While I greatly enjoy alternative rock, Top 40, Heavy metal, and other genres, the music I always come back to is slow.
I like a wide range of slow music. From Tori Amos’ China to Marc Anthony’s You Sang To Me, Madonna’s Crazy For You and George Michael’s Father Figure to Alanis Morissette’s Mary Jane and Garbage’s Milk, and even power ballads like Guns and Roses’ November Rain. Old or new and across most genres, sad music speaks to me. I like slow music from the 50s through the 70s, from the 80s through today. There is something inherent in slow music that I respond to. I like the generally sad, lonesome themes and vulnerabilities that are expressed.
Another reason I enjoy slow music is that it requires better composition and singing than fast music. Slow music tends to show the imperfections in a singer’s voice and vocal range. It accentuates poor writing and musical composition.
People know a bad slow song the instant they hear it. It is very rare that a slow song is considered bad by only one group of people. Bad rhymes, poor vocal choices, a singer singing outside his or her ability or range, and poorly constructed music all conspire to show the faults of the song and highlight a bad singer.
For example, Madonna is not the greatest singer in the world. She does not have a great deal of range and her writing is often suspect. In her faster dance music she can get away with this because these songs are slickly produced and there are many tricks that may be used to hide the flaws. But in a slow song those tricks cannot be used and she is out there for all to see. Early in her career, she did the song Crazy For You for the movie Vision Quest. This is one of the all-time great slow songs. The song was perfect for her voice and the music was a great accompaniment to her vocals. It works.
On the other hand, Mariah Carey—arguably one of the best voices in recent years—has written some poor slow songs. Many of her more recent releases had odd lyrics, inappropriate uses of her seven octave voice (Mariah—just because you can hit seven octaves doesn’t mean you should or have to in every song!), and poor music to accompany her voice. And her last three albums have not done well as the audience can hear that and responds negatively to it.
Some singers and bands have a particular knack for hitting the right tone with slow songs and lose their audience when they move away from this. Boys to Men come to mind. Still others are known only for fast music and it takes a great, totally unexpected and vulnerable slow song to kick them to the next level. In recent years, Radiohead’s Creep and Green Day’s Time of Your Life come to mind.
The other main difference between most slow songs and most fast songs is the story they tell. Slow songs tend to tell a story and lead you somewhere, while fast songs can do this, they do not need to; fast songs are more about getting you moving and grooving and hooking you with a catchy refrain.
Harry Chapin’s Cats and the Cradle tells a moving story of a father and son and the gap in communication that they have and the regrets that form between them. The Goo Goo Dolls Iris sums up the entire plot of the movie City of Angels in one song, telling of the angel’s desire to become mortal for the love of a woman. Tori Amos’ China tells of the emotional distance between two people as their relationship is falling apart. John Lennon’s Imagine is a heartfelt wish for change for the entire planet.
Fast songs can tell a story. But for every Metallica Enter Sandman, Duran Duran Hungry Like the Wolf, and Eminem Lose Yourself, there are dozens and dozens of boy-band music, bad rap, and poor heavy metal.
Slow songs can often be redone for a new audience and hold up extremely well over time. Oasis’ Wonderwall, the song primarily that propelled them to stardom in America, was redone even slower in an acoustic version by Ryan Adams and is just as good. Many hits from the 70s and early 80s have recently been remade and have been hits again. One of the best examples is I Will Always Love You. This song had been a minor hit for many individuals. Then Whitney Houston did it for the movie The Bodyguard and it became an instant wedding classic.
Slow songs are always the music I fall back on. They are the soundtrack of my life, more than any other style or genre of music.
June 28, 2004
June 24, 2004
Friends
To paraphrase many much wiser philosophers: You can't pick your family-- that is an accident of birth-- and you can't pick who you love-- that is an accident of biology. The only people you get to choose are your friends.
I've got great friends. I have some friends who are incredibly unique in both thought and action. I have others who are ultra logical. Still others are incredibly emotional and giving people.
I am an egotistical cuss sometimes. I tend to think of myself as the sun in my own personal universe around which all my friends and family rotate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think EVERYONE is the sun in their own, personal universe. The key is to get those universes to overlap and get as many planets and moons orbiting in harmony as possible.
I have changed many of my friend's lives forever, for good or ill. I've had an affect on my friends. And boy have they affected me! Each has brought such a different and interesting perspective into my life that has made me a better person. Some have taught me to be more open with my thoughts and feelings. Others have shown me new ways to think or act. Still others have brought new ideologies into my life.
I have gay friends and straight friends. I have religious friends and atheistic friends. I have male friends and female friends. I have young friends and old friends. I have friends with whom I share little in common and friends with whom I share a great deal in common. I have distant friends and close friends. I have hard friends and easy friends. I have Republican friends and Liberal friends. Married friends, single friends, friends with children, and friends without children. I have friends who put up with my quirkiness and I have friends who I put up with their quirks. I have work friends and home friends and friends in-between.
And each and every one of these friends is important to me in a strange and wonderful way. I look forward to seeing them and I make an effort to stay in touch with them. I may not send birthday or Christmas cards or call once a month, but I do contact them when they pop into my head and I find out where they are and what they are doing. My friends ground me and keep me going at the same time.
I've got great friends.
I've got great friends. I have some friends who are incredibly unique in both thought and action. I have others who are ultra logical. Still others are incredibly emotional and giving people.
I am an egotistical cuss sometimes. I tend to think of myself as the sun in my own personal universe around which all my friends and family rotate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think EVERYONE is the sun in their own, personal universe. The key is to get those universes to overlap and get as many planets and moons orbiting in harmony as possible.
I have changed many of my friend's lives forever, for good or ill. I've had an affect on my friends. And boy have they affected me! Each has brought such a different and interesting perspective into my life that has made me a better person. Some have taught me to be more open with my thoughts and feelings. Others have shown me new ways to think or act. Still others have brought new ideologies into my life.
I have gay friends and straight friends. I have religious friends and atheistic friends. I have male friends and female friends. I have young friends and old friends. I have friends with whom I share little in common and friends with whom I share a great deal in common. I have distant friends and close friends. I have hard friends and easy friends. I have Republican friends and Liberal friends. Married friends, single friends, friends with children, and friends without children. I have friends who put up with my quirkiness and I have friends who I put up with their quirks. I have work friends and home friends and friends in-between.
And each and every one of these friends is important to me in a strange and wonderful way. I look forward to seeing them and I make an effort to stay in touch with them. I may not send birthday or Christmas cards or call once a month, but I do contact them when they pop into my head and I find out where they are and what they are doing. My friends ground me and keep me going at the same time.
I've got great friends.
June 8, 2004
Business and Bonuses
What business needs to remember is that relatively small bonuses, of any sort but I'm going to speak primarily about money, make a big difference to the grunts who work the trenches.
When the company does well, typically the top excecutives give themselves large bonuses, frequently equal to thousands or millions of dollars. Let's say that one of the top execs earns a $1 million bonus for a year. If you take that top excecutive's $1,000,000 bonus and instead give it to the, say, 700 people who made the company go, you could give each of those people an approximately $1400 bonus. For most of these workers, this will be somewhere between half and one full paycheck's amount. To these 700 people, this amount is a significant bonus and worth striving for, whereas for someone who already makes millions of dollars a year and has all the nonmonetary perks of being a top executive (stock options, golden parachutes, company car, etc.), the $1 million bonus is not nearly as significant. The same amount of money spread out among more people will help your company more and have a greater positive impact in the long run.
When I hear stories of Micheal Eisner getting a $20 million bonus in a year that Disney was actually down, I cringe. I think to myself, "I wonder how far that $20 million would have gone if that poor schmoe wearing the Pluto costume got $1000 for HIS hard work?" Of course, if it was truly a down year, then no one should have gotten a bonus, least of all one of $20 million.
