Following up on today's theme of children behaving a certain way because of their parents (see the post below this one), Glenn Greenwald says we Americans are so eager to live in a society with royalty and aristocratic families (so cruelly denied from us by the Founding Fathers), that we might as well go ahead and make it official.
It's true, the Aristocracy took hold in America long ago, and the fascination with celebrities and anyone connected to them has only made it worse. Don't believe him?
"They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters."
And if it happens a lot in the media, it must happen even more often in politics. Back in December of 2008, Greenwald wrote a similar blog post about Nepotism in politics. An excerpt:
"Bill Clinton yesterday was forced to deny speculation that he would be appointed to replace his wife in the U.S. Senate. Leading candidates for that seat still include John F. Kennedy's daughter (Caroline), Robert Kennedy's son (RFK, Jr.), and Mario Cuomo's son (Andrew). In Illinois, a leading contender to replace Barack Obama in the Senate is Jesse Jackson's son (Jesse, Jr.). In Delaware, it was widely speculated that Joe Biden would be replaced by his son, Beau, and after Beau took his name out of the running because he's now serving in Iraq, the naming of the actual replacement -- lone-time (Joe) Biden aide Ted Kaufmann -- "upset local Democrats who believe the move was a ham-handed attempt to engineer the election of Biden’s son, Beau, to the Senate in 2010."
He goes on to point out that 15 of the 100 current U.S. Senators have immediate family members who occupied a high public office. Not to mention the last President.
Isn't a bit much? Apparently not for celebrity-crazed America, a place where we talk about the value of a Meritocracy only until someone with a popular name walks into the room and asks to be seated at the head of the table.
For comparison, here's a 1929 article from Time Magazine about the election of a certain Paul John Kvale to the House of Representatives. His father had held the same seat (Minnesota's 7th district) for the previous six years. The opening line of the article is both harsh and telling:
"Primogeniture and hereditary public office have no place in U. S. tradition."
80 years later, that's just not true anymore.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Money=Smarts?
The New York Times published this interesting graph on its business blog today, which seems to indicate there is a strong positive correlation between family income level and SAT scores:
But before we start jumping to conclusions and deciding that we have to handicap the SAT by adding points for kids from lower income households (I say that as a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me too much), maybe there is something else at work here.
Greg Mankiw calls it the "least surprising correlation of all time", and argues that the effect is not causal because there is a pretty significant omitted variable bias at work here. In this case, the omitted variable is the parent's IQ. He argues that smart parents tend to make more money, and they pass those good, smart genes (not to mention an interest in learning, no doubt) on to their kids. He also offers this fantastic tidbit:
"Suppose we were to graph average SAT scores by the number of bathrooms a student has in his or her family home. That curve would also likely slope upward. (After all, people with more money buy larger homes with more bathrooms.) But it would be a mistake to conclude that installing an extra toilet raises yours kids' SAT scores."
Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution takes the same argument and goes one step further with the statistics. He offers this graph, which charts the income of adopted versus biological children with regard to the income of their parents:
While there is a noticeable positive correlation between biological children's income and that of their parents, the correlation is non-existent for adoptees. So, it appears that genetic material plays a stronger role in children's success than simply growing up in a big, expensive house. Score one for nature over nurture here.
In general, I think it is also worth noting that the effect seems to be overstated a bit. Based on the average of the whole graph, moving up an income level equates to a 12 point rise in SAT scores (which is certainly considerable), but most of that effect is on the lower end of the scale. Once you get above a 6-figure income, the trend flattens out. The jump at the end is due to the fact that the last income category is open-ended and thus contains a much larger range of potential components, so that should be disregarded.
Using "family income level" for something like this is ultimately a flawed premise anyway. There are way too many variables in something like how much money a family makes to ever use that as a standard for measuring anything else. It doesn't have to be all about the parent's IQ either. The parent's level of education, their work ethic, and even something as simple as where they live will all impact income level.
How do we know which of these variables is at work as the reason why kids from richer households get higher SAT scores? It could be all three (plus others, I'm sure), or it could be all because they happen to live in richer areas with better schools. The point is, you can't make either of those conclusions from this kind of information.
But before we start jumping to conclusions and deciding that we have to handicap the SAT by adding points for kids from lower income households (I say that as a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me too much), maybe there is something else at work here.Greg Mankiw calls it the "least surprising correlation of all time", and argues that the effect is not causal because there is a pretty significant omitted variable bias at work here. In this case, the omitted variable is the parent's IQ. He argues that smart parents tend to make more money, and they pass those good, smart genes (not to mention an interest in learning, no doubt) on to their kids. He also offers this fantastic tidbit:
"Suppose we were to graph average SAT scores by the number of bathrooms a student has in his or her family home. That curve would also likely slope upward. (After all, people with more money buy larger homes with more bathrooms.) But it would be a mistake to conclude that installing an extra toilet raises yours kids' SAT scores."
Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution takes the same argument and goes one step further with the statistics. He offers this graph, which charts the income of adopted versus biological children with regard to the income of their parents:
While there is a noticeable positive correlation between biological children's income and that of their parents, the correlation is non-existent for adoptees. So, it appears that genetic material plays a stronger role in children's success than simply growing up in a big, expensive house. Score one for nature over nurture here.
In general, I think it is also worth noting that the effect seems to be overstated a bit. Based on the average of the whole graph, moving up an income level equates to a 12 point rise in SAT scores (which is certainly considerable), but most of that effect is on the lower end of the scale. Once you get above a 6-figure income, the trend flattens out. The jump at the end is due to the fact that the last income category is open-ended and thus contains a much larger range of potential components, so that should be disregarded.
Using "family income level" for something like this is ultimately a flawed premise anyway. There are way too many variables in something like how much money a family makes to ever use that as a standard for measuring anything else. It doesn't have to be all about the parent's IQ either. The parent's level of education, their work ethic, and even something as simple as where they live will all impact income level.
How do we know which of these variables is at work as the reason why kids from richer households get higher SAT scores? It could be all three (plus others, I'm sure), or it could be all because they happen to live in richer areas with better schools. The point is, you can't make either of those conclusions from this kind of information.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Build it and they will come
...or not.
The city of Houston recently spent $81 million on a cruise ship facility at the city's port, but they kind of forgot to line up any contracts with cruise companies before they went ahead and built it.
Meanwhile, the nearby port of Galveston is constantly busy with cruise liners, but it seems none of them are willing to change their routes to stop at Houston instead.
Wade Battles, the acting executive director of the Port of Houston, has this to say: "We're very, very confident that we're going to have a customer."
Can you imagine if the CEO of a private company said something like that? I doubt it would make anyone feel much confidence at all.
Here's the best part of the story, from Channel 2 in Houston:
Right now, port leaders say the only way cruise ships will begin to use the Bayport terminal in the near future is if another hurricane or other unforeseen event shuts down another cruise terminal that already has ships.
"Basically, in the next year, if there's not another weather event, do you see passengers here?" asked Local 2 Investigative reporter Robert Arnold.
"I do not," said Battles. "No. Not in the year 2010."
Oh, so that was their secret plan. Spend a ton of taxpayer money and then close their eyes and hope a hurricane wiped out Galveston (or another port), so cruise ships had to come to Houston instead. Sounds like a foolproof business strategy to me.
The city of Houston recently spent $81 million on a cruise ship facility at the city's port, but they kind of forgot to line up any contracts with cruise companies before they went ahead and built it.
Meanwhile, the nearby port of Galveston is constantly busy with cruise liners, but it seems none of them are willing to change their routes to stop at Houston instead.
Wade Battles, the acting executive director of the Port of Houston, has this to say: "We're very, very confident that we're going to have a customer."
Can you imagine if the CEO of a private company said something like that? I doubt it would make anyone feel much confidence at all.
Here's the best part of the story, from Channel 2 in Houston:
Right now, port leaders say the only way cruise ships will begin to use the Bayport terminal in the near future is if another hurricane or other unforeseen event shuts down another cruise terminal that already has ships.
"Basically, in the next year, if there's not another weather event, do you see passengers here?" asked Local 2 Investigative reporter Robert Arnold.
"I do not," said Battles. "No. Not in the year 2010."
Oh, so that was their secret plan. Spend a ton of taxpayer money and then close their eyes and hope a hurricane wiped out Galveston (or another port), so cruise ships had to come to Houston instead. Sounds like a foolproof business strategy to me.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Proud to be an American beer-drinker
Clay Risen, of The Atlantic, reposted an article that he wrote a few days ago for a German paper (the Berlin Tagesspiegel) defending American beer. He says that the reaction from Germans wasn't too good, but that's to be expected. I think he makes some good points.
You can also read it in the original German, if you prefer.
In general, there's not much of a contest to be had. But Risen makes at least two really good points for why American beers (at least the 5% of the market that is made up of craft beers) are as good or better than what Germany can offer. For one, America has a much wider selection of types and varieties. Most German breweries make only a light and dark variety, with perhaps one or two seasonal brews. Some of the bigger small breweries in America offer more than a dozen varieties, ranging from English pale and brown ales to Czech pilsners to German-style lagers.
And that's where the second point comes in. American breweries don't have a long tradition with a certain style of beer, so there is more innovation and new trends that are constantly evolving. While you'll never see a German brewery making a Belgian beer or an English pale ale, American craft breweries make all those without feeling like they are infringing on the national tradition.
You can also read it in the original German, if you prefer.
In general, there's not much of a contest to be had. But Risen makes at least two really good points for why American beers (at least the 5% of the market that is made up of craft beers) are as good or better than what Germany can offer. For one, America has a much wider selection of types and varieties. Most German breweries make only a light and dark variety, with perhaps one or two seasonal brews. Some of the bigger small breweries in America offer more than a dozen varieties, ranging from English pale and brown ales to Czech pilsners to German-style lagers.
And that's where the second point comes in. American breweries don't have a long tradition with a certain style of beer, so there is more innovation and new trends that are constantly evolving. While you'll never see a German brewery making a Belgian beer or an English pale ale, American craft breweries make all those without feeling like they are infringing on the national tradition.
Pseudepigraphic Trivia
I really enjoy random trivia, so I'm going to start including some of my favorites on here. For today:
Not counting the original 13, there are six states in the country that became states without first being territories (either their own territory or part of any other territory). So, which 6 states are they?
Answer coming soon.
Not counting the original 13, there are six states in the country that became states without first being territories (either their own territory or part of any other territory). So, which 6 states are they?
Answer coming soon.
Not On A Boat
In what appears to be the newest trend with teenagers (at least teenagers who love sailing and spending time alone), the record for youngest person to circumnavigate the globe has been broken again. You probably heard about Zac Sunderland, the 17 year-old American who finished his two year solo journey about a month ago (he has his own website too), but that record was broken last week by Mike Perham, another 17 year old, who sailed into port after more than 24,000 miles at sea.
Now, (as if those two don't make you feel like a total inadequate human being) Laura Dekker, a 13-year old girl in the Netherlands, is about to depart on her own round-the-world boat trip. Or, at least she was going to before the Dutch Council for Child Protection decided that the trip would be too dangerous for her, and got a Dutch district court to give them temporary custody of the would-be sailor. Earlier today, the court ruled that she is not allowed to make the journey. At least not yet.
Nevermind the fact that Dekker's parents (who are divorced) are allowing her to do it, the state obviously knows better.
I'm not saying that it's okay for 13 year-olds to go sailing by themselves around the world, and I'm not sure how I feel about any parents who would be okay with their daughter (or their son) even attempting such a trip. But, if they allow it, and the girl wants to do it, it's hardly the place of these social workers to get in the way.
Furthermore, the court's final ruling will allow Dekker to continue to live with her father, who has supported her trip all along. So, if he's putting these "dangerous ideas" in his daughter's head, why not go ahead and take her away from him? Apparently, the court can't decide whether it knows what is best for young Dekker or not.
Brian Doherty at Reason Magazine says the whole thing reminds him of Cheryl Taggert's choice (and it's been several weeks since the last reference to Atlas Shrugged on here, so I thought I was due).
Now, (as if those two don't make you feel like a total inadequate human being) Laura Dekker, a 13-year old girl in the Netherlands, is about to depart on her own round-the-world boat trip. Or, at least she was going to before the Dutch Council for Child Protection decided that the trip would be too dangerous for her, and got a Dutch district court to give them temporary custody of the would-be sailor. Earlier today, the court ruled that she is not allowed to make the journey. At least not yet.
Nevermind the fact that Dekker's parents (who are divorced) are allowing her to do it, the state obviously knows better.
I'm not saying that it's okay for 13 year-olds to go sailing by themselves around the world, and I'm not sure how I feel about any parents who would be okay with their daughter (or their son) even attempting such a trip. But, if they allow it, and the girl wants to do it, it's hardly the place of these social workers to get in the way.
Furthermore, the court's final ruling will allow Dekker to continue to live with her father, who has supported her trip all along. So, if he's putting these "dangerous ideas" in his daughter's head, why not go ahead and take her away from him? Apparently, the court can't decide whether it knows what is best for young Dekker or not.
