one of the smaller jets? Why couldn't he actually land the plane?), but it hit solidly on most cylinders and was fun to watch. What made this movie especially nice is that it was fun for adults and inoffensive enough for younger children to watch and enjoy.
Note: I wish there had been more scenes with Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones. They had such great chemistry and played off each other so well, I wanted more of them on screen.
Hugo (11/27/11)
This was an incredibly well-directed movie, with a solid story, excellent acting, and stunning visual effects. I felt the opening 45 minutes of the film were a bit long and some of the side stories could have been trimmed or done away with entirely. I will not be surprised to see this on end of the year best lists nor if it gets nominated for multiple rewards.
The Muppets (11/28/11)
I really enjoyed this movie. It had laughs, a good plot, in-jokes for long-time fans, and some surprisingly good music. My one complaint is that Kermit wasn't Kermit in the film. Usually, in any Muppet adventure, Kermit is the source of optimism and hope, the one who urges them to continue in the face of long odds. In this film, Kermit is defeated and sad and the new muppet, Walter, takes his place as the one with an unending well of hope.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (12/26/11)
A stylish thriller/whodunnit with excellent acting from Mara and Craig. It adheres much more closely to the novel of the same name, which will allow any subsequent sequels to also stick more closely to the original source material (the Swedish movies veered sharply, making each new movie go farther afield from the source). The Reznor soundtrack was annoying, not because it was bad or out of place, but because it was constantly there. There were few scenes with no soundtrack to let the actors, the film, or the scene breathe.
Strangely, I felt that Fincher's direction, while not at all bad, was somewhat pedestrian. There were few interesting angles or cuts, few stylish uses of color, and no surprises. This is not what I expect from him.
Note: I will be surprised if Mara doesn't get acting nominations and awards for her stint as Lisbeth.
Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol (1/1/12)
A very good action flick, with a decent plot, good acting, and stylish direction. My one complaint is that most of the action scenes go on a bit too long. After the second or even third "drop the case/almost slip and fall/swerve around something" moment in each scene, the audience gets the point. Move on. However, almost no shaky-cam, so that's a plus.
Overall, it was a good year for the movies I chose to see in the theater. However, I noted that there were fewer movies I wanted to see in the theater and many I would otherwise have seen, I decided against due to poor ratings and Rotten Tomatoes scores. This year looks to be more of the same -- I'm only seeing a few movies that are "must see" theater movies, and a bunch that will likely be rentals later.
True Grit (1/13/11)
An excellent movie. Deserving of the awards it reaped. I felt that Hailee Steinfeld deserved more credit -- she was the centerpiece of the movie and held it together extremely well. I look forward to seeing more from her. My one complaint was that I sometimes couldn't understand Jeff Bridges.
The King's Speech (1/30/11)
Incredible acting highlights this movie. Each of the main three stars are superb in their roles. The direction was a tad uneven, as sometimes the director went for subtlety and other times just the mundane shot. Some characters seemed miscast (like the brother, played by Guy Pierce, who is a fine actor and a favorite of mine, but was not right for that role). It certainly deserved the Oscars it won.
Limitless (4/5/11)
I really enjoyed this movie. I thought all the performances were dead on, including Bradley Cooper, an actor I don't normally like all that much. I enjoyed the plot and thought most of it worked even when it was a bit over the top. DeNiro gave one of his better late-career acting jobs in this.
Note: Like Unstoppable the year before, I'm not sure why this film didn't do better in the theater. All the elements were there and yet the film barely made back its budget. I think it may go on to have a decent life in rentals/sales.
Thor (5/18/11)
This was a fun comic-book movie. Hemsworth was excellent as the God of Thunder and Tom Hiddleston was incredible as Loki. The effects were excellent. The story was a bit dodgy at times, and Portman, normally a favorite of mine, seemed miscast here. Branagh's direction held the whole thing together and made it work.
Note: Hiddleston's performance was surprisingly nuanced and powerful for a "comic-book movie." Maybe not worthy of any sort of acting award nomination, but I would argue it is close. He shows pathos, empathy, rage, loss -- sometimes all in the same scene. I'm going to keep an eye out for his name in the future.
Super 8 (6/25/11)
The parts of this movie about the children growing up, growing together and apart, and making a cheesy zombie movie in the 1970s are fabulous. The parts about an alien that is killing/stealing people and items and wants to go home were dull and uninteresting. It is really too bad that JJ Abrams didn't trust that his coming of age story was interesting enough to hold an audience and he added the alien. Not a bad film, at all, but could have been an incredible kids come of age movie up there with Stand By Me.