Now, I'm not down on top executives by any means. They have generally worked hard and sacrificed much to be in those positions. But those positions come with the large salaries, the company perks, stock options, and the like. They are like the spark plugs of an engine-- without a spark, the engine just sits there. But you only need that spark occasionally; from then on, the pistons and valves do the majority of the work. Without the pistons and valves, that spark does nothing more than cause a fire; the pistons and valves translate that fire into usable energy by turning the driveshaft and making the car (the company) move. To continue my car analogy, getting gold-plated spark plugs is nice, and can improve your car's performance a little, but making sure the pistons are properly lubricated against friction can make the difference between your engine running or not. Think of solid, quality bonuses given to the grunts as the lubricating oil that keeps those pistons running smoothly and consequently makes the car move forward.
It is more true that the schmoe wearing the Pluto outfit does more for the Disney corporation on a day-to-day basis fulfilling the fantasies of the parents and children that show up at their theme parks than Michael Eisner did in his role as CEO of the corporation. Without a product and the people that build and sell that product, no CEO (or other top exec) has a job.
When the company does well, typically the top excecutives give themselves large bonuses, frequently equal to thousands or millions of dollars. Let's say that one of the top execs earns a $1 million bonus for a year. If you take that top excecutive's $1,000,000 bonus and instead give it to the, say, 700 people who made the company go, you could give each of those people an approximately $1400 bonus. For most of these workers, this will be somewhere between half and one full paycheck's amount. To these 700 people, this amount is a significant bonus and worth striving for, whereas for someone who already makes millions of dollars a year and has all the nonmonetary perks of being a top executive (stock options, golden parachutes, company car, etc.), the $1 million bonus is not nearly as significant. The same amount of money spread out among more people will help your company more and have a greater positive impact in the long run.
When I hear stories of Micheal Eisner getting a $20 million bonus in a year that Disney was actually down, I cringe. I think to myself, "I wonder how far that $20 million would have gone if that poor schmoe wearing the Pluto costume got $1000 for HIS hard work?" Of course, if it was truly a down year, then no one should have gotten a bonus, least of all one of $20 million.
Now, I'm not down on top executives by any means. They have generally worked hard and sacrificed much to be in those positions. But those positions come with the large salaries, the company perks, stock options, and the like. They are like the spark plugs of an engine-- without a spark, the engine just sits there. But you only need that spark occasionally; from then on, the pistons and valves do the majority of the work. Without the pistons and valves, that spark does nothing more than cause a fire; the pistons and valves translate that fire into usable energy by turning the driveshaft and making the car (the company) move. To continue my car analogy, getting gold-plated spark plugs is nice, and can improve your car's performance a little, but making sure the pistons are properly lubricated against friction can make the difference between your engine running or not. Think of solid, quality bonuses given to the grunts as the lubricating oil that keeps those pistons running smoothly and consequently makes the car move forward.
It is more true that the schmoe wearing the Pluto outfit does more for the Disney corporation on a day-to-day basis fulfilling the fantasies of the parents and children that show up at their theme parks than Michael Eisner did in his role as CEO of the corporation. Without a product and the people that build and sell that product, no CEO (or other top exec) has a job.
June 1, 2004
A different look at spam
I don't know about you, but I'm just not sure of the quality of degree I would get from the online "collages" that offer "acredited" degrees via spam emails.
I'm also not sure I want my "penus" enlarged. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm fairly certain it's the size it should be.
Call me crazy.
I'm also not sure I want my "penus" enlarged. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm fairly certain it's the size it should be.
Call me crazy.
May 21, 2004
Abuse Scandal and America
At what point did our men and women decide to start treating the prisoners captured in anything less than a dignified and respectful way? Whether it was their own invention, or orders from their superiors, does not matter. We are in a delicate situation at best--and an explosive one at worse--in the Middle East and we need to act in as restrained and dignified a manner as possible to uphold the name of the United States. This includes how we treat all nonmilitary people, military personnel, and prisoners.
It is shameful to the entire nation that this abuse scandal has leaked out. There should not be anything to leak. I've heard the argument that, "Even so, we still are treating the prisoners better than Saddam did." These people do not understand the point. If we are trying to espouse the benefits of our democracy, if we are trying to change the world and lead by example, our example must be better than any other nation on Earth. When we make a military commitment to something, our military must act decisively, humanely, and with as much decency as possible in the hellish environment that is war. We must treat each detainee as if he is our family. Each high-ranking political figure we capture must be treated with absolute respect and full disclosure.
And we must start training and involving the nonmilitary people in the rebuilding efforts immediately. If they have a personal stake in the new nation as it rises from the ashes of the old, then they will fight harder against those who wish to destroy what is rebuilt, will help us in all aspects of our time in their nation, and will create a stronger foundation on which the new nation can stand as it takes the first steps toward democracy.
It is these actions, the humane treatment of even our most hated enemies, the education of nonmilitary indigenous people, and the respect we show to all people and cultures that will be our greatest weapon in fighting terrorism and nondemocratic nations.
All of this has been jeopardized by a few bad seeds (again, whether grunts or officers, military or nonmilitary) who were given a little bit of power and abused it in a horrendous manner.
It is shameful to the entire nation that this abuse scandal has leaked out. There should not be anything to leak. I've heard the argument that, "Even so, we still are treating the prisoners better than Saddam did." These people do not understand the point. If we are trying to espouse the benefits of our democracy, if we are trying to change the world and lead by example, our example must be better than any other nation on Earth. When we make a military commitment to something, our military must act decisively, humanely, and with as much decency as possible in the hellish environment that is war. We must treat each detainee as if he is our family. Each high-ranking political figure we capture must be treated with absolute respect and full disclosure.
And we must start training and involving the nonmilitary people in the rebuilding efforts immediately. If they have a personal stake in the new nation as it rises from the ashes of the old, then they will fight harder against those who wish to destroy what is rebuilt, will help us in all aspects of our time in their nation, and will create a stronger foundation on which the new nation can stand as it takes the first steps toward democracy.
It is these actions, the humane treatment of even our most hated enemies, the education of nonmilitary indigenous people, and the respect we show to all people and cultures that will be our greatest weapon in fighting terrorism and nondemocratic nations.
All of this has been jeopardized by a few bad seeds (again, whether grunts or officers, military or nonmilitary) who were given a little bit of power and abused it in a horrendous manner.
May 14, 2004
A moneyless society
I think we can start moving the world toward a moneyless society. Let me explain.
The end goal would be for each person to be allocated the essentials (food, shelter, clothes) and then be free to pursue their own goals through the free exchange of skills and abilities. In this way, no one wants for the essentials and money is taken out of the equation. Just imagine what you could do and learn if you didn’t have to constantly strive to keep yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, let alone all the amenities that people want. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of governmental infrastructure to allow much of this to happen, the workings of which I have not fully worked out yet. That's for another post.
In order to start striving for this goal, we need to start bartering our skills and knowledge to each other directly rather than for money (that we then use to buy what we need and want).
I envision a web-site that has a Skills Available and a Tasks Needed area, like the classifieds in a newspaper, where you could post one or the other. It would include chat boards (both public and private) where interested parties could hook up and negotiate the services rendered. Lastly, there would be a contract area where both users, after successfully negotiating the barter, would sign a binding agreement that no money would be exchanged, what services would be rendered by each to the other participant, and that neither can seek legal redress against the other (except under the strictest of terms).
For example, I could post under Skills Available something like:
"Skills: Writer and editor. Primarily versed in creative and technical writing areas. Good at "big picture" views/overviews. Skilled in Microsoft Office and Framemaker applications for writing/editing. Available for work most evenings and weekends.
Tasks: I need a program to track my comic book collection. Must be done to exacting specifications for user interface and reports, but choice of programming language, internal structure, and internal design up to programmer."