Brian Doherty at Reason Magazine says the whole thing reminds him of Cheryl Taggert's choice (and it's been several weeks since the last reference to Atlas Shrugged on here, so I thought I was due).
Friday, August 28, 2009
Cracker Jack
Tonight, while attending a minor league baseball game (Reading lost to Erie, 9-6, in 13 innings) with my father, I was struck by an interesting thought. Does anyone actually buy and consume Cracker Jack anymore? Or do vendors at baseball stadiums continue to sell it only because there's no other food that will fit the cadence and rhyme scheme of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"?
Of course, within ten seconds of asking this aloud, my dad pointed to the girl a few seats down our row who was happily chowing down on the caramel/peanut/popcorn mixture. Okay, so apparently people do still eat Cracker Jack on occasion, but that led me to a more interesting question:
Does anyone eat Cracker Jack when NOT attending a live baseball game?
Come to think of it, I'm not even sure where I would buy Cracker Jack if I wasn't in a baseball stadium. Do they sell it in supermarkets? In candy stores? I would love to know the percentage of Cracker Jack's annual sales that go to baseball stadiums. Is it 90%? 95%? Is there any other product in the world with a smaller niche market?
Updates on the investigation will be forthcoming.
Of course, within ten seconds of asking this aloud, my dad pointed to the girl a few seats down our row who was happily chowing down on the caramel/peanut/popcorn mixture. Okay, so apparently people do still eat Cracker Jack on occasion, but that led me to a more interesting question:
Does anyone eat Cracker Jack when NOT attending a live baseball game?
Come to think of it, I'm not even sure where I would buy Cracker Jack if I wasn't in a baseball stadium. Do they sell it in supermarkets? In candy stores? I would love to know the percentage of Cracker Jack's annual sales that go to baseball stadiums. Is it 90%? 95%? Is there any other product in the world with a smaller niche market?
Updates on the investigation will be forthcoming.
My favorite Fareed Zakaria quote, ever
"Capitalism has its problems, as we have all seen, but at least we aren't running out of toilet paper" - Fareed Zakaria
Perhaps a little context will help?
Cuba is experiencing a shortage of toilet paper. Supplies are so low, reports the Miami Herald, that a pack of four rolls of toilet paper sells for about 28 pesos in Havana, which is equal to two days' salary for the average Cuban. In a month, that same average Cuban will make the equivalent of only $20.
Zakaria says that the extreme poverty in Cuba is the result of the Cuban government's "continuing commitment to its bizarro world of socialist economics".
So what are the people of Cuba using to wipe with? Old newspapers and magazines, which are being resold for less than a penny each. Apparently the imported Chinese and North Korean newspapers are the favorite substitutes, because they use softer paper.
Ouch. Next time I'm sitting on the can, I won't be taking that nice, soft, double-ply roll of tissue for granted. Thanks, capitalism!
Perhaps a little context will help?
Cuba is experiencing a shortage of toilet paper. Supplies are so low, reports the Miami Herald, that a pack of four rolls of toilet paper sells for about 28 pesos in Havana, which is equal to two days' salary for the average Cuban. In a month, that same average Cuban will make the equivalent of only $20.
Zakaria says that the extreme poverty in Cuba is the result of the Cuban government's "continuing commitment to its bizarro world of socialist economics".
So what are the people of Cuba using to wipe with? Old newspapers and magazines, which are being resold for less than a penny each. Apparently the imported Chinese and North Korean newspapers are the favorite substitutes, because they use softer paper.
Ouch. Next time I'm sitting on the can, I won't be taking that nice, soft, double-ply roll of tissue for granted. Thanks, capitalism!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Final Tally on "Clunkers"
"Cash for Clunkers" officially ended on Monday evening, so what did Americans buy with nearly $3 billion? Lots of foreign cars.
Here's the final numbers on the program, which cost a total of $2.9 billion (so how long will it be before a political is tauting that it came in "under budget", despite the fact that it actually cost 300% what the initial budget was?), courtesy of the Washington Post. The most interesting thing is that the top 10 models traded in as "clunkers" are all American-made cars, while only two of the top ten models purchased through the program were born in the USA. Those two? The Ford Focus (#4) and the Ford Escape (#10).
Toyota made out the best from the program, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the market during August (compared to just 17 percent from January to July of this year), while Honda saw their market share bump up from 11 percent to 13 percent.
As for gas mileage, the average car traded in got only 15.8 miles per gallon, while the average car purchased gets 24.9 miles per gallon. Even when you consider the fact that new cars always get better mileage (even if they are the exact same model), that increase is higher than I expected.
So if the program was intended to get gas guzzlers off the road (at least a fraction of them), and create insta-demand in the new car market, label this one a success.
However, if you want to look at this in any deeper, more meaningful, and analytic way.....not so fast. Already the car dealerships are concerned about the negative impact there will be on new car sales over the winter and into next year. Not to mention the impact that destroying all those cars will have on the used car market, which is going to see a significant drop in supply.
So 'Cash for Clunkers' might have helped the environment by the tiniest of tiny bits, and temporarily stimulated one sector of the economy, but it may have done so at the expense of both future supply and future demand.
I think Jeremy Anwyl of Edmunds.com, a automotive research group, sums it up well in the Washington Post:
"'Cash for Clunkers' created a nice little blip," he said. "We'll look back and say, 'Nice party, but the hangover is awful.' "
Here's the final numbers on the program, which cost a total of $2.9 billion (so how long will it be before a political is tauting that it came in "under budget", despite the fact that it actually cost 300% what the initial budget was?), courtesy of the Washington Post. The most interesting thing is that the top 10 models traded in as "clunkers" are all American-made cars, while only two of the top ten models purchased through the program were born in the USA. Those two? The Ford Focus (#4) and the Ford Escape (#10).
Toyota made out the best from the program, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the market during August (compared to just 17 percent from January to July of this year), while Honda saw their market share bump up from 11 percent to 13 percent.
As for gas mileage, the average car traded in got only 15.8 miles per gallon, while the average car purchased gets 24.9 miles per gallon. Even when you consider the fact that new cars always get better mileage (even if they are the exact same model), that increase is higher than I expected.
So if the program was intended to get gas guzzlers off the road (at least a fraction of them), and create insta-demand in the new car market, label this one a success.
However, if you want to look at this in any deeper, more meaningful, and analytic way.....not so fast. Already the car dealerships are concerned about the negative impact there will be on new car sales over the winter and into next year. Not to mention the impact that destroying all those cars will have on the used car market, which is going to see a significant drop in supply.
So 'Cash for Clunkers' might have helped the environment by the tiniest of tiny bits, and temporarily stimulated one sector of the economy, but it may have done so at the expense of both future supply and future demand.
I think Jeremy Anwyl of Edmunds.com, a automotive research group, sums it up well in the Washington Post:
"'Cash for Clunkers' created a nice little blip," he said. "We'll look back and say, 'Nice party, but the hangover is awful.' "
Men Everywhere Panic
The price of beer and steak are both going up.
Of course, if Anheuser-Busch and Miller are going to raise prices, it might just make more people switch over to drinking "good beer" from microbreweries and overseas. So it's not all bad news.
Of course, if Anheuser-Busch and Miller are going to raise prices, it might just make more people switch over to drinking "good beer" from microbreweries and overseas. So it's not all bad news.
What About Chappaquiddick??
I'm convinced that the death of Ted Kennedy is more of a cultural event than a political one.
As the last link to the "Camelot" days of the 1960s, his death means a great deal more to people (at least people from my parent's generation) for that symbolism than for anything he has accomplished politically. In a way, that makes him a lot like his brothers John and Robert. Neither of them were responsible for anything spectacular during their political careers (unless you count JFK's spectacular failure with Bay of Pigs....or that time he almost started a nuclear war and then managed to avoid it at the last possible second....). Still, I can acknowledge that the Kennedy's meant something important to America nearly fifty years ago.
And so, as with the passing of any great cultural symbol, I can understand and accept a certain level of grandiose tributes and laudatory epitaphs. However, in the coverage of his death that I have watched (admittedly in limited amounts) today, I have noticed an odd occurrence: there has been practically no mention of Mary Jo Kopechne, the woman who died when Kennedy drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.
Kopechne's death turned into a major controversy in the months that followed, and it is certainly one of the first things that many people think of when they head the name Ted Kennedy.
The event was significant politically too; it likely cost Kennedy the Presidential nomination in 1972. He later ran for President in 1980, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the primaries.
It's not that surprising to see the cable news happily glossing over that moment in the life of one of their heroes (since most people reporting the news today are both liberal and grew up during the 1960s, I suppose this is to be expected), but I was curious to see what kind of attention the New York Times gave to the "Chappaquiddick incident".
Here's "all the news fit to print" on the issue:
"For much of his adult life, he veered from victory to catastrophe, winning every Senate election he entered but failing in his only try for the presidency; living through the sudden deaths of his brothers and three of his nephews; being responsible for the drowning death on Chappaquiddick Island of a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, a former aide to his brother Robert." (bolding mine)
Yes, they dedicated an entire clause to one of the defining events in Senator Kennedy's life. Apparently, it did not even deserve a full sentence of its own. And that clause was more than two-thirds of the way down the first page of the obituary. That would be like writing an obituary for Bill Clinton and only mentioning Monica Lewinsky once, in a clause buried at the bottom of the page.
As the last link to the "Camelot" days of the 1960s, his death means a great deal more to people (at least people from my parent's generation) for that symbolism than for anything he has accomplished politically. In a way, that makes him a lot like his brothers John and Robert. Neither of them were responsible for anything spectacular during their political careers (unless you count JFK's spectacular failure with Bay of Pigs....or that time he almost started a nuclear war and then managed to avoid it at the last possible second....). Still, I can acknowledge that the Kennedy's meant something important to America nearly fifty years ago.
And so, as with the passing of any great cultural symbol, I can understand and accept a certain level of grandiose tributes and laudatory epitaphs. However, in the coverage of his death that I have watched (admittedly in limited amounts) today, I have noticed an odd occurrence: there has been practically no mention of Mary Jo Kopechne, the woman who died when Kennedy drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.
Kopechne's death turned into a major controversy in the months that followed, and it is certainly one of the first things that many people think of when they head the name Ted Kennedy.
The event was significant politically too; it likely cost Kennedy the Presidential nomination in 1972. He later ran for President in 1980, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the primaries.
It's not that surprising to see the cable news happily glossing over that moment in the life of one of their heroes (since most people reporting the news today are both liberal and grew up during the 1960s, I suppose this is to be expected), but I was curious to see what kind of attention the New York Times gave to the "Chappaquiddick incident".
Here's "all the news fit to print" on the issue:
"For much of his adult life, he veered from victory to catastrophe, winning every Senate election he entered but failing in his only try for the presidency; living through the sudden deaths of his brothers and three of his nephews; being responsible for the drowning death on Chappaquiddick Island of a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, a former aide to his brother Robert." (bolding mine)
Yes, they dedicated an entire clause to one of the defining events in Senator Kennedy's life. Apparently, it did not even deserve a full sentence of its own. And that clause was more than two-thirds of the way down the first page of the obituary. That would be like writing an obituary for Bill Clinton and only mentioning Monica Lewinsky once, in a clause buried at the bottom of the page.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
iPhones don't like French people.
Yahoo! reports that as many as ten French consumers have reported "exploding" iPhones within the past month. A few have even suffered eye injuries as the glass screens have shattered and the devices have burst into flames.
Apple is of course claiming that these are isolated incidents, but that didn't stop the European Commission from launching an investigation. All 27 EU members have been asked to report similar incident using the RAPEX system (it's a consumer alert system used for dangerous products, but it really should be the name of a brand of liquid mace).
Then again, when Apple has sold more than 1.2 million iPhones around the world, it's probably not a big deal if a handful of them turn out to contain miniature bombs in the form of lithium batteries.
Apple is of course claiming that these are isolated incidents, but that didn't stop the European Commission from launching an investigation. All 27 EU members have been asked to report similar incident using the RAPEX system (it's a consumer alert system used for dangerous products, but it really should be the name of a brand of liquid mace).
Then again, when Apple has sold more than 1.2 million iPhones around the world, it's probably not a big deal if a handful of them turn out to contain miniature bombs in the form of lithium batteries.
Two crazy (and unrelated) things from other blogs
Neither of these things really deserve the attention I'm giving them, but oh well.
First, if you really, really, really hate junk mail, here's a creative idea for how to deal with it. It involves attaching the Business Reply Mail envelop to a heavy object (say, a textbook, or a brick in a box) and then mailing it back to the original sender. Business Reply Mail costs 25 cents an ounce, so you can cost them a pretty hefty amount if you do this on a regular basis.
Then again, I'm not sure if anyone hates junk mail enough to be motivated to do that more than once or twice. Isn't it a lot easier just to throw it out? Thanks to RottingNation for bringing that to my attention.
Second, courtesy of Megan McArdle, apparently there is a Balloon Council. Yes, that's right, a lobby with the stated purpose of "affirming America's ongoing love affair with balloons". Really? I wonder what kind of influence they have. I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty tempted to call their toll-free hotline.