Note: Elle Fanning was incredible in this movie. Expect great things from her.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (7/31/11)
A very satisfying ending to a very good series. It hit all the right notes from the novel, even as it changed some things in order to fit with the screen story being told (which varied and changed from the books to some degree). At this point, I'm not going to convert any haters out there, so I'll just say if you liked the HP movie series, this will be a satisfying conclusion to it.
Captain America: The First Avenger (8/1/11)
This was a very good comic-book movie. Probably a top 10 all-time comic book movie. It has the "golly-gee-whiz" feeling that you want in this type of movie, added to a fairly coherent story and plot. All the actors are at least solid if not very good in their respective roles. There were some over-done plot points, and the ending needed to be better written (Why couldn't he fly away in one of the smaller jets? Why couldn't he actually land the plane?), but it hit solidly on most cylinders and was fun to watch. What made this movie especially nice is that it was fun for adults and inoffensive enough for younger children to watch and enjoy.
Note: I wish there had been more scenes with Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones. They had such great chemistry and played off each other so well, I wanted more of them on screen.
Hugo (11/27/11)
This was an incredibly well-directed movie, with a solid story, excellent acting, and stunning visual effects. I felt the opening 45 minutes of the film were a bit long and some of the side stories could have been trimmed or done away with entirely. I will not be surprised to see this on end of the year best lists nor if it gets nominated for multiple rewards.
The Muppets (11/28/11)
I really enjoyed this movie. It had laughs, a good plot, in-jokes for long-time fans, and some surprisingly good music. My one complaint is that Kermit wasn't Kermit in the film. Usually, in any Muppet adventure, Kermit is the source of optimism and hope, the one who urges them to continue in the face of long odds. In this film, Kermit is defeated and sad and the new muppet, Walter, takes his place as the one with an unending well of hope.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (12/26/11)
A stylish thriller/whodunnit with excellent acting from Mara and Craig. It adheres much more closely to the novel of the same name, which will allow any subsequent sequels to also stick more closely to the original source material (the Swedish movies veered sharply, making each new movie go farther afield from the source). The Reznor soundtrack was annoying, not because it was bad or out of place, but because it was constantly there. There were few scenes with no soundtrack to let the actors, the film, or the scene breathe.
Strangely, I felt that Fincher's direction, while not at all bad, was somewhat pedestrian. There were few interesting angles or cuts, few stylish uses of color, and no surprises. This is not what I expect from him.
Note: I will be surprised if Mara doesn't get acting nominations and awards for her stint as Lisbeth.
Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol (1/1/12)
A very good action flick, with a decent plot, good acting, and stylish direction. My one complaint is that most of the action scenes go on a bit too long. After the second or even third "drop the case/almost slip and fall/swerve around something" moment in each scene, the audience gets the point. Move on. However, almost no shaky-cam, so that's a plus.
Overall, it was a good year for the movies I chose to see in the theater. However, I noted that there were fewer movies I wanted to see in the theater and many I would otherwise have seen, I decided against due to poor ratings and Rotten Tomatoes scores. This year looks to be more of the same -- I'm only seeing a few movies that are "must see" theater movies, and a bunch that will likely be rentals later.
December 28, 2011
Birds of a Feather
I was percolating for awhile in my head an idea for a super-hero story. I was originally going to write something, and then an opportunity presented itself to create it instead as a roleplaying game. However, I did not have the idea as fleshed-out as I would have liked, and I could not sustain the story. I have since then continued to percolate on the idea, hoping to gel some things and go back to it, again as either a story or a gaming experience.
The gist of my story ideas were:
The gist of my story ideas were:
- A central city in America (using Chicago as basis; wasn't sure if I should use the actual city or have it be a stand-in for city of my naming)
- An event occurs which creates the mutation in people that allows for super powers to form. It is extremely rare.
- Powers manifest through some sort of extreme event in the person's life, if they have the genetic conditions and survive the process. Most often, the triggering events are traumas, but sometimes even puberty can cause them to come on. I called these events Awakenings.
- It is soon after the event, and people are adjusting to the new reality of super-powered individuals being in their midst. Governments are taking stand (around the globe), industry is taking notice, the population is trying to adjust. Groupies and churches spring up around the super-hero/villain models, there is some stratification of "worthwhile," "worthless," and "spot on the wall" variety powers.