Now, someone with programming skills who needs help with a story concept he has could then contact me through the site and we could enter negotiations. Once we discussed the various projects and agreed to perform them, we would move to the contracts sections and electronically sign the binding barter agreement.
The beauty of this agreement, in my mind, is that you get people who WANT to do something working on your project. You are, in essence, asking someone who has the time and energy to simply help you. In exchange, you are willing to help them.
Another plus is that you can agree to do something in an unbalanced fashion. Still using my example from above, let's say that after reviewing my program request, the individual agrees to do it and believes it will take him a week working evenings and weekends. However, the story concept that he presents to me is a large, complex fiction that will need to be researched thoroughly, outlines and character designs will be needed, with the end result being a novel that may take 2 years to write. I can still make the "uneven" barter if I truly desire to do the work. The point is, we agree to that NOW, at the beginning and upfront with each other. Maybe as part of the agreement, he agrees to do other projects for me. Maybe the person in question has skills in other areas I could use; he is an auto mechanic by day who has learned and enjoys programming in his off-time. Maybe we agree that I will write his story and he will create my program and do some work on my vehicle.
The point is we are trading the unique skills and knowledge that we both have to get the things we need/want. We are bartering personal interests and needs rather than money and goods.
Are there holes in my theory and in my initial ideas for creating a utopian society where money is an anachronism and people trade skills and knowledge? Of course. But I'm willing to trade my skills with someone who can help fill in those holes.
It's a first step; an idea to strive for. And if we put enough first steps together, who knows how far we can go?
The end goal would be for each person to be allocated the essentials (food, shelter, clothes) and then be free to pursue their own goals through the free exchange of skills and abilities. In this way, no one wants for the essentials and money is taken out of the equation. Just imagine what you could do and learn if you didn’t have to constantly strive to keep yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, let alone all the amenities that people want. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of governmental infrastructure to allow much of this to happen, the workings of which I have not fully worked out yet. That's for another post.
In order to start striving for this goal, we need to start bartering our skills and knowledge to each other directly rather than for money (that we then use to buy what we need and want).
I envision a web-site that has a Skills Available and a Tasks Needed area, like the classifieds in a newspaper, where you could post one or the other. It would include chat boards (both public and private) where interested parties could hook up and negotiate the services rendered. Lastly, there would be a contract area where both users, after successfully negotiating the barter, would sign a binding agreement that no money would be exchanged, what services would be rendered by each to the other participant, and that neither can seek legal redress against the other (except under the strictest of terms).
For example, I could post under Skills Available something like:
"Skills: Writer and editor. Primarily versed in creative and technical writing areas. Good at "big picture" views/overviews. Skilled in Microsoft Office and Framemaker applications for writing/editing. Available for work most evenings and weekends.
Tasks: I need a program to track my comic book collection. Must be done to exacting specifications for user interface and reports, but choice of programming language, internal structure, and internal design up to programmer."
Now, someone with programming skills who needs help with a story concept he has could then contact me through the site and we could enter negotiations. Once we discussed the various projects and agreed to perform them, we would move to the contracts sections and electronically sign the binding barter agreement.
The beauty of this agreement, in my mind, is that you get people who WANT to do something working on your project. You are, in essence, asking someone who has the time and energy to simply help you. In exchange, you are willing to help them.
Another plus is that you can agree to do something in an unbalanced fashion. Still using my example from above, let's say that after reviewing my program request, the individual agrees to do it and believes it will take him a week working evenings and weekends. However, the story concept that he presents to me is a large, complex fiction that will need to be researched thoroughly, outlines and character designs will be needed, with the end result being a novel that may take 2 years to write. I can still make the "uneven" barter if I truly desire to do the work. The point is, we agree to that NOW, at the beginning and upfront with each other. Maybe as part of the agreement, he agrees to do other projects for me. Maybe the person in question has skills in other areas I could use; he is an auto mechanic by day who has learned and enjoys programming in his off-time. Maybe we agree that I will write his story and he will create my program and do some work on my vehicle.
The point is we are trading the unique skills and knowledge that we both have to get the things we need/want. We are bartering personal interests and needs rather than money and goods.
Are there holes in my theory and in my initial ideas for creating a utopian society where money is an anachronism and people trade skills and knowledge? Of course. But I'm willing to trade my skills with someone who can help fill in those holes.
It's a first step; an idea to strive for. And if we put enough first steps together, who knows how far we can go?
One more poem I'll share
The Abyss
There is a lost, lonely little boy cringing inside.
He shivers slightly, but is afraid to move.
It is a frightening place there, outside.
All this urchin sees is humiliation and abuse.
He hugs his knees to his chest and
Prays there's something beyond the refuse.
"God" and "evil" are foreign concepts to the boy.
All he feels is pain and loneliness and fear.
This child's life has no room for hope or joy.
The world outside and the people around rush by him.
He wants to join in, live, and grow, but
His fear of failure overcomes this whim.
He prays for helping hands to guide him through his wilderness,
But closes his eyes and sinks deeper, deeper inside.
All he can see through his fear and pain is the Abyss.
And the Abyss sees him.
06/97
------------------
Again, this is intellectual property and you must obtain written permission from the author (that's still me) to use this in any way. Thanx!
There is a lost, lonely little boy cringing inside.
He shivers slightly, but is afraid to move.
It is a frightening place there, outside.
All this urchin sees is humiliation and abuse.
He hugs his knees to his chest and
Prays there's something beyond the refuse.
"God" and "evil" are foreign concepts to the boy.
All he feels is pain and loneliness and fear.
This child's life has no room for hope or joy.
The world outside and the people around rush by him.
He wants to join in, live, and grow, but
His fear of failure overcomes this whim.
He prays for helping hands to guide him through his wilderness,
But closes his eyes and sinks deeper, deeper inside.
All he can see through his fear and pain is the Abyss.
And the Abyss sees him.
06/97
------------------
Again, this is intellectual property and you must obtain written permission from the author (that's still me) to use this in any way. Thanx!
An old favorite of mine
Society’s Mirror
I’m cold
Inside and out
An unfeeling
Monster
Who hurts
People
It’s all an
Act
The smiles
And frowns
During the day
I’m numb and
Uncaring toward
You and
What you
Want
A sterile
Machine
That’s either
On
Or off
I’m frozen
Unmoved by
Your cries
Pity me
For I’m
Just
Like
You
-----------------
I wrote this in the early 90s. Remarkable how often I still feel this way.
BTW, this is intellectual property and you cannot use it without written permission of the author (me!). Thanx for your understanding.
I’m cold
Inside and out
An unfeeling
Monster
Who hurts
People
It’s all an
Act
The smiles
And frowns
During the day
I’m numb and
Uncaring toward
You and
What you
Want
A sterile
Machine
That’s either
On
Or off
I’m frozen
Unmoved by
Your cries
Pity me
For I’m
Just
Like
You
-----------------
I wrote this in the early 90s. Remarkable how often I still feel this way.
BTW, this is intellectual property and you cannot use it without written permission of the author (me!). Thanx for your understanding.
May 10, 2004
Potential Greatness
Is it better:
- To have the potential to be great, to possibly have what it takes to be the best at something, or
- To have the potential to inspire greatness in others?
May 6, 2004
The world economy and America
From the 40s through the mid-70s, there was more of a partnership between companies and workers. When companies were going through a slump, they told the workers and asked for their help in tightening belts and pulling on boots-straps to overcome the situation. Workers, for their part, helped if they could and got the benefit of life-long jobs and known retirements and benefits.
In the late 70s and 80s, this started to change and took strong hold in the 90s. Workers started job hopping, staying on average 2-3 years at any one job then moving on. Companies started to look more at the bottom line and stock valuation than at their company as a whole (including those who worked for the company). The age of the trolling CEO came into being, where a CEO would job hop as often as their employees; moving from one company, slashing it to bits and making it look profitable to Wall Street, then moving on and leaving a company divest of employees and, in many cases, ripe for a takeover.