First, if you really, really, really hate junk mail, here's a creative idea for how to deal with it. It involves attaching the Business Reply Mail envelop to a heavy object (say, a textbook, or a brick in a box) and then mailing it back to the original sender. Business Reply Mail costs 25 cents an ounce, so you can cost them a pretty hefty amount if you do this on a regular basis.
Then again, I'm not sure if anyone hates junk mail enough to be motivated to do that more than once or twice. Isn't it a lot easier just to throw it out? Thanks to RottingNation for bringing that to my attention.
Second, courtesy of Megan McArdle, apparently there is a Balloon Council. Yes, that's right, a lobby with the stated purpose of "affirming America's ongoing love affair with balloons". Really? I wonder what kind of influence they have. I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty tempted to call their toll-free hotline.
Former Stag Hired at Arizona
Luke Murray, a 2007 graduate of Fairfield University (the proud alma mater of yours truly) has been hired as an assistant basketball coach by the University of Arizona.
The hiring strikes me as a little odd, since Murray didn't play basketball at Fairfield, at least not to my knowledge. At least he does have coaching experience with a Division II school and at Quinnipiac College. Eamon Brennan at Yahoo! Sports writes:
"What does Murray bring to a basketball program? I have no idea. Presumably, neither does he; he only graduated college in 2007 and is still a G.A., meaning he'll be doing quite a bit of quiet learning -- preparing tape, taking notes, keeping the clipboard handy, that sort of thing -- for at least a few more years. But he'll be interesting to watch."
So why is Yahoo! Sports interested in a new assistant coach at Arizona? Well, as other Stags should know, Luke Murray has another claim to fame (besides having gone to Fairfield, that is), because he is also the son of Bill Murray. Yes, that Bill Murray.
**Cross-posted at We Are The Hecklers**
The hiring strikes me as a little odd, since Murray didn't play basketball at Fairfield, at least not to my knowledge. At least he does have coaching experience with a Division II school and at Quinnipiac College. Eamon Brennan at Yahoo! Sports writes:
"What does Murray bring to a basketball program? I have no idea. Presumably, neither does he; he only graduated college in 2007 and is still a G.A., meaning he'll be doing quite a bit of quiet learning -- preparing tape, taking notes, keeping the clipboard handy, that sort of thing -- for at least a few more years. But he'll be interesting to watch."
So why is Yahoo! Sports interested in a new assistant coach at Arizona? Well, as other Stags should know, Luke Murray has another claim to fame (besides having gone to Fairfield, that is), because he is also the son of Bill Murray. Yes, that Bill Murray.
**Cross-posted at We Are The Hecklers**
Monday, August 24, 2009
Security cameras work....just not very often or very well
The BBC reports that it takes 1,000 cameras to solve just a single crime. Is it worth it? England apparently thinks so, because they have spent the last few years literally saturating their cities with cameras, at the cost of more than 500 million pounds.
An MP from the shadow government (translation - a representative from the opposition party) says that it's time to re-think the way the government spends it's security money because of the "massive expenses and minimal effectiveness". I mean, if you spent that kind of money and only caught eight out of 269 robbers, you wouldn't be thrilled either.
Of course, there's always the counter argument, offered by a member of the Home Office (translation - an employee of the Department of Justice....or maybe Homeland Security....well, it's somewhere between those two), who said the cameras "help communities feel safer."
Oh. Well in that case I guess you can go ahead and do whatever you want.
Of course, I do have to say that in public places, I don't have any real problem with security cameras. Philosophically, its no different from having a cop stand on every corner. But since security cameras are the cheaper option, cities tend to use them instead. Then again, being cheaper does not mean it's a good use of money. In this case it's clearly not.
An MP from the shadow government (translation - a representative from the opposition party) says that it's time to re-think the way the government spends it's security money because of the "massive expenses and minimal effectiveness". I mean, if you spent that kind of money and only caught eight out of 269 robbers, you wouldn't be thrilled either.
Of course, there's always the counter argument, offered by a member of the Home Office (translation - an employee of the Department of Justice....or maybe Homeland Security....well, it's somewhere between those two), who said the cameras "help communities feel safer."
Oh. Well in that case I guess you can go ahead and do whatever you want.
Of course, I do have to say that in public places, I don't have any real problem with security cameras. Philosophically, its no different from having a cop stand on every corner. But since security cameras are the cheaper option, cities tend to use them instead. Then again, being cheaper does not mean it's a good use of money. In this case it's clearly not.
Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, or neither
I've touched on the whole bring-your-guns-to-the-town-hall-meetings phenomena before, but things continue to spiral a little out of control. It seems the craziest people are not the ones at the meetings with the guns, but the members of the media who continue to be completely appalled by these actions. Of course, they are mostly ignoring the fact that there has yet to be a violent incident involving one of these gun-toting citizens.
Last week, Megan McArdle did a great job exposing some of the loonies. Her recent post is here.
Apparently, not even the esteemed New York Times columnist Frank Rich can avoid jumping on the crazy train. He compares the current state of "violence" with the violet threats made against Kennedy by right-leaning radicals who feared he was the sign of a new liberal order in the 1960s:
"As the sociologist Daniel Bell put it, “What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
Bell’s analysis appeared in his essay “The Dispossessed,” published in 1962, between John Kennedy’s election and assassination. J.F.K., no more a leftist than Obama, was the first Roman Catholic in the White House and the tribune of a new liberal order. Bell could have also written his diagnosis in 1992, between Bill Clinton’s election and the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton, like Kennedy and Obama, brought liberals back into power after a conservative reign and represented a generational turnover that stoked the fears of the dispossessed."
Of course, he fails to note that most of the violence in the 1960s (including, most importantly, the ACTUAL ASSASSINATION of a U.S. President) was perpetrated by leftists. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and a Castro sympathizer, not a conservative nut-job.
Of course there are plenty of dangerous extremists on the right as well, but Frank's attempt to compare these protesters (who are entirely within their rights and have not done any actual violence to anyone with their firearms) to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (one of those previously mentioned dangerous extremists) is more than a little bit of a stretch.
In fact, the only real link he can establish is that McVeigh once wore a T-shirt that proclaimed Jefferson's quote about the "Tree of Liberty" being refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots (a quote that has become popular with some health reform protesters). Obviously, this is a fool proof method of proving that these legal gun carriers have the same motives as the man who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City.
Last week, Megan McArdle did a great job exposing some of the loonies. Her recent post is here.
Apparently, not even the esteemed New York Times columnist Frank Rich can avoid jumping on the crazy train. He compares the current state of "violence" with the violet threats made against Kennedy by right-leaning radicals who feared he was the sign of a new liberal order in the 1960s:
"As the sociologist Daniel Bell put it, “What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
Bell’s analysis appeared in his essay “The Dispossessed,” published in 1962, between John Kennedy’s election and assassination. J.F.K., no more a leftist than Obama, was the first Roman Catholic in the White House and the tribune of a new liberal order. Bell could have also written his diagnosis in 1992, between Bill Clinton’s election and the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton, like Kennedy and Obama, brought liberals back into power after a conservative reign and represented a generational turnover that stoked the fears of the dispossessed."
Of course, he fails to note that most of the violence in the 1960s (including, most importantly, the ACTUAL ASSASSINATION of a U.S. President) was perpetrated by leftists. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and a Castro sympathizer, not a conservative nut-job.
Of course there are plenty of dangerous extremists on the right as well, but Frank's attempt to compare these protesters (who are entirely within their rights and have not done any actual violence to anyone with their firearms) to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (one of those previously mentioned dangerous extremists) is more than a little bit of a stretch.
In fact, the only real link he can establish is that McVeigh once wore a T-shirt that proclaimed Jefferson's quote about the "Tree of Liberty" being refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots (a quote that has become popular with some health reform protesters). Obviously, this is a fool proof method of proving that these legal gun carriers have the same motives as the man who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City.
Does this really affect anyone's life?
People remain seriously upset about the fact that Pluto is no longer a planet, and its not just the people who join these kinds of meaningless Facebook groups. The Illinois Senate actually passed a resolution that awarded "full planetary status" to Pluto during the part of the year when it is visible in the state's sky.
Now, I'm not exactly sure why it was so important for the IAU to downgrade Pluto from "planet" to "dwarf planet" a few years ago, but since it's pretty much their job to take care of the scientific classification of celestial bodies, I figured they knew what they were doing. I'm really confused by the Illinois Senate's actions though, because even if I know nothing about Illinois state politics, I bet there is something more important for them to be doing.
Or maybe it's a step in the right direction for a state that is known as being one of the most politically corrupt in the country. Pointless legislation is at least better than corrupt legislation, right?
As for the people who join these "Plutophile" clubs and put stickers on their car or sign online petitions or whatever, I have this to say:
It's a tiny little piece of frozen rock. That's all it is. It has no idea that you love it or think it should be a planet. Even if it was able to think and have feelings (which it does not, because it is a tiny, frozen rock), it probably would not care whether Earthlings called it a planet or a dwarf planet or anything else. On a list of interesting stuff in outer space, Pluto would be pretty much right at the bottom. Let it go.
Now, I'm not exactly sure why it was so important for the IAU to downgrade Pluto from "planet" to "dwarf planet" a few years ago, but since it's pretty much their job to take care of the scientific classification of celestial bodies, I figured they knew what they were doing. I'm really confused by the Illinois Senate's actions though, because even if I know nothing about Illinois state politics, I bet there is something more important for them to be doing.
Or maybe it's a step in the right direction for a state that is known as being one of the most politically corrupt in the country. Pointless legislation is at least better than corrupt legislation, right?
As for the people who join these "Plutophile" clubs and put stickers on their car or sign online petitions or whatever, I have this to say:
It's a tiny little piece of frozen rock. That's all it is. It has no idea that you love it or think it should be a planet. Even if it was able to think and have feelings (which it does not, because it is a tiny, frozen rock), it probably would not care whether Earthlings called it a planet or a dwarf planet or anything else. On a list of interesting stuff in outer space, Pluto would be pretty much right at the bottom. Let it go.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
My review of "Ursa Major"
Ok, I promise this is the last post about Thrd Eye Blind for a while. Seriously. I promise.
Plenty of bands can do good songs about lost love. Plenty of bands can sing well about unrequited love. But I wonder if anyone can do songs about fleeting love - the kind that seems perfect if only for the briefest of moments - as well as Third Eye Blind.
Fans of the band are well-aware of that kind of sentiment. It seems like all 3EB's best songs are about a moment, now past, where everything was perfect. This kind of love is always impossible to hold on to (and frequently Jenkin's lyrics express sadness at being unable to get back to how it used to be), yet also impossible to forget
For their fourth studio album, Third Eye Blind goes right back to what works best for them, right from the opening lines of the first track ("All I want right now is the time when we slept on the floor"), the extremely-catchy "Can You Take Me". The theme continues through the entire album, and whether all the songs are directed towards the same person (like on "Out of the Vein") or a series of crushes and singular moments, it doesn't really matter.
The feeling is most powerfully expressed in "Bonfire", which tells of a one night chance encounter between two people while sitting around (surprise, surprise) a bonfire and getting high. Jenkins wonders about the possibilities this could hold for the future ("we could live like kings, if we take a risk, or we could live in doubt"), but things don't seem to work out in the end. Even after the night ends, Jenkins says he will "keep burning on and on", for the love that might have been. The twangy guitar in the beginning does a great job of setting the scene and the whistling at the end is both sad and haunting. It's my favorite song on the album, but there is plenty of competition.
The next track, "A Sharp Knife", is the most bitter song on the album, but also contains some of the best lyrics. Jenkins sings at the end of the second verse: "I think there's a reason, at least there's a sign. And all that we call chaos, I'll say it's by design, but I'm just lying". The guitar work throughout the song does an excellent job of contrasting the introspection during the verses and the obvious anger in the chorus.
The end of the album is noticeably quieter and more introspective than the first few songs -- going back to the tradition they established on their first two albums. While the conclusion of this album might not quite stack up to the final four tracks on their self-titled debut ("I Want You", "The Background", "Motorcycle Drive-by", and "God of Wine"), the trifecta of "Water Landing", "The Dao of Saint Paul", and "Monotov's Private Opera" comes pretty close. The first of those three is about the last moments before a plane crashes, as a metaphor for the uselessness of "chasing after you". There's three very distinct parts of the song -- all quite different from one another -- but the music and lyrics in all three parts are fantastic, and the end of the song will get stuck in your head for sure. Both "Saint Paul" and "Monotov" lack a real defining moment that you won't be able to forget, but they are very well done even if it takes a few listens to really get into them.
I do have a few minor complaints though. The band said numerous times that this album was going to be more political than their previous releases, and they certainly did follow through. While "Don't Believe A Word" was written as an attack on the last President ("I hate you and your cowboy boots" are among the many anti-Bush references in the song), its about eight months too late for that. Still, it's a catchy tune, but the lyrics sound kind of forced at times, which is not good for a band that has found a way to make all kinds of odd lines fit smoothly. Also, it shouldn't have been the first single; that honor should have gone to either "Summer Town" or "Can You Take Me". Third Eye Blind should probably stop trying to write protest songs, because the other overtly political song on the album is "About to Break", which is easily the most ignorable track.