- Trying to show real-world physics and applying them to super-heroic powers.
I had a hard time sleeping last night. I grabbed my Kindle and starting looking for a book to read to help lull me to sleep. I found one that looked interesting, "Wearing the Cape" by Marion G. Harmon. As I read the book, the similarities startled me:
- It takes place in Chicago.
- It is 10 years after an Event caused some people to have "breakthroughs" and gain super powers.
- The world is adjusting to the new realities caused by having super-powered individuals in it.
- Real-world use of physics, mass, speed, etc. when discussing using super-powers.
- There are groupies and stratification and classification of power levels.
I was even using "The Sentinels" and variations on that concept as my main super-hero group for the world. This author has the protagonist joining the most well-known super-hero group called The Sentinels.
It was eerie to read. Now, I'm not in any way, shape, or form suggesting this author somehow plagiarized or stole my idea. The concepts are similar, but generic, enough that many people have had them. It is the similarities in small details that surprised me as I read it; same city, same hero group name, the use of real-world physics, even the author's use of opening statements from news sources, journals, and scientific community reports (something I was mulling over doing, but didn't when I changed from a story to an RPG setting).
While the writing was a bit uneven, the transitions between scenes and chapters were sometimes a bit jarring, and the author did not seem sure of his audience at all times (all indicators of a first-time author), I found Harmon's self-published novel entertaining and a fast read. I enjoyed his female protagonist's growth as a character and will be interested to read more in the future. I am once again energized to try to create a new super-heroic story or game environment, but frustrated that I feel the need to change directions and create something newer and different, something of my own.
December 21, 2011
Bell Mobility Being Tricky Again
My wife and have followed through on our plan to replace her old, pink, flip-style phone with a newer smartphone. We are also transitioning this phone to be primarily my phone and she will continue using her Blackberry as her main phone (which is what she uses 90% of the time anyway).
We got the phone on Monday, and I've been slowly setting things up and configuring it to work with our home network, etc. I noticed yesterday and asked my wife today about the fact that, although we had no data plan for the phone and I had turned off the wi-fi connection, I was still receiving data information. In particular, it was updating with new emails and notifying me of them, even though it shouldn't get that data.
This concerned me enough that I called Bell Mobility's customer support and spoke with a nice, well-spoken woman about the situation. She informed me that, unbeknownst to us, we were given a "free" week of data and that data connection was turned on in the phone so we could see what it was like. At the end of that week, the free trial would be over and... the connection on the phone that allows data would be left turned on and each piece of data sent or received would then be charged at the exorbitant rates for those without a data plan! I told her I wanted to turn all of that off.
"But why would you want to turn off that data connection now? You have a week for free! You could set up a reminder," she cajoled.
"Yes, but I'll tell you what will happen. I'll forget to set up the reminder, or I'll turn it off and forget to reset that data connection option, and every little thing will be charged to our next bill and we'll have an outrageously high cell phone bill. No thank you. You can show me where that is now, I'll turn it off, and I'll simply use the free wi-fi connection available through our house if I need data on the phone," I said.
To her credit, she understood my reasoning and did walk me through it, so it is now off.
Now, let's extrapolate what might have happened had I not noticed that: It is $.15 a Megabyte for data and, since I'm in the "learning to use and setting up phase" of the phone, I'm likely to be downloading many new applications and trying them out. I'm setting up and learning to use the Instant Messaging and Emailing capabilities on the phone, etc. That next bill after the first week of "free" use may have been astronomically high due to all of that fiddling. And me telling them "But I got a plan with no data! Why did you allow me to send and receive data when specifically got a plan without data?" would be no excuse and I would have to pay that bill.
Let's extrapolate further to the new grandmother who was convinced by her grandchildren to get a new smartphone for free so that they could more easily keep in touch with her. She lives on a fixed income and doesn't understand any of this, but goes along to stay in touch with the family. How big is her first bill, as she video conferences with her family at holidays, sends and receives pictures from them, and doesn't think about how fast that $.15 adds up, or doesn't think it will add up because she chose a plan without data, and she doesn't understand the technology, so assumes that all of this is not "data," or why would she be able to use those features? Do you think Bell is going to be any more sympathetic to her plight?