Then we had the internet stock boom and bust where all of these practices really came to a head. People were overnight becoming millionaires and the next day were dirt poor again.
Since September 11, we have lost more jobs and companies and the government has been largely unable to create new ones. Our industries are in the crux of change; outsourcing is become a threat to the American worker, Wall Street is continuing to overvalue profits as compared to the stability of companies, and "good enough" just doesn't seem to be enough any more.
All of this leads to a cautious work environment where everyone is afraid to talk with everyone else. From management to workers, and even among workers within each group, people don't communicate. Adding the fears of outsourcing, an underperforming job market, and fears of further war and terrorism, and we've created a nation of people afraid of everything.
I don't know what the exact solution to all of these problems is, but I do have some suggestions:
1. Management opens up. Rather than keeping possibly layoffs a secret until the employee shows up and find out they are out of a job, management can go back to the days when they would warn that this might happen. They can throw in with the workers and attempt to work on a solution together.
2. Respect your fellow workers. Management can start to rely on workers to do the right thing and workers can start relying once again on management looking out for them. Ask the workers if they would be willing to take a temporary pay cut of 3% in order to make numbers and not lose any jobs. I'm willing to bet, as long as management lives up to their end of the agreement (making the cut temporary and not cutting the jobs) that workers would rather do that than face the prospect of months out of work. Workers need to work in an atmosphere of trust and cooperation from which the company as a whole will benefit.
3. End raiding. Instead of everyone moving around every couple of years, start staying put. Become an expert in your field. Do what you do best. Create an invaluable niche in your workplace that only you fill. This goes for workers AND management. This also leads to a stable work environment and stability for the company in general.
4. End Wall Street fear. Wall Street needs to stop reacting to "bad news" that a company made it's projections instead of exceeding them and instead start buying in to those companies. Companies that make their projections are stable, solid, assured. Praise them for their stability. Stop devaluing good, solid investments because you can't get rich short term. Start valuing them because that's a company you want your money in for the long haul.
5. Outsourcing. There is no way for American worker's needs to counter the much different economic situation in foreign countries. However, I have two suggestions:
A. If outsourcing is something you fear, contact companies and ask if they outsource to other countries. If they say yes, tell the company representative that you will no longer use their company's products/services until they stop that practice. This gives the company in question a specific reason why you won't shop there and also takes money away from their bottom line.
B. Every job that is outsourced means a small boost to the economy of the country in question. For example, in a recent report on India, it said that the average worker there makes the equivalent of $300 a year American. A recent software company that opened a division in India is paying their people $3000 a year American. That will affect the stability of India's economy as more countries outsource jobs to this country and wages in India continue to improve.
We are only beginning the first movement of the pendulum as it starts to swing. Many of us will be greatly affected by these changes. However, in the long run, third and second world nations will receive the money they need to improve their lifestyle and potentially reach 1st world status. As they do so, the pendulum will swing back as America continues to lead the way in different economic areas and new jobs do, eventually, get created. None of this can happen without a feeling of trust, confidence, and positivity. Reporters need to start presenting us with the positive sides to the stories; government needs to start looking to the positive side to these changes; and people need to stop living in fear and start learning to trust again. These could very well be the first baby steps we take toward a money-less society not driven by fear and want, but by desires and inspiration.
Let's find a way to reach for that brass ring.
In the late 70s and 80s, this started to change and took strong hold in the 90s. Workers started job hopping, staying on average 2-3 years at any one job then moving on. Companies started to look more at the bottom line and stock valuation than at their company as a whole (including those who worked for the company). The age of the trolling CEO came into being, where a CEO would job hop as often as their employees; moving from one company, slashing it to bits and making it look profitable to Wall Street, then moving on and leaving a company divest of employees and, in many cases, ripe for a takeover.
Then we had the internet stock boom and bust where all of these practices really came to a head. People were overnight becoming millionaires and the next day were dirt poor again.
Since September 11, we have lost more jobs and companies and the government has been largely unable to create new ones. Our industries are in the crux of change; outsourcing is become a threat to the American worker, Wall Street is continuing to overvalue profits as compared to the stability of companies, and "good enough" just doesn't seem to be enough any more.
All of this leads to a cautious work environment where everyone is afraid to talk with everyone else. From management to workers, and even among workers within each group, people don't communicate. Adding the fears of outsourcing, an underperforming job market, and fears of further war and terrorism, and we've created a nation of people afraid of everything.
I don't know what the exact solution to all of these problems is, but I do have some suggestions:
1. Management opens up. Rather than keeping possibly layoffs a secret until the employee shows up and find out they are out of a job, management can go back to the days when they would warn that this might happen. They can throw in with the workers and attempt to work on a solution together.
2. Respect your fellow workers. Management can start to rely on workers to do the right thing and workers can start relying once again on management looking out for them. Ask the workers if they would be willing to take a temporary pay cut of 3% in order to make numbers and not lose any jobs. I'm willing to bet, as long as management lives up to their end of the agreement (making the cut temporary and not cutting the jobs) that workers would rather do that than face the prospect of months out of work. Workers need to work in an atmosphere of trust and cooperation from which the company as a whole will benefit.
3. End raiding. Instead of everyone moving around every couple of years, start staying put. Become an expert in your field. Do what you do best. Create an invaluable niche in your workplace that only you fill. This goes for workers AND management. This also leads to a stable work environment and stability for the company in general.
4. End Wall Street fear. Wall Street needs to stop reacting to "bad news" that a company made it's projections instead of exceeding them and instead start buying in to those companies. Companies that make their projections are stable, solid, assured. Praise them for their stability. Stop devaluing good, solid investments because you can't get rich short term. Start valuing them because that's a company you want your money in for the long haul.
5. Outsourcing. There is no way for American worker's needs to counter the much different economic situation in foreign countries. However, I have two suggestions:
A. If outsourcing is something you fear, contact companies and ask if they outsource to other countries. If they say yes, tell the company representative that you will no longer use their company's products/services until they stop that practice. This gives the company in question a specific reason why you won't shop there and also takes money away from their bottom line.
B. Every job that is outsourced means a small boost to the economy of the country in question. For example, in a recent report on India, it said that the average worker there makes the equivalent of $300 a year American. A recent software company that opened a division in India is paying their people $3000 a year American. That will affect the stability of India's economy as more countries outsource jobs to this country and wages in India continue to improve.
We are only beginning the first movement of the pendulum as it starts to swing. Many of us will be greatly affected by these changes. However, in the long run, third and second world nations will receive the money they need to improve their lifestyle and potentially reach 1st world status. As they do so, the pendulum will swing back as America continues to lead the way in different economic areas and new jobs do, eventually, get created. None of this can happen without a feeling of trust, confidence, and positivity. Reporters need to start presenting us with the positive sides to the stories; government needs to start looking to the positive side to these changes; and people need to stop living in fear and start learning to trust again. These could very well be the first baby steps we take toward a money-less society not driven by fear and want, but by desires and inspiration.
Let's find a way to reach for that brass ring.
May 3, 2004
Spam
The quickest, easiest way to stop spam, those annoying bulk emails you receive offering you penis enlargements, free vacations, and porn, is to make sending email cost money. I propose a pricing plan equivalent to 1/10 of a penny per email or address. By this I mean that if there is one email address in the to/cc/bcc field of an email, that email costs you 1/10 of a penny. If there are 10 addresss total in your to/cc/bcc fields, that email would cost you one full cent.
For over 90% of the users of the internet this would mean they would spend a few dollars per YEAR on emails. At 1/10 of a penny per address used, $1 would allow you 1,000 (100 cents in a dollar times 10 emails per full cent) addresses. When you look at your Sent list, how often have you reached a thousand emails and how often do you include more than one person on any one email?