Some other random thoughts:
- "Summer Town" is the obvious heir to the well known "Semi-Charmed Life" and "Never Let You Go", with the mix of fun lyrics about a summer house at the beach and the hook-driven sound. Jenkins busts out his unique combo of rock and rap on the track as well; he references the "5 5 5 deal", M.I.A ("wanna be a hustla...make a paper plane and fly away"), and Nabokov (one of the "dead Russian authors" from "Narcolepsy", perhaps?), all while chasing after "the JAP in the little sundress".
- "Why Can't You Be" is another track that cuts right back to the roots of the band, as it is clearly born from the same loins as "How's it Gonna Be" and "Deep Inside of You". In fact, the connection is so strong that I would swear you can hear the guitar in the background playing a couple of cords from "Deep Inside" near the end of the song.
- The the first verse and chorus of "The Dao of Saint Paul" sound almost exactly like a Vanessa Carlton song I like ("Come Undone"), but since she and Jenkins dated for a while (and he helped produce her last album), I wonder if that's not an accident.
- All in all, the album leaves you feeling a little sad, but I think that's how it is meant to be. It does end on a hopeful note, as the end of "Montov's Private Opera" -- with the subtle piano and the choir singing -- seems to be a peaceful resolution to the clash of desire and frustration that carries the majority of the songs.
Plenty of bands can do good songs about lost love. Plenty of bands can sing well about unrequited love. But I wonder if anyone can do songs about fleeting love - the kind that seems perfect if only for the briefest of moments - as well as Third Eye Blind.
Fans of the band are well-aware of that kind of sentiment. It seems like all 3EB's best songs are about a moment, now past, where everything was perfect. This kind of love is always impossible to hold on to (and frequently Jenkin's lyrics express sadness at being unable to get back to how it used to be), yet also impossible to forget
For their fourth studio album, Third Eye Blind goes right back to what works best for them, right from the opening lines of the first track ("All I want right now is the time when we slept on the floor"), the extremely-catchy "Can You Take Me". The theme continues through the entire album, and whether all the songs are directed towards the same person (like on "Out of the Vein") or a series of crushes and singular moments, it doesn't really matter.
The feeling is most powerfully expressed in "Bonfire", which tells of a one night chance encounter between two people while sitting around (surprise, surprise) a bonfire and getting high. Jenkins wonders about the possibilities this could hold for the future ("we could live like kings, if we take a risk, or we could live in doubt"), but things don't seem to work out in the end. Even after the night ends, Jenkins says he will "keep burning on and on", for the love that might have been. The twangy guitar in the beginning does a great job of setting the scene and the whistling at the end is both sad and haunting. It's my favorite song on the album, but there is plenty of competition.
The next track, "A Sharp Knife", is the most bitter song on the album, but also contains some of the best lyrics. Jenkins sings at the end of the second verse: "I think there's a reason, at least there's a sign. And all that we call chaos, I'll say it's by design, but I'm just lying". The guitar work throughout the song does an excellent job of contrasting the introspection during the verses and the obvious anger in the chorus.
The end of the album is noticeably quieter and more introspective than the first few songs -- going back to the tradition they established on their first two albums. While the conclusion of this album might not quite stack up to the final four tracks on their self-titled debut ("I Want You", "The Background", "Motorcycle Drive-by", and "God of Wine"), the trifecta of "Water Landing", "The Dao of Saint Paul", and "Monotov's Private Opera" comes pretty close. The first of those three is about the last moments before a plane crashes, as a metaphor for the uselessness of "chasing after you". There's three very distinct parts of the song -- all quite different from one another -- but the music and lyrics in all three parts are fantastic, and the end of the song will get stuck in your head for sure. Both "Saint Paul" and "Monotov" lack a real defining moment that you won't be able to forget, but they are very well done even if it takes a few listens to really get into them.
I do have a few minor complaints though. The band said numerous times that this album was going to be more political than their previous releases, and they certainly did follow through. While "Don't Believe A Word" was written as an attack on the last President ("I hate you and your cowboy boots" are among the many anti-Bush references in the song), its about eight months too late for that. Still, it's a catchy tune, but the lyrics sound kind of forced at times, which is not good for a band that has found a way to make all kinds of odd lines fit smoothly. Also, it shouldn't have been the first single; that honor should have gone to either "Summer Town" or "Can You Take Me". Third Eye Blind should probably stop trying to write protest songs, because the other overtly political song on the album is "About to Break", which is easily the most ignorable track.
Some other random thoughts:
- "Summer Town" is the obvious heir to the well known "Semi-Charmed Life" and "Never Let You Go", with the mix of fun lyrics about a summer house at the beach and the hook-driven sound. Jenkins busts out his unique combo of rock and rap on the track as well; he references the "5 5 5 deal", M.I.A ("wanna be a hustla...make a paper plane and fly away"), and Nabokov (one of the "dead Russian authors" from "Narcolepsy", perhaps?), all while chasing after "the JAP in the little sundress".
- "Why Can't You Be" is another track that cuts right back to the roots of the band, as it is clearly born from the same loins as "How's it Gonna Be" and "Deep Inside of You". In fact, the connection is so strong that I would swear you can hear the guitar in the background playing a couple of cords from "Deep Inside" near the end of the song.
- The the first verse and chorus of "The Dao of Saint Paul" sound almost exactly like a Vanessa Carlton song I like ("Come Undone"), but since she and Jenkins dated for a while (and he helped produce her last album), I wonder if that's not an accident.
- All in all, the album leaves you feeling a little sad, but I think that's how it is meant to be. It does end on a hopeful note, as the end of "Montov's Private Opera" -- with the subtle piano and the choir singing -- seems to be a peaceful resolution to the clash of desire and frustration that carries the majority of the songs.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Away for a few days
There may not be much activity on here for the next few days, as I will be spending some time visiting my grandmother in Baltimore. Unfortunately, she is not yet living in the Internet age, so my access will be limited to if/when I can steal a wireless signal from one of her neighbors.
I'm sure there will be plenty to write about by the time I get back (including yet another reason to hate New York City, and a review of "Ursa Major"), so stay tuned.
I'm sure there will be plenty to write about by the time I get back (including yet another reason to hate New York City, and a review of "Ursa Major"), so stay tuned.
Small Government in Strange Places
The new director of FEMA, a federal administration that has been the most public emblem of big government failure in the past decade, is shifting the emphasis in American disaster relief. Going against the trend, Craig Fugate believes that disaster relief and preparation has to be done on a local (and even, gasp, a personal) level. Here's the take of Amanda Ripley at The Atlantic:
“We need to change behavior in this country,” he told about 400 emergency-management instructors at a conference in June, lambasting the “government-centric” approach to disasters. He learned a perverse lesson in Florida: the more the federal government does in routine emergencies, the greater the odds of catastrophic failure in a big disaster. “It’s like a Chinese finger trap,” he told me last spring, as a hailstorm fittingly raged outside his office. If the feds do more, the public, along with state and local officials, do less. They come to expect ice and water in 24 hours and full reimbursement for sodden carpets. But as part of a federal system, FEMA is designed to defer to state and local officials. If another Katrina hits, and the locals are overwhelmed, a full-strength federal response will inevitably take time. People who need help the most—the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—may not get it fast enough.
To avoid “system collapse,” as he puts it, Fugate insists that the government must draft the public. “We tend to look at the public as a liability. [But] who is going to be the fastest responder when your house falls on your head? Your neighbor.” A few years ago, Fugate dropped the word victim from his vocabulary. “You’re not going to hear me refer to people as victims unless we’ve lost ’em. I call them survivors.” He criticizes the media for “celebrating” people who choose not to evacuate and then have to be rescued on live TV—while ignoring all the people who were prepared. “This is a tragedy, this whole Shakespearean circle we’re in. You never hear the media say, ‘Hey, you’re putting this rescue worker in danger.’"
Read the rest of the article here. If a few more competent and rational people like Fugate (who got the position not because he was politically connected, but because he was actually qualified for the job) get appointed to top positions, there might still be hope for checking the growth of big government.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Mutts For Dinner?
In keeping with the "Family Guy" theme from earlier today, I'll offer this: As mean as Stewie has been to Brian, at least he never cooked him up and tried to serve him for dinner.
But a family in New Zealand was less gracious to their family pet, which apparently they bar-b-qued and consumed. The poor staffordshire bull terrier named "Ripper" was the victim of what the family says is a perfectly natural menu in their home land of Tonga.
Now, animal rights activists in New Zealand want the government to pass a law to prevent such non-pet-friendly BBQs from taking place.
The legal logistics of laws that protect the lives and welfare of animals are always a little bit tricky, and this is no exception. As a dog lover, I am absolutely horrified that anyone would be willing to kill and eat their family pet, but as a libertarian I don't see any good reason for a law that makes it illegal to do so. I'm not sure that such a law would even accomplish very much.
Then again, if Michael Vick goes to jail for torturing and killing dogs in illegal dog fights, then shouldn't laws protect dogs from being killed for this purpose as well? I know, its not the same country, but assuming that laws protecting animals' lives are based in some kind of universal justice (as all law should be), then it doesn't matter where it happens. On the flip side, if we are going to protect dogs from this kind of behavior (Vick's or hungry Tongans'), why does the same level of protection not extend to other animals? We have no problem killing and eating chickens or cows or deer, but somehow it's different when it comes to "man's best friend".
You could argue that the intent is the key when dealing with animal crimes. Vick clearly intended to kill those dogs for sport or because they weren't good fighters, but a cow that is raised in order to be slaughtered and sold to make hamburgers is killed with the intention of providing food for people. If that's your standard of judgement, then people who kill their pets for food are not doing anything wrong, per say. But this explanation does not make it okay to go hunting for sport, only for food. Yet, we as a society have no problem with hunting for sport (within limits) on a legal level. So there isn't a whole lot of consistency when it comes to which animals and activities are protected versus those that are not.
Law should never be as subjective as this, but when it comes to animals it seems like it always is. I don't think that's a good thing, but (like Jules in Pulp Fiction) we as a society seem to place animals with "personality" (dogs, cats, etc.) on a higher plane than others (pigs, deer, etc.). Whether its just or not, the former group gets decidedly more legal protection than the latter.
Thoughts?
But a family in New Zealand was less gracious to their family pet, which apparently they bar-b-qued and consumed. The poor staffordshire bull terrier named "Ripper" was the victim of what the family says is a perfectly natural menu in their home land of Tonga.
Now, animal rights activists in New Zealand want the government to pass a law to prevent such non-pet-friendly BBQs from taking place.
The legal logistics of laws that protect the lives and welfare of animals are always a little bit tricky, and this is no exception. As a dog lover, I am absolutely horrified that anyone would be willing to kill and eat their family pet, but as a libertarian I don't see any good reason for a law that makes it illegal to do so. I'm not sure that such a law would even accomplish very much.
Then again, if Michael Vick goes to jail for torturing and killing dogs in illegal dog fights, then shouldn't laws protect dogs from being killed for this purpose as well? I know, its not the same country, but assuming that laws protecting animals' lives are based in some kind of universal justice (as all law should be), then it doesn't matter where it happens. On the flip side, if we are going to protect dogs from this kind of behavior (Vick's or hungry Tongans'), why does the same level of protection not extend to other animals? We have no problem killing and eating chickens or cows or deer, but somehow it's different when it comes to "man's best friend".
You could argue that the intent is the key when dealing with animal crimes. Vick clearly intended to kill those dogs for sport or because they weren't good fighters, but a cow that is raised in order to be slaughtered and sold to make hamburgers is killed with the intention of providing food for people. If that's your standard of judgement, then people who kill their pets for food are not doing anything wrong, per say. But this explanation does not make it okay to go hunting for sport, only for food. Yet, we as a society have no problem with hunting for sport (within limits) on a legal level. So there isn't a whole lot of consistency when it comes to which animals and activities are protected versus those that are not.
Law should never be as subjective as this, but when it comes to animals it seems like it always is. I don't think that's a good thing, but (like Jules in Pulp Fiction) we as a society seem to place animals with "personality" (dogs, cats, etc.) on a higher plane than others (pigs, deer, etc.). Whether its just or not, the former group gets decidedly more legal protection than the latter.
Thoughts?
Stewie is gay and hates "The Office"
Seth MacFarlane, creator of Fox's hit animated comedy "Family Guy" recently outed Stewie Griffin in (of all places) an interview with Playboy magazine.
Stewie -- the one-year old with plans for matricide and world domination -- has always seemed a little confused about his sexuality, as MacFarlane explains:
"Ultimately, Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual. It also explains why he’s so hellbent on killing [his mother, Lois] and taking over the world: He has a lot of aggression, which comes from confusion and uncertainty about his orientation."
Of course, I have to ask: How can a baby have a sexual orientation? But I guess anything is possible in a cartoon.