It is just these items and features that corporations need to tell people about, but are exactly the ones that they do not, because those extra fees that people incur by not knowing help keep the business going. I find it despicable.
We got the phone on Monday, and I've been slowly setting things up and configuring it to work with our home network, etc. I noticed yesterday and asked my wife today about the fact that, although we had no data plan for the phone and I had turned off the wi-fi connection, I was still receiving data information. In particular, it was updating with new emails and notifying me of them, even though it shouldn't get that data.
This concerned me enough that I called Bell Mobility's customer support and spoke with a nice, well-spoken woman about the situation. She informed me that, unbeknownst to us, we were given a "free" week of data and that data connection was turned on in the phone so we could see what it was like. At the end of that week, the free trial would be over and... the connection on the phone that allows data would be left turned on and each piece of data sent or received would then be charged at the exorbitant rates for those without a data plan! I told her I wanted to turn all of that off.
"But why would you want to turn off that data connection now? You have a week for free! You could set up a reminder," she cajoled.
"Yes, but I'll tell you what will happen. I'll forget to set up the reminder, or I'll turn it off and forget to reset that data connection option, and every little thing will be charged to our next bill and we'll have an outrageously high cell phone bill. No thank you. You can show me where that is now, I'll turn it off, and I'll simply use the free wi-fi connection available through our house if I need data on the phone," I said.
To her credit, she understood my reasoning and did walk me through it, so it is now off.
Now, let's extrapolate what might have happened had I not noticed that: It is $.15 a Megabyte for data and, since I'm in the "learning to use and setting up phase" of the phone, I'm likely to be downloading many new applications and trying them out. I'm setting up and learning to use the Instant Messaging and Emailing capabilities on the phone, etc. That next bill after the first week of "free" use may have been astronomically high due to all of that fiddling. And me telling them "But I got a plan with no data! Why did you allow me to send and receive data when specifically got a plan without data?" would be no excuse and I would have to pay that bill.
Let's extrapolate further to the new grandmother who was convinced by her grandchildren to get a new smartphone for free so that they could more easily keep in touch with her. She lives on a fixed income and doesn't understand any of this, but goes along to stay in touch with the family. How big is her first bill, as she video conferences with her family at holidays, sends and receives pictures from them, and doesn't think about how fast that $.15 adds up, or doesn't think it will add up because she chose a plan without data, and she doesn't understand the technology, so assumes that all of this is not "data," or why would she be able to use those features? Do you think Bell is going to be any more sympathetic to her plight?
It is just these items and features that corporations need to tell people about, but are exactly the ones that they do not, because those extra fees that people incur by not knowing help keep the business going. I find it despicable.
December 17, 2011
In Medi-Trust I Do Not
My wife called Medi-Trust today to refill some prescriptions. The person to whom she was speaking made a comment about how most of my prescriptions were lapsed or no longer valid. She politely disagreed with him, tried to discuss the situation, but he said the last time they had a refill for me was last year.
Step in the angry American. I had been in to see my doctor in mid-October and my wife had written me a note to make sure I got the doctor to write scripts for all four of my current medications. We then, together, went down to the pharmacy because there was an issue with one of the (existing) prescriptions. During that visit, I gave them the script with all four new prescriptions on it, and the female pharmacist and the counter girl did what they felt they had to in order to fix the one prescription. My guess is that they then filed the script without inputting the other three updated prescriptions.
I thought telling him this provided him with more than enough information for him to put the time and date into context, give him ideas on how best to provide customer service, and suggest a mutually agreeable solution.
He said, basically, "I don't know what to tell you, we don't have it. You'll have to go to your doctor and get these renewed." This is not an acceptable, mutually agreeable solution. And it is lazy and self-serving. This completely ignores everything I just told you. Time to ramp it up and get angry.
My responses was, "So, I did everything right, I went to my doctor, I got my scripts, and took them to you, and you screwed up, so now it is my responsibility to fix it? I don't think so."
We argued back and forth for a minute or two more, with him trying to pass the buck to me and me not accepting that buck. I finally asked, "Don't you keep the old scripts in a file somewhere? Can't you find it and fix it?"
"I can go try to dig through our files," he responded, as though to do so would mean losing a child or killing kittens.
"Do that," I said, "I'll wait."
It took about 6 minutes of dead air time on the phone before he came back. Sure enough, I was right and he was wrong. He sounded angry that he had found the script, angrier that it wasn't done correctly, and angriest that he had to admit that I was right.