However, to a spammer who is generally sending bulk emails to thousands of addresses per email sent or thousands of emails to individual addresses, this adds up quickly. It is my understanding that "small-time" spammers generally send around 10,000 emails a day. At my proposed pricing plan, that would be $10 per day. Over a year, that's $3,650.
A "big-time" spammer, who is typically doing this type of bulk emailing "professionally" using specific softwares and buying email lists from companies, etc., sends 100,000 emails a day or more. That is $100 a day or $36,500 a year. They would need to pay the average American's yearly salary just on one person sending out the average amount of spam per day. Which means, on top of the costs for buying addresses, professional software, etc., they would need to get enough "hits" to make more than that amount per year in order for it to be cost effective.
In a typical day, I receive around 250 bulk emails. Many of these are obviously from professional spammers using multiple incremented email addresses. So, my personal email account is receiving around $.25 of spam per day using my email pricing scheme. If there are around 100 million email users in America, then I would offer a conservative guess that half of them are receiving bulk emails. If I'm average at 250/day, this means that about $12.5 million of spam (using my pricing) is being sent a day. Even if I'm one of the higher targets and the average user is only getting 100 bulk emails a day, that is still around $5 million providers could be charging on emails per day. Or around $1,825,000,000 per year.
Do you really think the spammers will continue at their current rates if they have to pay these fees?
For over 90% of the users of the internet this would mean they would spend a few dollars per YEAR on emails. At 1/10 of a penny per address used, $1 would allow you 1,000 (100 cents in a dollar times 10 emails per full cent) addresses. When you look at your Sent list, how often have you reached a thousand emails and how often do you include more than one person on any one email?
However, to a spammer who is generally sending bulk emails to thousands of addresses per email sent or thousands of emails to individual addresses, this adds up quickly. It is my understanding that "small-time" spammers generally send around 10,000 emails a day. At my proposed pricing plan, that would be $10 per day. Over a year, that's $3,650.
A "big-time" spammer, who is typically doing this type of bulk emailing "professionally" using specific softwares and buying email lists from companies, etc., sends 100,000 emails a day or more. That is $100 a day or $36,500 a year. They would need to pay the average American's yearly salary just on one person sending out the average amount of spam per day. Which means, on top of the costs for buying addresses, professional software, etc., they would need to get enough "hits" to make more than that amount per year in order for it to be cost effective.
In a typical day, I receive around 250 bulk emails. Many of these are obviously from professional spammers using multiple incremented email addresses. So, my personal email account is receiving around $.25 of spam per day using my email pricing scheme. If there are around 100 million email users in America, then I would offer a conservative guess that half of them are receiving bulk emails. If I'm average at 250/day, this means that about $12.5 million of spam (using my pricing) is being sent a day. Even if I'm one of the higher targets and the average user is only getting 100 bulk emails a day, that is still around $5 million providers could be charging on emails per day. Or around $1,825,000,000 per year.
Do you really think the spammers will continue at their current rates if they have to pay these fees?
April 30, 2004
Joan of Arcadia
I am not a religious man. While I do have a faith, it is not through or helped by any of the established religions. That being said, I feel the best new show on TV is Joan of Arcadia. This show mixes decent drama and humor into a world in which God talks to a high school girl.
Joan is not really about faith or religion, though. It is more about listening to that voice inside you, paying attention to those around you, and trying to be a better person. They use God as the means to prod Joan along that path. It is a journey of discovery for her as she started as a girl with no friends, new to the town and school, and has been "forced" to expand her horizons and do new things and meet new people. It's sweet without being forced. And there are reasonable consequences for her actions.
So many shows move toward melodrama; the consequences and devices used to move the plot forward are so unreal it is unbelievable. In this show, the consequences are very real; Joan refuses to retake a test on which she did very well and, while the students rally around her in an idealistic and passionate way, the administration threatens her with expulsion. In the end, Joan choses to retake the test and prove she earned the grade and to save her friends from reprisals. In another episode, she misinterprets God's instructions and winds up destroying her best friend's artwork. This leads him not to want to be around her and greatly impacts both their lives as they learn how much they have come to rely on each other. When they make up, it is believable and heartfelt.
My only complaint with the show is that the writers try to force more outside stories involving the rest of Joan's family on the viewing audience. Many of them seem superfluous or forced. I like Joan, that's where the interest and the direction come from for the show. I only really want to learn about her family if they are involved in her story that week.
A good show, well acted, and with a minimum of melodrama and unrealistic behavior. Watch it while you can, because like most good things, it likely won't last!
Joan is not really about faith or religion, though. It is more about listening to that voice inside you, paying attention to those around you, and trying to be a better person. They use God as the means to prod Joan along that path. It is a journey of discovery for her as she started as a girl with no friends, new to the town and school, and has been "forced" to expand her horizons and do new things and meet new people. It's sweet without being forced. And there are reasonable consequences for her actions.
So many shows move toward melodrama; the consequences and devices used to move the plot forward are so unreal it is unbelievable. In this show, the consequences are very real; Joan refuses to retake a test on which she did very well and, while the students rally around her in an idealistic and passionate way, the administration threatens her with expulsion. In the end, Joan choses to retake the test and prove she earned the grade and to save her friends from reprisals. In another episode, she misinterprets God's instructions and winds up destroying her best friend's artwork. This leads him not to want to be around her and greatly impacts both their lives as they learn how much they have come to rely on each other. When they make up, it is believable and heartfelt.
My only complaint with the show is that the writers try to force more outside stories involving the rest of Joan's family on the viewing audience. Many of them seem superfluous or forced. I like Joan, that's where the interest and the direction come from for the show. I only really want to learn about her family if they are involved in her story that week.
A good show, well acted, and with a minimum of melodrama and unrealistic behavior. Watch it while you can, because like most good things, it likely won't last!
April 22, 2004
Comic Books Today
Comic books are not for children any more.
Actually, they haven't been for kids since 1984, the year that DC Comics published Alan Moore's Watchmen series. Shortly after this seminal work, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns was released and the down and dirty, gritty, realistic comic book genre came into its own and has persisted since.
Price is another consideration. Most children can't afford to buy comics today, at least not on a regular basis. The average price for a comic book these days is $2.50. Some of the bigger titles (Batman, Superman, X-Men) you can still get for $2.25, but many and a growing number of titles are either $2.95 (DC) or $2.99 (Marvel). And almost all independent titles are in the high range.
Another way in which comic books are no longer for children is the cultural influence they have. Big authors, movie scriptwriters/directors, and other top-named talent either got their start in comics or have written comics. Ray Bradbury, Warren Ellis, William Shatner, Kevin Smith are just some of the talent who have or are working in the comic book industry. People like Neil Gaiman, who started in comic books and had a notable run on The Sandman, was such a good storyteller that his Sandman comics frequently were pitted against and won in awards programs that are traditionally only for books/novellas. He has since gone on to write several novels of his own which have all been NY Times bestsellers and very inventive reads.
Lastly, comic books are a visual media. This is why so many comic book properties get used in television, movies, and advertising. You have the combination of a visual and written story that can provide many different layers and elements to the reading public. For example, Stan Lee's classic Spider-man story in which Spider-man is trapped under a collapsed building was a seminal work for its time as most of the story was told visually only without thought balloons or narrative. Neil Gaiman and James Robinson have both used pages of written text with opposing splash pages of pictures to tell a deeper story that doesn't interfere with the beauty of the fully-painted artwork. Many fine-arts people have done work for the comic book industry and have pushed the quality of the original artwork from the classic "four-color" newsprint to fully painted water colors and oils, multimedia presentations, computer generated images, photography. I remember some of Bill Sienkewitz's work on Batman, Stray Toasters, and other works really pushing the industry forward. Today, Alex Ross's fully rendered oil paintings rendered in ultrarealistic detail is the new bar toward which all others are reaching.