In other "Family Guy" news, a series of new ads have the show taking direct shots at some of the other comedies that received Emmy nominations. After becoming the first animated show in nearly 50 years to be nominated for TV comedy's highest award, it appears they are ready to literally fight the competition.
Of course, fans of the show will recognize that as the famous "where's my money" scene that has been cleverly re-dubbed. And Stewie is probably right about the Indians and Hispanics in Scranton.
Stewie -- the one-year old with plans for matricide and world domination -- has always seemed a little confused about his sexuality, as MacFarlane explains:
"Ultimately, Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual. It also explains why he’s so hellbent on killing [his mother, Lois] and taking over the world: He has a lot of aggression, which comes from confusion and uncertainty about his orientation."
Of course, I have to ask: How can a baby have a sexual orientation? But I guess anything is possible in a cartoon.
In other "Family Guy" news, a series of new ads have the show taking direct shots at some of the other comedies that received Emmy nominations. After becoming the first animated show in nearly 50 years to be nominated for TV comedy's highest award, it appears they are ready to literally fight the competition.
Of course, fans of the show will recognize that as the famous "where's my money" scene that has been cleverly re-dubbed. And Stewie is probably right about the Indians and Hispanics in Scranton.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #1
Before I actually get the final song on the countdown, a funny story and a correction from earlier. Despite my statement in a post this afternoon (and many posts in the past week), today was not actually the release date for "Ursa Major".
So, after driving more than 20 minutes to the nearest "FYE" store - blasting a collection of 3EB's greatest songs the whole way there - imagine my embarrassment to discover that the album will actually be released tomorrow. I returned home thoroughly humbled (although I did briefly consider camping out in the parking lot until tomorrow morning), and now I will have to repeat the 45-minute round trip tomorrow. I suppose that after six years of waiting, I'll survive one more day.
On the plus-side, I'll always remember that CD's are released on Tuesdays from now on.
So now to get on with the last installment of the Third Eye Blind Top 10 lyric countdown. Let's briefly review the lyrics that came in second through tenth.
#10 - Palm Reader: "...Frued said that love was a good psychosis, but I don't know I've had too many doses..."
#9 - My Hit and Run: "...Always think we'll get more time, 'til you're flying through the air with someone on your mind..."
#8 - Deep Inside of You: "...I would change myself if I could, I would walk with my people if I could find them..."
#7 - Narcolepsy: "...I read dead Russian authors volumes at a time, I write everything down except what's on my mind..."
#6 - Can't Get Away: "...And there's postcards written I know I'll never send, the moment is gone and won't come again..."
#5 - I Want You: "...An open invitation to the dance, happenstance set the vibe that we're in..."
#4 - Crystal Baller: "...I wonder why the wind keeps blowing you through my mind..."
#3 - Semi-Charmed Life: "...I believe in the sand beneath my toes, the beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling, I believe in the faith that grows..."
#2 - Motorcycle Drive-by: "...careening through the universe, your axis on a tilt, you're guiltless and free, I hope you take a piece of me with you..."
And now, after a week-long survey (based wholly on my own personal opinion) of the best lyrics that Third Eye Blind has ever produced, it is time to reveal which song is number one. To be honest, the choice came down to Motorcycle Drive-By and the eventual winner, because in both cases I felt like I could have listed the entire song as my favorite part of the song. In other words, they are both lyrical beauties from beginning to end.
Ultimately, I put this song first because I think the writting is a little bit better. It represents everything that Stephen Jenkins does well as a song-writer and singer: there are referrences to mythology (a common 3EB device), the emotions of love and loss, a quick pace and words that seem to fly at you at 100 MPH, and an interesting story woven through it all. There is also my all-time favorite lyrical awkward moment, and the way it comes across (almost like a stream of consciousness style) is done perfectly.
The winner is.....
#1 - Blinded:
"I never believe that things they happen for a reason, yeah,
they never go as planned.
I wanted to thank you for a vision that was lost that you returned,
but you're past where you'd understand.
Now her appetite is blown,
little else is known,
'cept she's a little angry,
grabs a towel, looks away,
the heat fades with the day,
and I fall down on what to say.
Oh something clean, let me be clever, hey, oh well, whatever,
but that's not what I mean!
Where we've been has left us burnt,
still I won't turn now from a fight you know I'll never win.
So when I see you,
you know all the things I've done,
and I'm blinded,
like I'm staring down the sun,
when I see you, when I see you, when I see you,
it's like I'm staring down the sun.
Time it passes and it tells us what we're left with,
we become the things we do.
Me, I'm a fool spent from defiance,
yeah you got me, but I didn't give up on you.
Icharus is not a t-shirt or a swan song, no,
he is born again.
And it's not easy being me,
but I can't promise I will mend,
or bend when you believe that we are fixed now from our births,
and I've just fallen back to Earth,
still you know I'll try again.
'Cause I believe that we are lucky,
we are golden,
we have stolen manners in the days when we were one.
So when I see you,
in spite of all that we've become,
I'm still blinded,
I'm still staring down the sun."
So, after driving more than 20 minutes to the nearest "FYE" store - blasting a collection of 3EB's greatest songs the whole way there - imagine my embarrassment to discover that the album will actually be released tomorrow. I returned home thoroughly humbled (although I did briefly consider camping out in the parking lot until tomorrow morning), and now I will have to repeat the 45-minute round trip tomorrow. I suppose that after six years of waiting, I'll survive one more day.
On the plus-side, I'll always remember that CD's are released on Tuesdays from now on.
So now to get on with the last installment of the Third Eye Blind Top 10 lyric countdown. Let's briefly review the lyrics that came in second through tenth.
#10 - Palm Reader: "...Frued said that love was a good psychosis, but I don't know I've had too many doses..."
#9 - My Hit and Run: "...Always think we'll get more time, 'til you're flying through the air with someone on your mind..."
#8 - Deep Inside of You: "...I would change myself if I could, I would walk with my people if I could find them..."
#7 - Narcolepsy: "...I read dead Russian authors volumes at a time, I write everything down except what's on my mind..."
#6 - Can't Get Away: "...And there's postcards written I know I'll never send, the moment is gone and won't come again..."
#5 - I Want You: "...An open invitation to the dance, happenstance set the vibe that we're in..."
#4 - Crystal Baller: "...I wonder why the wind keeps blowing you through my mind..."
#3 - Semi-Charmed Life: "...I believe in the sand beneath my toes, the beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling, I believe in the faith that grows..."
#2 - Motorcycle Drive-by: "...careening through the universe, your axis on a tilt, you're guiltless and free, I hope you take a piece of me with you..."
And now, after a week-long survey (based wholly on my own personal opinion) of the best lyrics that Third Eye Blind has ever produced, it is time to reveal which song is number one. To be honest, the choice came down to Motorcycle Drive-By and the eventual winner, because in both cases I felt like I could have listed the entire song as my favorite part of the song. In other words, they are both lyrical beauties from beginning to end.
Ultimately, I put this song first because I think the writting is a little bit better. It represents everything that Stephen Jenkins does well as a song-writer and singer: there are referrences to mythology (a common 3EB device), the emotions of love and loss, a quick pace and words that seem to fly at you at 100 MPH, and an interesting story woven through it all. There is also my all-time favorite lyrical awkward moment, and the way it comes across (almost like a stream of consciousness style) is done perfectly.
The winner is.....
#1 - Blinded:
"I never believe that things they happen for a reason, yeah,
they never go as planned.
I wanted to thank you for a vision that was lost that you returned,
but you're past where you'd understand.
Now her appetite is blown,
little else is known,
'cept she's a little angry,
grabs a towel, looks away,
the heat fades with the day,
and I fall down on what to say.
Oh something clean, let me be clever, hey, oh well, whatever,
but that's not what I mean!
Where we've been has left us burnt,
still I won't turn now from a fight you know I'll never win.
So when I see you,
you know all the things I've done,
and I'm blinded,
like I'm staring down the sun,
when I see you, when I see you, when I see you,
it's like I'm staring down the sun.
Time it passes and it tells us what we're left with,
we become the things we do.
Me, I'm a fool spent from defiance,
yeah you got me, but I didn't give up on you.
Icharus is not a t-shirt or a swan song, no,
he is born again.
And it's not easy being me,
but I can't promise I will mend,
or bend when you believe that we are fixed now from our births,
and I've just fallen back to Earth,
still you know I'll try again.
'Cause I believe that we are lucky,
we are golden,
we have stolen manners in the days when we were one.
So when I see you,
in spite of all that we've become,
I'm still blinded,
I'm still staring down the sun."
Hammer Time?
I can't believe I'm doing a post about reality TV, but this is a little too good to pass up.
Former House Majority Leader (from 2003-2005) Tom Delay, who represented Texas' 22nd district from 1985-2006, will appear on the next season of "Dancing with the Stars". While serving in Congress, DeLay's nickname was "The Hammer" (thank you Mr. Ferris' 8th period senior year Poli-Sci class), so I hope America gets to see a rendition of the famous MC Hammer parachute-pants-dance before DeLay is voted off the show. In other words, he better do it the first week.
Nick Gillespie says this is one more indication that we are all living inside a Philip K. Dick novel, which is just about the best assessment I've heard of this kind of surreal absurdity.
There's no word yet on whether DeLay's received his dancing shoes from Jack Abramoff, but I wouldn't bet against that, either.
Former House Majority Leader (from 2003-2005) Tom Delay, who represented Texas' 22nd district from 1985-2006, will appear on the next season of "Dancing with the Stars". While serving in Congress, DeLay's nickname was "The Hammer" (thank you Mr. Ferris' 8th period senior year Poli-Sci class), so I hope America gets to see a rendition of the famous MC Hammer parachute-pants-dance before DeLay is voted off the show. In other words, he better do it the first week.
Nick Gillespie says this is one more indication that we are all living inside a Philip K. Dick novel, which is just about the best assessment I've heard of this kind of surreal absurdity.
There's no word yet on whether DeLay's received his dancing shoes from Jack Abramoff, but I wouldn't bet against that, either.
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #2
Moving this weekend kind of threw off the time table for this countdown, so even though the new album comes out TODAY (and will soon be in my possession), I'm not going to just leave you hanging. I'll reveal number two right now, and then number one sometime a little later in the day.
Once again, here's what you've been missing:
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Thursday - #6 (Can't Get Away), #5 (I Want You)
Friday - #4 (Crystal Baller), #3 (Semi-Charmed Life)
#2: Motorcycle Drive-by
"Visions of you on a motorcycle drive-by,
the cigarette ash flies in your eyes and you don't mind.
You smile,
and say the world it doesn't fit with you.
I don't believe you,
you're so serene,
careening through the universe, your axis on a tilt.
You're guiltless and free,
I hope you take a piece of me with you.
And there are things I would like to do that you don't believe in.
I would like to build something, but you'd never see it happen.
And there's this burning,
like there's always been.
I've never been so alone, and I've, I've never been so alive.
And there's this burning, there is this burning.
Where's the soul?
I want to know.
New York City is evil.
The surface is everything,
but I could never do that.
Someone would see through that.
And this is the last time, we'll be friends again.
I'll get over you, you'll wonder who I am.
And there's this burning,
just like there's always been.
I've never been so alone, alone, and I've, and I've,
I've never been so alive."
Probably my favorite 3EB song. It's so beautiful, and they do a great job of contrasting the sweet, serene, being-in-love-and-everything-is-perfect part of the song with the impulsive and angry-sounding lyrics in the bridge as that love falls apart. The music also does a great job of reflecting those parts of the song. Oh, and there's the line about New York City being evil, I love that.
Once again, here's what you've been missing:
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Thursday - #6 (Can't Get Away), #5 (I Want You)
Friday - #4 (Crystal Baller), #3 (Semi-Charmed Life)
#2: Motorcycle Drive-by
"Visions of you on a motorcycle drive-by,
the cigarette ash flies in your eyes and you don't mind.
You smile,
and say the world it doesn't fit with you.
I don't believe you,
you're so serene,
careening through the universe, your axis on a tilt.
You're guiltless and free,
I hope you take a piece of me with you.
And there are things I would like to do that you don't believe in.
I would like to build something, but you'd never see it happen.
And there's this burning,
like there's always been.
I've never been so alone, and I've, I've never been so alive.
And there's this burning, there is this burning.
Where's the soul?
I want to know.
New York City is evil.
The surface is everything,
but I could never do that.
Someone would see through that.
And this is the last time, we'll be friends again.
I'll get over you, you'll wonder who I am.
And there's this burning,
just like there's always been.
I've never been so alone, alone, and I've, and I've,
I've never been so alive."
Probably my favorite 3EB song. It's so beautiful, and they do a great job of contrasting the sweet, serene, being-in-love-and-everything-is-perfect part of the song with the impulsive and angry-sounding lyrics in the bridge as that love falls apart. The music also does a great job of reflecting those parts of the song. Oh, and there's the line about New York City being evil, I love that.
New Location!