Living where I am now, I'm sure that his initial "you have to go back to your doctor" is usually met with an "okay," even if the person is pretty sure they are right, and he goes about his day. CSRs here are used to those they deal with being much more 'go along to get along' than I am. I feel that this leads to CSRs who will not work with you, who don't want to listen when you suggest they (or someone in their company) have done something wrong, and who rarely expect someone to come out swinging and make them do their job.
When my wife politely asked the question about files, why didn't this gentleman simply respond in the affirmative and go check them? If he had, he would have found the old script and could have figured it out without me getting on the phone and getting angry and forcing him to do his job. Barring that, when you have someone else get on the phone and give such a detailed description of when they brought the script, who they spoke to, and what occurred, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and check their story? Once he refused this second opportunity and I got angry and demanding, why didn't he immediately offer to continue looking for the script, which would have led him to the solution and avoided the angry verbal engagement he and I went through? My wife and I, basically, gave him multiple opportunities to provide us with customer service that he ignored or refused, resulting in him having an angry exchange, being proved wrong, and having to apologize and fix it anyway.
Customer service has been on a downward track for some time now. What confuses me is that this is one area where companies can make the biggest difference and, by providing good support, get more business in return for minimal investment.
The old adage "the customer is always right" is not always accurate but it is always true. What the adage means is that the words that the customer is saying may not be accurate, but if they feel they are wronged, the business needs to right that wrong. The business can right that wrong in a mutually beneficial way such that the business doesn't lose a customer or its shirt in correcting the mistake. The business can present the customer's error in such a way that the customer doesn't lose face and the business doesn't lose the customer. Either way, the customer is satisfied, the business keeps the customer, and both gain from the experience.
Step in the angry American. I had been in to see my doctor in mid-October and my wife had written me a note to make sure I got the doctor to write scripts for all four of my current medications. We then, together, went down to the pharmacy because there was an issue with one of the (existing) prescriptions. During that visit, I gave them the script with all four new prescriptions on it, and the female pharmacist and the counter girl did what they felt they had to in order to fix the one prescription. My guess is that they then filed the script without inputting the other three updated prescriptions.
I thought telling him this provided him with more than enough information for him to put the time and date into context, give him ideas on how best to provide customer service, and suggest a mutually agreeable solution.
He said, basically, "I don't know what to tell you, we don't have it. You'll have to go to your doctor and get these renewed." This is not an acceptable, mutually agreeable solution. And it is lazy and self-serving. This completely ignores everything I just told you. Time to ramp it up and get angry.
My responses was, "So, I did everything right, I went to my doctor, I got my scripts, and took them to you, and you screwed up, so now it is my responsibility to fix it? I don't think so."
We argued back and forth for a minute or two more, with him trying to pass the buck to me and me not accepting that buck. I finally asked, "Don't you keep the old scripts in a file somewhere? Can't you find it and fix it?"
"I can go try to dig through our files," he responded, as though to do so would mean losing a child or killing kittens.
"Do that," I said, "I'll wait."
It took about 6 minutes of dead air time on the phone before he came back. Sure enough, I was right and he was wrong. He sounded angry that he had found the script, angrier that it wasn't done correctly, and angriest that he had to admit that I was right.
Living where I am now, I'm sure that his initial "you have to go back to your doctor" is usually met with an "okay," even if the person is pretty sure they are right, and he goes about his day. CSRs here are used to those they deal with being much more 'go along to get along' than I am. I feel that this leads to CSRs who will not work with you, who don't want to listen when you suggest they (or someone in their company) have done something wrong, and who rarely expect someone to come out swinging and make them do their job.
When my wife politely asked the question about files, why didn't this gentleman simply respond in the affirmative and go check them? If he had, he would have found the old script and could have figured it out without me getting on the phone and getting angry and forcing him to do his job. Barring that, when you have someone else get on the phone and give such a detailed description of when they brought the script, who they spoke to, and what occurred, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and check their story? Once he refused this second opportunity and I got angry and demanding, why didn't he immediately offer to continue looking for the script, which would have led him to the solution and avoided the angry verbal engagement he and I went through? My wife and I, basically, gave him multiple opportunities to provide us with customer service that he ignored or refused, resulting in him having an angry exchange, being proved wrong, and having to apologize and fix it anyway.