Even just the right combination of artist and writer on a "standard" monthly comic book can deepen the meaning and impact of a story. The work currently being produced on Daredevil, by Marvel comics, is incredible; I would stack that story up against almost any novel I've read recently. Miller/Mazzuchelli on either Daredevil or Batman is another example of the right combination at the right time with the right character. Or what about the feeling and intensity that Paul Dini and Alex Ross have put into each of their over-sized works for DC Comics reinterpreting Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and the Justice League of America? Each takes a concept that is inherent to the character (Hope, Truth, Justice, etc.) and uses the words, the story, and the artwork to convey that single thought. It is poetry.
The best part about the change that made comic books no longer for kids? The fact that the overall quality of story and artwork, as well as the high-calibre talent working in the industry today, means that the comics that kids do read are that much better and will make that much stronger of an impression. And that means these properties will be around for the next generation.
Which means, in the end, that comic books will always be for children.
Actually, they haven't been for kids since 1984, the year that DC Comics published Alan Moore's Watchmen series. Shortly after this seminal work, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns was released and the down and dirty, gritty, realistic comic book genre came into its own and has persisted since.
Price is another consideration. Most children can't afford to buy comics today, at least not on a regular basis. The average price for a comic book these days is $2.50. Some of the bigger titles (Batman, Superman, X-Men) you can still get for $2.25, but many and a growing number of titles are either $2.95 (DC) or $2.99 (Marvel). And almost all independent titles are in the high range.
Another way in which comic books are no longer for children is the cultural influence they have. Big authors, movie scriptwriters/directors, and other top-named talent either got their start in comics or have written comics. Ray Bradbury, Warren Ellis, William Shatner, Kevin Smith are just some of the talent who have or are working in the comic book industry. People like Neil Gaiman, who started in comic books and had a notable run on The Sandman, was such a good storyteller that his Sandman comics frequently were pitted against and won in awards programs that are traditionally only for books/novellas. He has since gone on to write several novels of his own which have all been NY Times bestsellers and very inventive reads.
Lastly, comic books are a visual media. This is why so many comic book properties get used in television, movies, and advertising. You have the combination of a visual and written story that can provide many different layers and elements to the reading public. For example, Stan Lee's classic Spider-man story in which Spider-man is trapped under a collapsed building was a seminal work for its time as most of the story was told visually only without thought balloons or narrative. Neil Gaiman and James Robinson have both used pages of written text with opposing splash pages of pictures to tell a deeper story that doesn't interfere with the beauty of the fully-painted artwork. Many fine-arts people have done work for the comic book industry and have pushed the quality of the original artwork from the classic "four-color" newsprint to fully painted water colors and oils, multimedia presentations, computer generated images, photography. I remember some of Bill Sienkewitz's work on Batman, Stray Toasters, and other works really pushing the industry forward. Today, Alex Ross's fully rendered oil paintings rendered in ultrarealistic detail is the new bar toward which all others are reaching.
Even just the right combination of artist and writer on a "standard" monthly comic book can deepen the meaning and impact of a story. The work currently being produced on Daredevil, by Marvel comics, is incredible; I would stack that story up against almost any novel I've read recently. Miller/Mazzuchelli on either Daredevil or Batman is another example of the right combination at the right time with the right character. Or what about the feeling and intensity that Paul Dini and Alex Ross have put into each of their over-sized works for DC Comics reinterpreting Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and the Justice League of America? Each takes a concept that is inherent to the character (Hope, Truth, Justice, etc.) and uses the words, the story, and the artwork to convey that single thought. It is poetry.
The best part about the change that made comic books no longer for kids? The fact that the overall quality of story and artwork, as well as the high-calibre talent working in the industry today, means that the comics that kids do read are that much better and will make that much stronger of an impression. And that means these properties will be around for the next generation.
Which means, in the end, that comic books will always be for children.
April 18, 2004
Initial thoughts on this year's NBA Playoffs
Just a couple of comments:
1. Bill Walton is arguable the worst color commentator ever.
1.A. Bill should not be allowed to comment on a game in which his son is playing. Not only does Bill hate the Lakers, but isn't that conflict of interest to announce the game in which your son is playing (even if he plays for a hated rival)?
2. I saw some of the worst refereeing ever on the opening day of the playoffs this year. It culminated in the last game where there were two obvious goal-tending calls missed, quite a few no-calls called, and a number of exceptionally late calls made where, on replay, you could watch the ref's eyes follow the ball and wait to call the foul until after seeing if the shot was missed. This happened in every game (and I watched all 4 of them).
3. If, as a ref, you don't SEE the foul, don't call the foul. Just because you hear a thwack sound doesn't mean it happened on the play you are cut off from. We've got three refs; if each would just call only the fouls they actually see happen, then the game would flow better and you wouldn't have so many phantom fouls called by the ref who is completely boxed out from the play (and therefore couldn't possibly have seen what he called).
4. Sometimes players just trip and fall. There is an incidental contact rule-- use it.
5. The rules state that the person who initiates the contact is the one on whom the foul is to be called. Stop calling a foul when an offensive player jumps into a defensive player who is just standing there with his arms raised. Reminds me of the Reggie Miller days-- when he would leap in the air, kick out his legs, and somehow his kicking someone is their fault and he would be awarded free-throws. Stop it!
5.A. On only one play did I see the refs do this; when Francis drove straight at Shaq, leaped into his chest, bounced off, and threw the ball at the rim (and the damn thing went in!), the refs didn't blow the whistle. They should have-- on Francis-- but that's another argument.
6. Players, after 3 quarters of basketball, you should know how the refs are calling the game. Put those petulant, whiny faces away and just play the damn game. Don't expect a foul on every play.
7. Why can't professional players keep their feet in bounds when they receive a pass on the sidelines? Why must they take that step backward?
8. Indiana hasn't gotten a lot of respect from the media all year long and yet they have the best record in the league and played an incredible first game. Indy-Detroit will decide who goes to the championship.
9. Kobe -- people complain you take "too many" shots when you drive down the court with your head down not even looking to pass. I can tell in the back court when this is going to happen and I haven't been wrong yet this season. If I can tell, don't you think most defenses can?
9.A. Payton -- if you learn the triangle, you will actually be able to do more, shoot just as often, and be an even better play-maker than you were in Seattle. Try learning the offense before you say it stiffles your creativity.
9.B. Slava/Luke/Devean -- When the post player passes back to you and the defense is laying off you by 5 or more feet, TAKE THE SHOT. That's the point.
9.C. Fisher is arguably the least selfish player in the game. He accepted a reduced role (even though he has played better and understands the offense better than Payton), he plays hard on both sides of the court, and knows that his defense is just as important as any offense he can provide. He should get the 6-man award, but won't even be in consideration for it.
10. For as much as I like basketball (and football for that matter), you are all over-paid entertainers. Start being humble that we (the paying/viewing public) ALLOW you to play a game for a living and make more than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Stop acting like thugs, stop acting like this is your right, and start showing some honesty, respect, and humility.
1. Bill Walton is arguable the worst color commentator ever.
1.A. Bill should not be allowed to comment on a game in which his son is playing. Not only does Bill hate the Lakers, but isn't that conflict of interest to announce the game in which your son is playing (even if he plays for a hated rival)?
2. I saw some of the worst refereeing ever on the opening day of the playoffs this year. It culminated in the last game where there were two obvious goal-tending calls missed, quite a few no-calls called, and a number of exceptionally late calls made where, on replay, you could watch the ref's eyes follow the ball and wait to call the foul until after seeing if the shot was missed. This happened in every game (and I watched all 4 of them).