This weekend, the home base for this blog shifted to the south by a few hundred miles. After nine weeks in Rochester, I have moved back home and will (for the immediate future) be living with my parents in Pennsylvania.
More importantly, do not continue to send fan mail to Apt. 9 on 125 Gibbs Street, unless you just want some random person to read about how awesome you think my blog is. All future fan mail really shouldn't be sent at all, as it is a little bit creepy and it takes too much time to open it all. From now on, I will just assume that I would be receiving loads of fan mail, but as per my wishes you are all resisting the urge to send it. Thank you.
More importantly, do not continue to send fan mail to Apt. 9 on 125 Gibbs Street, unless you just want some random person to read about how awesome you think my blog is. All future fan mail really shouldn't be sent at all, as it is a little bit creepy and it takes too much time to open it all. From now on, I will just assume that I would be receiving loads of fan mail, but as per my wishes you are all resisting the urge to send it. Thank you.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Thoughts on Rochester: Photographic Epistemology
If a picture is worth 1000 words, then this album is worth more than 100,000. It's probably a lot more interesting than 100,000 of my words, too.
I really should start packing sooner or later.
I really should start packing sooner or later.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thoughts on Rochester: Epic Fail
The biggest on-going news story during my time at the D&C was the utter failure of the Renaissance Square development project. It's a pretty good example of government just being unable to get out of its own way.
Renaissance Square was the code name for a city block in downtown Rochester that, to put it nicely, has seen better days. The city had plans to condemn the buildings, tear them down, and build a bus station/performance theater/new downtown campus for Monroe County Community College.
Yeah, I thought it was an odd combination of things too, but just go with it, okay?
The idea was originally conceived in the late 1990s, but never went anywhere. It was brought up a few times since then, but it never got very fair on those occasions either. Finally, with the hope of getting Federal Stimulus Money (good for whatever ails ya!) this summer to offset the cost of the project, it looked like "RenSquare" would finally be a reality.
Of course, all that sounds good on paper. Actually it sounds like $20 million on paper, which is how much the city has spent on various designs, plans, and 'artist-rendered drawings' during the past decade.
In reality, the city and the county could never agree on a few relatively minor details - such as how many bays there should be for buses to pull up to - and the project was changed so many times that they actually missed the deadline (at the end of July) for getting it approved for the Federal funding that was available.
So the money went somewhere else.
So Renaissance Square won't be built.
So that block along Main Street will remain as sad and empty as before.
Actually, it will be a little sadder and emptier. Before the plan had collapsed, the city told the few business that do operate within that block that they should prepare to be closed down when the buildings got condemned (which was the plan). So those businesses held clearance sales and prepared to move or close or whatever. Unfortunately, now that the plans have fallen through, most of them are too far along the going-out-of-business road to turn around. They have little choice but to actually go ahead and close up or move elsewhere.
It bears repeating: They spent $20 million and got nothing but some nice drawings of what could have been.
Epic Fail, Rochester. Epic Fail.
Renaissance Square was the code name for a city block in downtown Rochester that, to put it nicely, has seen better days. The city had plans to condemn the buildings, tear them down, and build a bus station/performance theater/new downtown campus for Monroe County Community College.
Yeah, I thought it was an odd combination of things too, but just go with it, okay?
The idea was originally conceived in the late 1990s, but never went anywhere. It was brought up a few times since then, but it never got very fair on those occasions either. Finally, with the hope of getting Federal Stimulus Money (good for whatever ails ya!) this summer to offset the cost of the project, it looked like "RenSquare" would finally be a reality.
Of course, all that sounds good on paper. Actually it sounds like $20 million on paper, which is how much the city has spent on various designs, plans, and 'artist-rendered drawings' during the past decade.
In reality, the city and the county could never agree on a few relatively minor details - such as how many bays there should be for buses to pull up to - and the project was changed so many times that they actually missed the deadline (at the end of July) for getting it approved for the Federal funding that was available.
So the money went somewhere else.
So Renaissance Square won't be built.
So that block along Main Street will remain as sad and empty as before.
Actually, it will be a little sadder and emptier. Before the plan had collapsed, the city told the few business that do operate within that block that they should prepare to be closed down when the buildings got condemned (which was the plan). So those businesses held clearance sales and prepared to move or close or whatever. Unfortunately, now that the plans have fallen through, most of them are too far along the going-out-of-business road to turn around. They have little choice but to actually go ahead and close up or move elsewhere.
It bears repeating: They spent $20 million and got nothing but some nice drawings of what could have been.
Epic Fail, Rochester. Epic Fail.
Thoughts on Rochester: The Cost of Parking
In my final hours living in upstate New York, perhaps it is time to reflect on this place where I have spent the past nine weeks.
First of all, and I can't believe I haven't blogged about this earlier, the parking meter system here makes no sense at all.
And no, I'm not just bitter about that ticket I got on June 17 on Saint Paul Street. (Interesting note: on the signs, that particular road is listed as "St. Paul St.", which makes me wonder: is that Saint Paul Street, or is it Street Paul Street? Or maybe Street Paul Saint? Such is Rochester.)
The easiest way to explain the parking system here is to say this: for every coin you put in the meter, you receive minutes that equals the value of the coin, plus one. So, for a nickel you get six minutes; for a dime, you get 11 minutes; and for a quarter, you get 26 minutes.
Here's the problem I have: lets say you deposit 25 cents in the form of a quarter. The meter will give you 26 minutes. However, if you deposit 25 cents (the same amount of money!) in the form of five nickles, you'll receive 30 minutes of ticket-free parking.
So, in Rochester, not all cents are created equal. I don't understand why the city would want to incentivize people to use smaller denomination coins in the parking meters, and I really don't understand why an equal amount of money does not purchase an equal amount of product. Isn't the point of a central monetary system to get rid of issues like this?
For example, way back when, each colony (and eventually state) had their own currency. In the Constitution, they agreed to allow the federal government to issue and print money, mostly because it was too confusing to have to figure out how much 25 cents of Connecticut money could buy versus 25 cents of New York money.
Obviously, this is a smaller scale than that, but it still confuses me. What's worse, as the amount of time you are purchasing gets larger, the difference in cost grows. If you have enough nickels, you only have to spend $1.00 to get a full two hours. On the other hand, four quarters only buys you a hour and 44 minutes.
This has bothered me non-stop for the better part of the past nine weeks, I'll give a prize to anyone who can explain it to me.
First of all, and I can't believe I haven't blogged about this earlier, the parking meter system here makes no sense at all.
And no, I'm not just bitter about that ticket I got on June 17 on Saint Paul Street. (Interesting note: on the signs, that particular road is listed as "St. Paul St.", which makes me wonder: is that Saint Paul Street, or is it Street Paul Street? Or maybe Street Paul Saint? Such is Rochester.)
The easiest way to explain the parking system here is to say this: for every coin you put in the meter, you receive minutes that equals the value of the coin, plus one. So, for a nickel you get six minutes; for a dime, you get 11 minutes; and for a quarter, you get 26 minutes.
Here's the problem I have: lets say you deposit 25 cents in the form of a quarter. The meter will give you 26 minutes. However, if you deposit 25 cents (the same amount of money!) in the form of five nickles, you'll receive 30 minutes of ticket-free parking.
So, in Rochester, not all cents are created equal. I don't understand why the city would want to incentivize people to use smaller denomination coins in the parking meters, and I really don't understand why an equal amount of money does not purchase an equal amount of product. Isn't the point of a central monetary system to get rid of issues like this?
For example, way back when, each colony (and eventually state) had their own currency. In the Constitution, they agreed to allow the federal government to issue and print money, mostly because it was too confusing to have to figure out how much 25 cents of Connecticut money could buy versus 25 cents of New York money.
Obviously, this is a smaller scale than that, but it still confuses me. What's worse, as the amount of time you are purchasing gets larger, the difference in cost grows. If you have enough nickels, you only have to spend $1.00 to get a full two hours. On the other hand, four quarters only buys you a hour and 44 minutes.
This has bothered me non-stop for the better part of the past nine weeks, I'll give a prize to anyone who can explain it to me.
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #4 and #3
We are nearing the end of my Top 10 countdown of the best lyrics ever sung by Third Eye Blind. Who knows, this list might be completely different by next Tuesday, the day after Ursa Major (their 4th studio album) is finally released.
If you're a late-comer to the countdown, here's what you've missed:
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Thursday - #6 (Can't Get Away), #5 (I Want You)
Today, two more will be unveiled, leaving just two songs to go. Number two will be announced tomorrow, but you'll have to wait until Sunday for number one.
Oh, and what I said in yesterday's post about there being songs left from each of 3EB's three albums.....that was a total lie. My bad. There are no more songs from "Blue".
#4 - Crystal Baller:
"I wonder where we're all going.
I'm homesick for your primal knowing.
I wonder why the wind keeps blowing you through my mind.
Try and take the high road.
Remember, we were friends.
I want to be your crystal baller.
I want to be your diamond ring,
the one I never gave you,
and the promise that it brings.
Let me be your crystal baller,
I will show you everything."
Maybe you didn't know (that's why I'm here), but the song is about Charlize Theron. Stephen Jenkins and her dated for a long time, but she broke up with him when he said he wasn't ready to get married. Hence, the line about the diamond ring he never gave her, and the promise it brings. Actually, a good part of "Out of the Vein" is about her, including (in my opinion) "Palm Reader", "Can't Get Away", "Forget Myself", "Good Man", and "Blinded".
#3 - Semi-Charmed Life:
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes,
the beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling,
I believe in the faith that grows,
and the four right cords can make me cry,
when I'm with you, I feel like I could die and it would be alright."
Lots of good lines in this song (Jenkins once called it the "happy little song with dirty words"), and of course the chorus has to be one of the best ever written in terms of sing-a-long-a-bility. But these lines are the heart of the song, the moment where the singer is being true and stepping outside the world of sex and drugs (literally the semi-charmed life he's leading) to find that "something more" in a confession of the little things that mean the most: the beach, a belief in something, music, and love.
If you're a late-comer to the countdown, here's what you've missed:
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Thursday - #6 (Can't Get Away), #5 (I Want You)
Today, two more will be unveiled, leaving just two songs to go. Number two will be announced tomorrow, but you'll have to wait until Sunday for number one.
Oh, and what I said in yesterday's post about there being songs left from each of 3EB's three albums.....that was a total lie. My bad. There are no more songs from "Blue".
#4 - Crystal Baller:
"I wonder where we're all going.
I'm homesick for your primal knowing.
I wonder why the wind keeps blowing you through my mind.
Try and take the high road.
Remember, we were friends.
I want to be your crystal baller.
I want to be your diamond ring,
the one I never gave you,
and the promise that it brings.
Let me be your crystal baller,
I will show you everything."
Maybe you didn't know (that's why I'm here), but the song is about Charlize Theron. Stephen Jenkins and her dated for a long time, but she broke up with him when he said he wasn't ready to get married. Hence, the line about the diamond ring he never gave her, and the promise it brings. Actually, a good part of "Out of the Vein" is about her, including (in my opinion) "Palm Reader", "Can't Get Away", "Forget Myself", "Good Man", and "Blinded".
#3 - Semi-Charmed Life:
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes,
the beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling,
I believe in the faith that grows,
and the four right cords can make me cry,
when I'm with you, I feel like I could die and it would be alright."
Lots of good lines in this song (Jenkins once called it the "happy little song with dirty words"), and of course the chorus has to be one of the best ever written in terms of sing-a-long-a-bility. But these lines are the heart of the song, the moment where the singer is being true and stepping outside the world of sex and drugs (literally the semi-charmed life he's leading) to find that "something more" in a confession of the little things that mean the most: the beach, a belief in something, music, and love.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
MSNBC is unaware the Second Amendment exists
Then again, I wouldn't really expect the most liberal cable news channel to be aware of such an arcane and obviously insignificant article of law as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I mean, if it was really important it would have been first, right?
Of course, there is the slight problem that these people call themselves "journalists" and yet, rather than reporting on this story, they decided to make it sound like the guy with the gun was the next Timothy McVeigh.
Here's the video evidence.
Notice how, at first, Ron Allen (the correspondent in New Hampshire) is doing his job. He reports that there is concern about the gun, and that he talked to the police about it. The police informed him that this man is allowed to carry the weapon (as long as it is not concealed), and the church grounds where he is protesting gave him permission to bring it.
Then the talking head in the studio (Carlos Watson) interrupts him - raising his voice as if this man has just rushed the President with his gun drawn - to ask why this guy is being allowed to stay there. At which point the reporter on the scene tries to explain by saying (and this is my favorite part):
"Apparently the law allows this man to be here"
Why does the law allow an absolutely crazy guy to have a gun?? Well, maybe because he's actually a law-abiding citizen who has followed the proper legal steps to have a gun, and to carry his gun in public.
Back in the studio, Watson goes on to suggest that maybe some lawyers in New Hampshre can file an emergency injunction to resolve the situation. So apparently he is both completely unaware of the Second Amendment, and foolish enough to believe it can be easily scribbled off the page with a simple injunction.