Customer service has been on a downward track for some time now. What confuses me is that this is one area where companies can make the biggest difference and, by providing good support, get more business in return for minimal investment.
The old adage "the customer is always right" is not always accurate but it is always true. What the adage means is that the words that the customer is saying may not be accurate, but if they feel they are wronged, the business needs to right that wrong. The business can right that wrong in a mutually beneficial way such that the business doesn't lose a customer or its shirt in correcting the mistake. The business can present the customer's error in such a way that the customer doesn't lose face and the business doesn't lose the customer. Either way, the customer is satisfied, the business keeps the customer, and both gain from the experience.
December 14, 2011
Spirit Guides
Those who know me well know that the majority of my dreams are dark, harsh, and full of violence and death. That has been true for as long as I remember. I've had these types of dreams since I was a small child, and they exacerbate my sleeping issues, as I rarely want to rush to sleep because of what awaits in my dreams. My dreams are so nightmarish, that I rarely share them with others and I have slowly taught myself to quickly forget them upon waking up.
When I have a dream that is somehow positive, or, at least, not ultra-violent, it stands out and I do not forget it when I wake up. Even rarer, however, is when I have a dream that sticks with me for days afterward and fills me with a sense of peace and contentedness.
Turtles are a good avatar for me in many ways. I'm a generally calm, grounded, earthy person. I tend to be shy around new people, to like being alone or with only a few others, to enjoy warmth, and to move at my own pace. I watch a lot, stay quiet, form my own opinions, and move toward my own goals. It makes me wonder if this is, in the American Indian sense, my spirit animal.
Have you had a dream like this? One that stuck with you, filling you with a sense of peace?
When I have a dream that is somehow positive, or, at least, not ultra-violent, it stands out and I do not forget it when I wake up. Even rarer, however, is when I have a dream that sticks with me for days afterward and fills me with a sense of peace and contentedness.
I was in the desert. It was a warm, sunny day, but not overly hot. There was a slight breeze blowing. To my mind, a perfect day in the desert. Out of nowhere and apropos of nothing there was a tortoise. This tortoise, however, was the size of a giant sea turtle, or one of the giant Aldabra tortoises, but colored just like one from my home desert. It was large enough that I could climb onto its arched back and ride it without impeding its movement or making it struggle at all. It had the placid, serene face that all tortoises seem to have. It was just there, slowly making its way in the desert on this beautiful day, and happened upon where I was.
I found some cactus, pulled out the thorns, and fed it to the tortoise. I then found a small field of daisies and plucked them and fed the tortoise. While its face and expression did not change at all, I felt happiness and joy from it and simply knew that I had done the right thing in that moment. When it seemed to have its fill, I climbed back onto its shell, and it set off for some unknown destination. We both simply basked in the moment, in the beautiful day, in the odd pairing, and the sense of unhurried, directionless movement and togetherness.Ever since having that dream, when I think back on it, I get the same, if more momentary, sense of calm, peace, and contentedness that carried through during the dreaming. In a dichotomy, I wish both to have the dream again (to experience it first-hand once more) and to never dream it again (so I can use the recollection for peace and inspiration in the future).
Turtles are a good avatar for me in many ways. I'm a generally calm, grounded, earthy person. I tend to be shy around new people, to like being alone or with only a few others, to enjoy warmth, and to move at my own pace. I watch a lot, stay quiet, form my own opinions, and move toward my own goals. It makes me wonder if this is, in the American Indian sense, my spirit animal.
Have you had a dream like this? One that stuck with you, filling you with a sense of peace?
December 5, 2011
The Straight Poop
In the vast majority of houses I've been to the person living there has something on the top of the tank to their toilet, items on their counter, and/or some sort of shelf or storage container above the toilet. Because of all of this, I am surprised at the number of people who leave the lid of their toilet up. Do these people never drop or knock anything off from one of these locations into the open toilet?
I will grant that having the seat down makes the hole smaller. But the hole is still there. Because of the number of times I have knocked items off of the counter or tank, or dropped things I was retrieving from the over-toilet storage into the bowl, I always insist on a closed lid. On top of this, human beings have a wide variety of excretory issues that can complicate the cleanliness of the bowl and not everyone cleans their bowls regularly. So having the lid closed is also good to help the overall look of a bathroom to the casual guest (or simply the inhabitant), prior to next use/cleaning.