3. If, as a ref, you don't SEE the foul, don't call the foul. Just because you hear a thwack sound doesn't mean it happened on the play you are cut off from. We've got three refs; if each would just call only the fouls they actually see happen, then the game would flow better and you wouldn't have so many phantom fouls called by the ref who is completely boxed out from the play (and therefore couldn't possibly have seen what he called).
4. Sometimes players just trip and fall. There is an incidental contact rule-- use it.
5. The rules state that the person who initiates the contact is the one on whom the foul is to be called. Stop calling a foul when an offensive player jumps into a defensive player who is just standing there with his arms raised. Reminds me of the Reggie Miller days-- when he would leap in the air, kick out his legs, and somehow his kicking someone is their fault and he would be awarded free-throws. Stop it!
5.A. On only one play did I see the refs do this; when Francis drove straight at Shaq, leaped into his chest, bounced off, and threw the ball at the rim (and the damn thing went in!), the refs didn't blow the whistle. They should have-- on Francis-- but that's another argument.
6. Players, after 3 quarters of basketball, you should know how the refs are calling the game. Put those petulant, whiny faces away and just play the damn game. Don't expect a foul on every play.
7. Why can't professional players keep their feet in bounds when they receive a pass on the sidelines? Why must they take that step backward?
8. Indiana hasn't gotten a lot of respect from the media all year long and yet they have the best record in the league and played an incredible first game. Indy-Detroit will decide who goes to the championship.
9. Kobe -- people complain you take "too many" shots when you drive down the court with your head down not even looking to pass. I can tell in the back court when this is going to happen and I haven't been wrong yet this season. If I can tell, don't you think most defenses can?
9.A. Payton -- if you learn the triangle, you will actually be able to do more, shoot just as often, and be an even better play-maker than you were in Seattle. Try learning the offense before you say it stiffles your creativity.
9.B. Slava/Luke/Devean -- When the post player passes back to you and the defense is laying off you by 5 or more feet, TAKE THE SHOT. That's the point.
9.C. Fisher is arguably the least selfish player in the game. He accepted a reduced role (even though he has played better and understands the offense better than Payton), he plays hard on both sides of the court, and knows that his defense is just as important as any offense he can provide. He should get the 6-man award, but won't even be in consideration for it.
10. For as much as I like basketball (and football for that matter), you are all over-paid entertainers. Start being humble that we (the paying/viewing public) ALLOW you to play a game for a living and make more than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Stop acting like thugs, stop acting like this is your right, and start showing some honesty, respect, and humility.
April 8, 2004
Elections
In the original framing of our country, our founding fathers were concerned with making sure that all branches of the government had proper checks and balances, and that each branch had a means by which they could check and balance the other branches.
Originally in the Constitution, the person with the highest number of votes won the Presidency and the person with the next highest number of votes became Vice-President (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3). I believe this was an inherent check and balance as designed by the creators of our country. Typically the two highest vote getters would be from different party affiliations or philosophies and they would have to work together toward common goals. It also ensures that the primary resource for the President was someone with a different understanding than his own, so he would be provided with council that someone who generally agreed with him may not give. This seemed to work well as our country quickly grew to be one of the finest and most powerful in the world. Early in our country's history, we also tended to have many more strong parties (Wigs, Whips, Hawks, Doves, etc.)
An amendment to the Constitution (Amendment XII) changed the election process to allow a Presidential candidate to choose their running mate. I believe this change has created the needlessly antagonist bi-cameral situation in which we now find ourselves.
Just imagine how differently many of our country's biggest moments might have turned out if the President's primary advisor (the Vice-President) had a different philosophical bent. The President would see different sides and likely consider ideas from more perspectives and directions than if the Vice-President was like-minded. And the animosity between the executive and legislative branches would be greatly nullified as the concept of "party politics" would be greatly erased.
We are currently going through a bitter election process where the Republicans and Democrats are starting to sling the mud early and often. This is going to be a long 7 months until the election. Imagine if we legitimately had strong candidates from more parties. Imagine if the people knew that the top two vote getters out of X number of candidates would get the Presidency and Vice-Presdency. Imagine if those two people had to work together in order to take our country forward for the next 4 years (with the President taking the lead and the Vice-President offering council and alternative solutions).
Imagine, just imagine, voting for the BEST person to do the job (regardless of party) and having the two best choices getting into office and working together.
Oh what a different country this would be!
Originally in the Constitution, the person with the highest number of votes won the Presidency and the person with the next highest number of votes became Vice-President (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3). I believe this was an inherent check and balance as designed by the creators of our country. Typically the two highest vote getters would be from different party affiliations or philosophies and they would have to work together toward common goals. It also ensures that the primary resource for the President was someone with a different understanding than his own, so he would be provided with council that someone who generally agreed with him may not give. This seemed to work well as our country quickly grew to be one of the finest and most powerful in the world. Early in our country's history, we also tended to have many more strong parties (Wigs, Whips, Hawks, Doves, etc.)
An amendment to the Constitution (Amendment XII) changed the election process to allow a Presidential candidate to choose their running mate. I believe this change has created the needlessly antagonist bi-cameral situation in which we now find ourselves.
Just imagine how differently many of our country's biggest moments might have turned out if the President's primary advisor (the Vice-President) had a different philosophical bent. The President would see different sides and likely consider ideas from more perspectives and directions than if the Vice-President was like-minded. And the animosity between the executive and legislative branches would be greatly nullified as the concept of "party politics" would be greatly erased.
We are currently going through a bitter election process where the Republicans and Democrats are starting to sling the mud early and often. This is going to be a long 7 months until the election. Imagine if we legitimately had strong candidates from more parties. Imagine if the people knew that the top two vote getters out of X number of candidates would get the Presidency and Vice-Presdency. Imagine if those two people had to work together in order to take our country forward for the next 4 years (with the President taking the lead and the Vice-President offering council and alternative solutions).
Imagine, just imagine, voting for the BEST person to do the job (regardless of party) and having the two best choices getting into office and working together.
Oh what a different country this would be!
Parking Lots
Why is it that people lose all sense of reason and propriety in a parking lot?
First, the designers of parking lots are, to a person, mad. Absolutely bonkers insane. Otherwise, parking lots would be more logically laid out, sized to fit actual vehicles, and the spaces would be designed for use.
Second, people in general seem to forget that all the same rules of the road apply while in a parking lot. Unless a lot indicates othewise, lanes have a right side and a left side, turn signals should be used, and through traffic has the right of way. In California, all pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way.
Thirdly, what the hell are people thinking when it comes to the predatory reaction they have to "hunting" for a spot and "defending" their spot when they find it? Relax, people, it's only a 10 by 15 foot piece of ground. I'm truly surprised there aren't more mall killing sprees where someone just snaps because another driver took "their" parking spot (the scene in Fried Green Tomatoes comes to mind where the two young women steal Kathy Bates' spot and she 'accidentally' slams her car into theirs 5 times).
Finally, when designing a parking lot that has more than one place to eat in it, and especially if there are multiple eateries all in the same location, make sure there is ample parking. "Ample" in this case is defined as one car per person for each who are legally allowed in each restaurant plus ten. So if you have a Quiznos with a restaurant limit of 20, a Carl's Jr with a restaurant limit of 15, and a Daphne's Greek with a restaurant limit of 30, you add up those numbers (65) and add ten to it (75) and that's the number of parking spots that should be in the area of those eateries. Not 20.
Solutions? Whenever possible, parking lots should flow in one direction and in a circular fashion. This allows for spaces that are angled so that you can easily pull into them, easily pull out of them, and have a chance of seeing traffic behind you (because the traffic is only coming from one direction). This also allows people to move through the lot without backtracking and interfering with the other traffic entering the lot. Yes, this might mean you have to park farther away from the place you are visiting. 65% of America is overweight; we can use the extra 2 minutes of walking that farther space provides us.