If only it was that easy, Carlos. I fear for what the Constitution would look like today if people like him were allowed to re-write it anytime they desired.
Now, to be fair, I have to say that this guy (his name is William Costric) probably shouldn't have brought his gun to the rally. Obviously, he did so with the intention of stirring up some attention, and maybe that's not exactly the type of attention you should be stirring up....you know, since the President is coming to town.
But even if he made a bad choice in this situation, in this country he is allowed to make that choice, and no government (or silly liberal news anchor) is allowed to tell him not to bring his guns to town (to paraphrase Johnny Cash).
His day wasn't done. Later, Costric was a guest on Chris Matthews, and he did a fantastic job of keeping his cool and explaining himself while at the same time attacking both parties, challenging Obama's claim to be a "constitutional scholar", and not letting Matthews connect him to the birther movement. Matthews, meanwhile, practically explodes on-air about two minutes in.
Props to my buddy Mike, author of RottingNation, for letting me know about this.
Of course, there is the slight problem that these people call themselves "journalists" and yet, rather than reporting on this story, they decided to make it sound like the guy with the gun was the next Timothy McVeigh.
Here's the video evidence.
Notice how, at first, Ron Allen (the correspondent in New Hampshire) is doing his job. He reports that there is concern about the gun, and that he talked to the police about it. The police informed him that this man is allowed to carry the weapon (as long as it is not concealed), and the church grounds where he is protesting gave him permission to bring it.
Then the talking head in the studio (Carlos Watson) interrupts him - raising his voice as if this man has just rushed the President with his gun drawn - to ask why this guy is being allowed to stay there. At which point the reporter on the scene tries to explain by saying (and this is my favorite part):
"Apparently the law allows this man to be here"
Why does the law allow an absolutely crazy guy to have a gun?? Well, maybe because he's actually a law-abiding citizen who has followed the proper legal steps to have a gun, and to carry his gun in public.
Back in the studio, Watson goes on to suggest that maybe some lawyers in New Hampshre can file an emergency injunction to resolve the situation. So apparently he is both completely unaware of the Second Amendment, and foolish enough to believe it can be easily scribbled off the page with a simple injunction.
If only it was that easy, Carlos. I fear for what the Constitution would look like today if people like him were allowed to re-write it anytime they desired.
Now, to be fair, I have to say that this guy (his name is William Costric) probably shouldn't have brought his gun to the rally. Obviously, he did so with the intention of stirring up some attention, and maybe that's not exactly the type of attention you should be stirring up....you know, since the President is coming to town.
But even if he made a bad choice in this situation, in this country he is allowed to make that choice, and no government (or silly liberal news anchor) is allowed to tell him not to bring his guns to town (to paraphrase Johnny Cash).
His day wasn't done. Later, Costric was a guest on Chris Matthews, and he did a fantastic job of keeping his cool and explaining himself while at the same time attacking both parties, challenging Obama's claim to be a "constitutional scholar", and not letting Matthews connect him to the birther movement. Matthews, meanwhile, practically explodes on-air about two minutes in.
Props to my buddy Mike, author of RottingNation, for letting me know about this.
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #6 and #5
All week, I'm counting down my Top 10 favorite lyrics from Third Eye Blind. Their new album, Ursa Major, is coming out on Monday.
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Today, we crack into the top five. So without further ado:
#6: Can't Get Away
"Our jeep gets busted on a blown out road,
and I'm a tourist with a real light load,
and will the government hold another month away,
these messed up places where we always stay,
wonderin' how we always pick these spots,
feeling like a have in the land of the have-nots,
sleeping on cots,
wishing that I had some Tater Tots.
And there's postcards written I know I'll never send,
the moment is gone and won't come again.
I ride with souls who find no peace,
still I look to you to find release."
The reference to Tater-Tots makes this a Top 10 lyric on its own, but the rest of the lines are pretty good too, and the delivery is really cool too. Also, I love the "postcards written I know I'll never send" line, because I have done that exact same thing. Then I'll come across them later and realize it makes no sense to send them because, well, the moment is gone and won't come again.
#5: I Want You
"An open invitation to the dance,
happenstance set the vibe that we're in,
no apology because my urge is genuine,
and the mystery of your rhythm is so feminine.
Here I am and I want to take a hit of your scene 'cause you bit so deep into my soul.
I want you."
Just classic Stephen Jenkins here. The use of "happenstance" is awesome, and the words just convey such a sexy scene. He's not messing around, and he's not going to apologize, he just wants you.
The countdown is moving towards its conclusion. There is still at least one song from each of the three albums to come. And, of course, only 4 days until Ursa Major.
Monday - Honorable Mentions
Tuesday - #10 (Palm Reader), #9 (My Hit and Run)
Wednesday - #8 (Deep Inside of You), #7 (Narcolepsy)
Today, we crack into the top five. So without further ado:
#6: Can't Get Away
"Our jeep gets busted on a blown out road,
and I'm a tourist with a real light load,
and will the government hold another month away,
these messed up places where we always stay,
wonderin' how we always pick these spots,
feeling like a have in the land of the have-nots,
sleeping on cots,
wishing that I had some Tater Tots.
And there's postcards written I know I'll never send,
the moment is gone and won't come again.
I ride with souls who find no peace,
still I look to you to find release."
The reference to Tater-Tots makes this a Top 10 lyric on its own, but the rest of the lines are pretty good too, and the delivery is really cool too. Also, I love the "postcards written I know I'll never send" line, because I have done that exact same thing. Then I'll come across them later and realize it makes no sense to send them because, well, the moment is gone and won't come again.
#5: I Want You
"An open invitation to the dance,
happenstance set the vibe that we're in,
no apology because my urge is genuine,
and the mystery of your rhythm is so feminine.
Here I am and I want to take a hit of your scene 'cause you bit so deep into my soul.
I want you."
Just classic Stephen Jenkins here. The use of "happenstance" is awesome, and the words just convey such a sexy scene. He's not messing around, and he's not going to apologize, he just wants you.
The countdown is moving towards its conclusion. There is still at least one song from each of the three albums to come. And, of course, only 4 days until Ursa Major.
Dogs Disapprove of Obama
This dog is not accepting any kind of stimulus from Mr. President.
To paraphrase LBJ's famous quip about Walter Cronkite: If Obama has lost the dogs, he's lost the cutest part of America.
To paraphrase LBJ's famous quip about Walter Cronkite: If Obama has lost the dogs, he's lost the cutest part of America.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Merkel's got competition
I have long maintained that Angela Merkel is the sexiest international political figure, although my feelings have more to do with her being German than they do with her physical attractiveness or political leanings.
However, this ad -- from German parlimentary candidate Vera Lengsfeld -- might be a little bit too much. By the way, the poster's slogan translates to "We have more to offer". Go ahead and giggle.
So it would seem that 'Merkel the Minx' isn't the only female German politician who thinks she can score a few votes by flaunting what she's got (and yes, she flaunts it, and the Bonn Express loves it).
Am I the only one who thought of this scene from Young Frankenstein immediately? And as a side note, does Teri Garr back then look a lot like Sarah Chalke today, or am I making that up?
However, this ad -- from German parlimentary candidate Vera Lengsfeld -- might be a little bit too much. By the way, the poster's slogan translates to "We have more to offer". Go ahead and giggle.
So it would seem that 'Merkel the Minx' isn't the only female German politician who thinks she can score a few votes by flaunting what she's got (and yes, she flaunts it, and the Bonn Express loves it).
Am I the only one who thought of this scene from Young Frankenstein immediately? And as a side note, does Teri Garr back then look a lot like Sarah Chalke today, or am I making that up?
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #8 and #7
All week I'm counting down the Top 10 best lyrics from Third Eye Blind, in anticipation of their new album, Ursa Major, coming out August 18th.
On Monday I listed a few "honorable mention" lyrics, and yesterday the countdown began with number ten and number nine.
Today, we move onward with number eight and number seven on the countdown
#8: Deep Inside of You
"I never felt alone,
until I met you.
I'm alright on my own,
but then I met you,
and I'd know what to do if I just knew what's coming.
I would change myself if I could,
I would walk with my people if I could find them,
and I'd say I'm sorry to you,
I'm sorry to you.
And I don't want to call you, but then I want to call you,
because I don't want to crush you, but then I feel like crushing you.
I breathe by your looks and you look right through me.
We were broke and didn't know."
Definitely one of their more angsty songs, but they manage to keep it poetically angsty. This is the only song from Blue, their second album, that will appear in the countdown.
#7: Narcolepsy
"I read dead Russian authors volumes at a time,
I write everything down except what's on my mind,
'cause my greatest fear is the sucking sound,
and then I know I'll never get back out.
And there's a bone in my hand that connects to a drink,
in a crowded room with the glasses clink,
and I'll buy you a beer and we'll drink it deep,
because that keeps me from falling asleep."
I love these lines because you really feel the urgency of the scene - its one long run-on sentence - because he is trying to squeeze in as much as possible before his narcolepsy strikes again. One of the members of the band actually did suffer from narcolepsy for a little while, supposedly, and the guitar rift in the song is what it felt like to him.
Tomorrow - #6 and #5.
On Monday I listed a few "honorable mention" lyrics, and yesterday the countdown began with number ten and number nine.
Today, we move onward with number eight and number seven on the countdown
#8: Deep Inside of You
"I never felt alone,
until I met you.
I'm alright on my own,
but then I met you,
and I'd know what to do if I just knew what's coming.
I would change myself if I could,
I would walk with my people if I could find them,
and I'd say I'm sorry to you,
I'm sorry to you.
And I don't want to call you, but then I want to call you,
because I don't want to crush you, but then I feel like crushing you.
I breathe by your looks and you look right through me.
We were broke and didn't know."
Definitely one of their more angsty songs, but they manage to keep it poetically angsty. This is the only song from Blue, their second album, that will appear in the countdown.
#7: Narcolepsy
"I read dead Russian authors volumes at a time,
I write everything down except what's on my mind,
'cause my greatest fear is the sucking sound,
and then I know I'll never get back out.
And there's a bone in my hand that connects to a drink,
in a crowded room with the glasses clink,
and I'll buy you a beer and we'll drink it deep,
because that keeps me from falling asleep."
I love these lines because you really feel the urgency of the scene - its one long run-on sentence - because he is trying to squeeze in as much as possible before his narcolepsy strikes again. One of the members of the band actually did suffer from narcolepsy for a little while, supposedly, and the guitar rift in the song is what it felt like to him.
Tomorrow - #6 and #5.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Clunkers, Part II
I get SO MANY comments on this blog that sometimes it is difficult to find time to acknowledge all of them, even the very good ones. But, due to a general lack of anything else to discuss this evening, I'm going to temporarily yield the floor to one of the great plethora of comments that I have received about my post on the "Cash for Clunkers" program about a week ago:
According to the carbon footprint calculator at terrapass.com (look, I cite figures. Unlike your source article, where the per capita income comes out of nowhere), a 1999 Ford Explorer, a popular car in its heyday that I'm sure is seeing some trading in right now, emits 9.17 tons of CO2 each year; upgrading to a 2009 Ford Focus cuts down to 5.25 tons of CO2 per year. As long as a driver keeps their car for TWO YEARS, they have successfully offset the CO2 output figure you cite.
These numbers assume putting 15,000 miles per year on to the car, which seems an average figure. Terrapass also informs us, passed on the fuel efficiency standards of these models, that the Explorer would use 938 gallons of fuel per year while the new Focus would use 536. That saves 400 gallons of gas per year for the drivers of those new cars, which at an average of $2.55 per gallon (EIA statistic), saves those families $1020 each year. This now means more money for those families could choose to put into other sects of the economy, while also reducing oil consumption by 32,000,000 (32 million) gallons per year, considering that the same article you cited last says 80,000 cars have been upgraded in this program (which sad to say, apparently offsets less than one day of our nation's oil consumption).
Well, I don't think there was any need to get snarky with the "I cite real figures" thing, but I'll let that go for now.
She makes a valid argument in favor of why driving a Ford Focus is better for the environment than driving a Ford Explorer, but I don't think that comes as a real shock to anyone. The problem is, with the way the program is structured, the people who are trading in SUVs with really bad gas mileage, are not generally driving away in Ford Focuses (Foci??).
If you trade in a car that gets less than 18 MPGs (which is the only way to qualify for the $4,500 discount), you only need to purchase a new vehicle that gets 22 MPG. In other words, they set the bar too low, particularly when you consider that the government requires car manufacturers maintain an average of 25 MPG for all new cars they make. So if you drop off your Hummer H2, you can drive away in something like a Ford F-150 (a mid-sized pickup), which qualifies. Does that make the planet a whole lot better off? Maybe a little. But now you've got to choose between helping the environment a tiny little bit and all the negative outcomes of the program.
My dear reader continues to valiantly defend the "small successes are worth it" approach:
I think this program has brought into clear light the difference fuel efficiency, and other small changes, can make for both the economy and the environment, and for that reason is admirable. To call it a failure is unbelievably harsh, and while I admit there are flaws in the plan, I have not been convinced by a single article or report that this program is anything so cut and dry as either a failure or an outright success.