And, frankly, if the lid is down, the seat is down. In households with a woman, that means the seat is always in her preferred position, another benefit. Yes, she has to lift the lid to use the toilet, but that seems fair... most women prefer men to lift the seat to minimize the chance they urinate all over the seat anyway. This way, both sexes have roughly equal amounts of work; she has to lift the lid and he has to lift the lid and seat (which can be done in one action). Fair's fair, after all.
Lastly, many areas have water issues that cause stains on the bowl, water discoloration, and even scum growth or animal issues. Leaving the lid closed keeps these unsightly issues from view immediately upon entry into the bathroom, and can help keep creatures out of (or inside!) the toilet in those specific cases.
In the end, the bonuses to leaving the lid down seem to outweigh the one advantage to leaving it up. I don't understand why so many restrooms I have visited always have the lid up.
I will grant that having the seat down makes the hole smaller. But the hole is still there. Because of the number of times I have knocked items off of the counter or tank, or dropped things I was retrieving from the over-toilet storage into the bowl, I always insist on a closed lid. On top of this, human beings have a wide variety of excretory issues that can complicate the cleanliness of the bowl and not everyone cleans their bowls regularly. So having the lid closed is also good to help the overall look of a bathroom to the casual guest (or simply the inhabitant), prior to next use/cleaning.
And, frankly, if the lid is down, the seat is down. In households with a woman, that means the seat is always in her preferred position, another benefit. Yes, she has to lift the lid to use the toilet, but that seems fair... most women prefer men to lift the seat to minimize the chance they urinate all over the seat anyway. This way, both sexes have roughly equal amounts of work; she has to lift the lid and he has to lift the lid and seat (which can be done in one action). Fair's fair, after all.
Lastly, many areas have water issues that cause stains on the bowl, water discoloration, and even scum growth or animal issues. Leaving the lid closed keeps these unsightly issues from view immediately upon entry into the bathroom, and can help keep creatures out of (or inside!) the toilet in those specific cases.
In the end, the bonuses to leaving the lid down seem to outweigh the one advantage to leaving it up. I don't understand why so many restrooms I have visited always have the lid up.
December 2, 2011
Quick Thoughts: Oil and Gas Prices
The vast amount of oil is transported via ship. At any given moment there are dozens of ships on the seas transporting the crude to refineries. It takes these ships from days to weeks to go from their points of origin (North Sea, Africa/Middle East, South America) to America for production. It takes days to refine the raw crude into various oil and gas products, and then ship it via tanker truck to all regions of the US.
Yet when something happens to a pipeline in Saudi Arabia or a coup happens in Venezuela, the price of gas changes immediately (the same day or next day, at the latest) at the pump, even though it will take a minimum of a week, and more like two weeks, before the interruption the issue caused would actually reach oil refineries and the gas pump in America. When the issue is resolved, it takes weeks and sometimes months before the price of gas declines back to pre-issue levels as the flow of oil resumes unabated.
And, of course, this doesn't even mention the home-source, Canadian, and Mexican oil that also is part of the processes and is not interrupted by whatever "hiccup" is "causing" the gas prices to go up.
Add to this the fact that the oil companies continue to make record profits even during a world-wide economic recession and it is no wonder that people think there is some form of collusion going on.
How stupid do they think we are?
The gas companies could, today, right now, change the price of gas to $1 per gallon (and equivalent in litres) and still make vast profits. They have learned that they can charge what they want and no one will question them and they can make world-shattering profits, so why wouldn't they?
Yet when something happens to a pipeline in Saudi Arabia or a coup happens in Venezuela, the price of gas changes immediately (the same day or next day, at the latest) at the pump, even though it will take a minimum of a week, and more like two weeks, before the interruption the issue caused would actually reach oil refineries and the gas pump in America. When the issue is resolved, it takes weeks and sometimes months before the price of gas declines back to pre-issue levels as the flow of oil resumes unabated.
And, of course, this doesn't even mention the home-source, Canadian, and Mexican oil that also is part of the processes and is not interrupted by whatever "hiccup" is "causing" the gas prices to go up.
Add to this the fact that the oil companies continue to make record profits even during a world-wide economic recession and it is no wonder that people think there is some form of collusion going on.
How stupid do they think we are?
The gas companies could, today, right now, change the price of gas to $1 per gallon (and equivalent in litres) and still make vast profits. They have learned that they can charge what they want and no one will question them and they can make world-shattering profits, so why wouldn't they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)