I'll leave my recommendations at that. If I think about it too much longer, sniper towers, barbed wire, and those nifty spike strips will be involved in making sure people flow through the parking lot in an orderly fashion.
Get off the phone, turn down the radio, use your head, obey the laws, be respectful to others (especially pedestrians), and we might all survive the parking lot experience.
First, the designers of parking lots are, to a person, mad. Absolutely bonkers insane. Otherwise, parking lots would be more logically laid out, sized to fit actual vehicles, and the spaces would be designed for use.
Second, people in general seem to forget that all the same rules of the road apply while in a parking lot. Unless a lot indicates othewise, lanes have a right side and a left side, turn signals should be used, and through traffic has the right of way. In California, all pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way.
Thirdly, what the hell are people thinking when it comes to the predatory reaction they have to "hunting" for a spot and "defending" their spot when they find it? Relax, people, it's only a 10 by 15 foot piece of ground. I'm truly surprised there aren't more mall killing sprees where someone just snaps because another driver took "their" parking spot (the scene in Fried Green Tomatoes comes to mind where the two young women steal Kathy Bates' spot and she 'accidentally' slams her car into theirs 5 times).
Finally, when designing a parking lot that has more than one place to eat in it, and especially if there are multiple eateries all in the same location, make sure there is ample parking. "Ample" in this case is defined as one car per person for each who are legally allowed in each restaurant plus ten. So if you have a Quiznos with a restaurant limit of 20, a Carl's Jr with a restaurant limit of 15, and a Daphne's Greek with a restaurant limit of 30, you add up those numbers (65) and add ten to it (75) and that's the number of parking spots that should be in the area of those eateries. Not 20.
Solutions? Whenever possible, parking lots should flow in one direction and in a circular fashion. This allows for spaces that are angled so that you can easily pull into them, easily pull out of them, and have a chance of seeing traffic behind you (because the traffic is only coming from one direction). This also allows people to move through the lot without backtracking and interfering with the other traffic entering the lot. Yes, this might mean you have to park farther away from the place you are visiting. 65% of America is overweight; we can use the extra 2 minutes of walking that farther space provides us.
I'll leave my recommendations at that. If I think about it too much longer, sniper towers, barbed wire, and those nifty spike strips will be involved in making sure people flow through the parking lot in an orderly fashion.
Get off the phone, turn down the radio, use your head, obey the laws, be respectful to others (especially pedestrians), and we might all survive the parking lot experience.
April 7, 2004
Grocery Store Cards
Albertsons is my current grocery store of choice. There is one within a mile of my apartment and one very close by work, so convenience is certainly a big factor. One of my big reasons outside of convenience has been that they always have had generally low prices with no gimmicks.
However, after coming out of the California workers strike, Albertsons switched to using a Store Card.
The benefit of the grocery store card is that the grocery store in question (and all of its affiliates and third party members) can track where you shop and what you buy. The incentive to you, the shopper, for them having this insight into your life and habits are the sweepstakes, rewards, and "lower" costs on some in-store items when you use the card. In essence, they are paying you to be market research for them.
I went through this with Vons awhile back. I noticed that the prices were generally rising over the course of a month or so, then the cards were introduced. The "savings" you could get from the card brought the prices back down to the value those goods had before the introduction of the grocery shopping card. I also had to put up with phone calls and mail from the company all relating to the card.
My local Albertsons also slowly, over the course of a few weeks, raised all of its' prices. Now they've introduced a grocery shopping card of their own. When I do the math on soda, meat, breads, and other items and subtract the "savings" amount from the current non-card cost of items the price drops to the month-ago price for the same item. Coincidence?
I do not want my grocery store tracking where I go and what I buy. With all their computer automation tracking their own goods, services, and inventory, they know closely enough what I buy. I would rather they not spend the millions of dollars on promotions, advertising, and rebates and instead just give me the lower prices I've come to expect from my grocery store.
Just when they are coming out of the strike and trying to lure people back into the stores, they raise prices and irritate at least 10% of their shopping public by introducing these store cards. I would expect they would lower prices and offer other incentives to get us back. But what do I know; I'm just another one of their loyal shoppers who they have angered with the strike and who is now further ired by the store card. Of course, if there are enough people like me, the chain has to close down the store. I'd rather cut profit margins short-term to get people back in the habit of shopping at my stores after months of striking workers, then raise prices a little at a time back to normal values once the habit has been re-formed. But again, what do I know?
There is a Stater Brothers grocery store not too far away from where I live. It doesn't have any gimmicks or grocery store cards. Their prices are generally low in all areas. Guess where I'll be shopping from now on?
However, after coming out of the California workers strike, Albertsons switched to using a Store Card.
The benefit of the grocery store card is that the grocery store in question (and all of its affiliates and third party members) can track where you shop and what you buy. The incentive to you, the shopper, for them having this insight into your life and habits are the sweepstakes, rewards, and "lower" costs on some in-store items when you use the card. In essence, they are paying you to be market research for them.
I went through this with Vons awhile back. I noticed that the prices were generally rising over the course of a month or so, then the cards were introduced. The "savings" you could get from the card brought the prices back down to the value those goods had before the introduction of the grocery shopping card. I also had to put up with phone calls and mail from the company all relating to the card.
My local Albertsons also slowly, over the course of a few weeks, raised all of its' prices. Now they've introduced a grocery shopping card of their own. When I do the math on soda, meat, breads, and other items and subtract the "savings" amount from the current non-card cost of items the price drops to the month-ago price for the same item. Coincidence?
I do not want my grocery store tracking where I go and what I buy. With all their computer automation tracking their own goods, services, and inventory, they know closely enough what I buy. I would rather they not spend the millions of dollars on promotions, advertising, and rebates and instead just give me the lower prices I've come to expect from my grocery store.
Just when they are coming out of the strike and trying to lure people back into the stores, they raise prices and irritate at least 10% of their shopping public by introducing these store cards. I would expect they would lower prices and offer other incentives to get us back. But what do I know; I'm just another one of their loyal shoppers who they have angered with the strike and who is now further ired by the store card. Of course, if there are enough people like me, the chain has to close down the store. I'd rather cut profit margins short-term to get people back in the habit of shopping at my stores after months of striking workers, then raise prices a little at a time back to normal values once the habit has been re-formed. But again, what do I know?
There is a Stater Brothers grocery store not too far away from where I live. It doesn't have any gimmicks or grocery store cards. Their prices are generally low in all areas. Guess where I'll be shopping from now on?
April 6, 2004
April Fools?
Google announced on April 1st a new email system that they plan to introduce in the near future. Many were skeptical of the announcement, as this company has a history of doing April Fools pranks. However, it appears to be legitimate.
This new system promises to allow EACH person's mailbox to be 1 GIG in size, doesn't need you to maintain (by moving or deleting emails) it, and uses Google's patented search features to aid you in finding the right email in your box.
All this for free.
The only thing I didn't see is whether they provide any sort of anti-spam programs with that. If not, I bet the 1 GIG will be reached much sooner than they envision! I currently receive between 200 and 300 spam emails into my Bulk email box a day in my Yahoo! account. Multiply that out, and it adds up quickly.
Hopefully this email system will be safe, secure, and simple. If so, I expect to use it whenever it is launched to the open public (it is currently in beta).
This new system promises to allow EACH person's mailbox to be 1 GIG in size, doesn't need you to maintain (by moving or deleting emails) it, and uses Google's patented search features to aid you in finding the right email in your box.
All this for free.
The only thing I didn't see is whether they provide any sort of anti-spam programs with that. If not, I bet the 1 GIG will be reached much sooner than they envision! I currently receive between 200 and 300 spam emails into my Bulk email box a day in my Yahoo! account. Multiply that out, and it adds up quickly.
Hopefully this email system will be safe, secure, and simple. If so, I expect to use it whenever it is launched to the open public (it is currently in beta).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)