Ok, so maybe it's not an outright failure, but it's pretty close. Even members of the administration realize this is failing. From today's Washington Post:
“What we ended up with,” said one senior Obama administration official, who would not speak on the record because he was being critical of his own administration’s environmental bona fides, “is a program in which you trade in old clunkers for new clunkers.” Less discussed is the second critique of the program: It rewards drivers who chose to buy gas guzzlers a few years back, but not those who spent more to buy fuel-sippers.
I think that second point has been seriously understated. It's like rewarding a shoplifter with a $100 free shopping spree and hoping they stop stealing from you after that.
Now allow me to add another critique. I was speaking to a car dealer here in Rochester the other day (look, I use real sources too), and he brought up this point, which I hadn't though of before:
Assume that you are an individual living on low income, or even fixed income. There are certainly enough people like that in this country to consider them an important part of population. Now, you, as one of those people, would really love to get a new car, but even with the $4,500 rebate, you just can't scrape together enough money to afford a brand new car. So you will go out and try to find a reliable model with more than 100,000 miles on it that costs somewhere under two grand. According to this dealer I was speaking to, a pretty significant portion of the used car business is in these "heavily used but pretty cheap" cars.
Well, thanks to "Cash for Clunkers", much of the supply in that sector of the market has been destroyed. People that would normally trade their cars in years from now and buy a new one (allowing that old car to be sold off to someone with low or fixed income at a low price) are trading their cars in right now. The government mandates that all cars traded in through the program must be crushed, so they can't be resold. This means today's "clunkers" will not get the chance to be tomorrow's cheap bargains.
This will at least for a few years disproportionately hurt the poorest members of society, the ones who can't take advantage of the "Clunkers" program right now because it only covers new cars and won't be able to buy a old, cheap, crappy car in the future because there will be so few of them left.
So now the liberals have to choose: the environment or the poor people?
What you're left with a program that does not create new demand (it just shifts future demand forward), destroys the future of an important segment of the used car market, and rewards the people who have been causing the "problem" in the first place. All in the name of a tiny reduction in gasoline consumption, slightly better emission statistics, and a little bump in consumer confidence.
Like Third Eye Blind sings in their newest single: "half-measures are all half-assed" (funny, they wrote that as a critique of Bush....but it works for government in general)
According to the carbon footprint calculator at terrapass.com (look, I cite figures. Unlike your source article, where the per capita income comes out of nowhere), a 1999 Ford Explorer, a popular car in its heyday that I'm sure is seeing some trading in right now, emits 9.17 tons of CO2 each year; upgrading to a 2009 Ford Focus cuts down to 5.25 tons of CO2 per year. As long as a driver keeps their car for TWO YEARS, they have successfully offset the CO2 output figure you cite.
These numbers assume putting 15,000 miles per year on to the car, which seems an average figure. Terrapass also informs us, passed on the fuel efficiency standards of these models, that the Explorer would use 938 gallons of fuel per year while the new Focus would use 536. That saves 400 gallons of gas per year for the drivers of those new cars, which at an average of $2.55 per gallon (EIA statistic), saves those families $1020 each year. This now means more money for those families could choose to put into other sects of the economy, while also reducing oil consumption by 32,000,000 (32 million) gallons per year, considering that the same article you cited last says 80,000 cars have been upgraded in this program (which sad to say, apparently offsets less than one day of our nation's oil consumption).
Well, I don't think there was any need to get snarky with the "I cite real figures" thing, but I'll let that go for now.
She makes a valid argument in favor of why driving a Ford Focus is better for the environment than driving a Ford Explorer, but I don't think that comes as a real shock to anyone. The problem is, with the way the program is structured, the people who are trading in SUVs with really bad gas mileage, are not generally driving away in Ford Focuses (Foci??).
If you trade in a car that gets less than 18 MPGs (which is the only way to qualify for the $4,500 discount), you only need to purchase a new vehicle that gets 22 MPG. In other words, they set the bar too low, particularly when you consider that the government requires car manufacturers maintain an average of 25 MPG for all new cars they make. So if you drop off your Hummer H2, you can drive away in something like a Ford F-150 (a mid-sized pickup), which qualifies. Does that make the planet a whole lot better off? Maybe a little. But now you've got to choose between helping the environment a tiny little bit and all the negative outcomes of the program.
My dear reader continues to valiantly defend the "small successes are worth it" approach:
I think this program has brought into clear light the difference fuel efficiency, and other small changes, can make for both the economy and the environment, and for that reason is admirable. To call it a failure is unbelievably harsh, and while I admit there are flaws in the plan, I have not been convinced by a single article or report that this program is anything so cut and dry as either a failure or an outright success.
Ok, so maybe it's not an outright failure, but it's pretty close. Even members of the administration realize this is failing. From today's Washington Post:
“What we ended up with,” said one senior Obama administration official, who would not speak on the record because he was being critical of his own administration’s environmental bona fides, “is a program in which you trade in old clunkers for new clunkers.” Less discussed is the second critique of the program: It rewards drivers who chose to buy gas guzzlers a few years back, but not those who spent more to buy fuel-sippers.
I think that second point has been seriously understated. It's like rewarding a shoplifter with a $100 free shopping spree and hoping they stop stealing from you after that.
Now allow me to add another critique. I was speaking to a car dealer here in Rochester the other day (look, I use real sources too), and he brought up this point, which I hadn't though of before:
Assume that you are an individual living on low income, or even fixed income. There are certainly enough people like that in this country to consider them an important part of population. Now, you, as one of those people, would really love to get a new car, but even with the $4,500 rebate, you just can't scrape together enough money to afford a brand new car. So you will go out and try to find a reliable model with more than 100,000 miles on it that costs somewhere under two grand. According to this dealer I was speaking to, a pretty significant portion of the used car business is in these "heavily used but pretty cheap" cars.
Well, thanks to "Cash for Clunkers", much of the supply in that sector of the market has been destroyed. People that would normally trade their cars in years from now and buy a new one (allowing that old car to be sold off to someone with low or fixed income at a low price) are trading their cars in right now. The government mandates that all cars traded in through the program must be crushed, so they can't be resold. This means today's "clunkers" will not get the chance to be tomorrow's cheap bargains.
This will at least for a few years disproportionately hurt the poorest members of society, the ones who can't take advantage of the "Clunkers" program right now because it only covers new cars and won't be able to buy a old, cheap, crappy car in the future because there will be so few of them left.
So now the liberals have to choose: the environment or the poor people?
What you're left with a program that does not create new demand (it just shifts future demand forward), destroys the future of an important segment of the used car market, and rewards the people who have been causing the "problem" in the first place. All in the name of a tiny reduction in gasoline consumption, slightly better emission statistics, and a little bump in consumer confidence.
Like Third Eye Blind sings in their newest single: "half-measures are all half-assed" (funny, they wrote that as a critique of Bush....but it works for government in general)
Third Eye Blind Countdown: #10 and #9
As I explained yesterday, I will be counting down my Top 10 favorite Third Eye Blind song lyrics during the rest of the week in anticipation of the new album - Ursa Major - coming out next Monday.
A few rules that I used in making this selections: There is no limit to how long a "lyric" can be, but the lines I picked how to be continuous, so I wasn't just picking a really good line here and really good line there throughout an entire song. The result is that some of the ones that made the cut will be entire verses and choruses, while others will be smaller. Other than that, this is a completely subjective list.
Today the countdown really begins with lyrics #9 and #10, both from songs on 3EB's most recent album: Out of the Vein.
#10: Palm Reader
"Freud said that love was a good psychosis,
but I don't know, I've had too many doses.
He's a creep, and we all know that he probably made it up.
Believe in me, and this lie.
Tell me everything will be alright,
'cause it's so good to believe,
but you turn my hope into a weapon.
I kept you sweater,
'til the scent was gone,
wrapped up in my hands when the days got long,
but I'm still sniffing"
#9: My Hit and Run
"I come down hard and roll to my feet,
and rain washes blood now off concrete.
People turn away and I just have to laugh,
'cause I'm still flying,
living and dying.
Always think we'll get more time,
'til you're flying through the air with someone on your mind,
and this motorcycle crash it is a sign,
'cause you were there, and I wish we had more time.
I want to thank Mr. Death now for what he's done,
'cause I got to walk away from my hit and run,
and mysteries are not so empty now,
'cause I saw you at my hit and run.
At my hit and run."
Tune in tomorrow for numbers 7 and 8. Here's a little foreshadowing for you: that won't be the only time a motorcycle makes an appearance in this countdown.
And for anyone reading this who doesn't know these songs - it's called iTunes, go download them now. You won't be disappointed.
A few rules that I used in making this selections: There is no limit to how long a "lyric" can be, but the lines I picked how to be continuous, so I wasn't just picking a really good line here and really good line there throughout an entire song. The result is that some of the ones that made the cut will be entire verses and choruses, while others will be smaller. Other than that, this is a completely subjective list.
Today the countdown really begins with lyrics #9 and #10, both from songs on 3EB's most recent album: Out of the Vein.
#10: Palm Reader
"Freud said that love was a good psychosis,
but I don't know, I've had too many doses.
He's a creep, and we all know that he probably made it up.
Believe in me, and this lie.
Tell me everything will be alright,
'cause it's so good to believe,
but you turn my hope into a weapon.
I kept you sweater,
'til the scent was gone,
wrapped up in my hands when the days got long,
but I'm still sniffing"
#9: My Hit and Run
"I come down hard and roll to my feet,
and rain washes blood now off concrete.
People turn away and I just have to laugh,
'cause I'm still flying,
living and dying.
Always think we'll get more time,
'til you're flying through the air with someone on your mind,
and this motorcycle crash it is a sign,
'cause you were there, and I wish we had more time.
I want to thank Mr. Death now for what he's done,
'cause I got to walk away from my hit and run,
and mysteries are not so empty now,
'cause I saw you at my hit and run.
At my hit and run."
Tune in tomorrow for numbers 7 and 8. Here's a little foreshadowing for you: that won't be the only time a motorcycle makes an appearance in this countdown.
And for anyone reading this who doesn't know these songs - it's called iTunes, go download them now. You won't be disappointed.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Third Eye Blind Countdown
Third Eye Blind's new album will be released exactly one week from today. After waiting six years since their last full-length release, I wanted to do something to appropriately honor them and to build some more anticipation for "Ursa Major".
So, all this week, I will be counting down my Top 10 favorite lyrics from 3EB's proud history. It was not an easy task to narrow down the list to only 10, however, so today I will offer some of the great lyrics that just missed the cut.
As a note: this list is not counting down my favorite songs, but rather my favorite lines from those songs. I thought this might be more interesting than just listing the best 10 songs the band has done. As a result, however, some fantastic songs, such as "God of Wine" or "Losing A Whole Year" did not make the Top 10, because while they might be great songs, there really isn't any outstanding single line or lines. But not every list can be perfect.
Honorable Mentions -
God of Wine:
"Every glamorous sunrise
throws the planets out of line.
The stars shine out of whack,
a fraudulent zodiac.
And the god of wine is crouched down in my room.
You let me down, I said it.
Now I'm going down,
and you're not even around."
Losing A Whole Year:
"Rich daddy left you with a parachute,
your voice sounds like money and your face is cute,
but your daddy left you with no love,
and you touch everything with a velvet glove.
Now you want to try the life of sin,
you want to be down with the down and in.
Always copping my truths,
I kinda get the feeling like I'm being used,
And now I realize that you never heard one goddamned word I ever said."
Good For You:
"I feel you cross my mind in disarray,
an intoxicated ricochet"
Another Life:
"Time goes by and I realize that I'm alright,
You thought nothing would be the same,
but life comes 'round again.
Quick wits and all curious,
caught up with what you say,
and makes me grab the time,
before it slips away"
Coming tomorrow: The countdown begins with numbers 9 and 10.
So, all this week, I will be counting down my Top 10 favorite lyrics from 3EB's proud history. It was not an easy task to narrow down the list to only 10, however, so today I will offer some of the great lyrics that just missed the cut.
As a note: this list is not counting down my favorite songs, but rather my favorite lines from those songs. I thought this might be more interesting than just listing the best 10 songs the band has done. As a result, however, some fantastic songs, such as "God of Wine" or "Losing A Whole Year" did not make the Top 10, because while they might be great songs, there really isn't any outstanding single line or lines. But not every list can be perfect.
Honorable Mentions -
God of Wine:
"Every glamorous sunrise
throws the planets out of line.
The stars shine out of whack,
a fraudulent zodiac.
And the god of wine is crouched down in my room.
You let me down, I said it.
Now I'm going down,
and you're not even around."
Losing A Whole Year:
"Rich daddy left you with a parachute,
your voice sounds like money and your face is cute,
but your daddy left you with no love,
and you touch everything with a velvet glove.
Now you want to try the life of sin,
you want to be down with the down and in.
Always copping my truths,
I kinda get the feeling like I'm being used,
And now I realize that you never heard one goddamned word I ever said."
Good For You:
"I feel you cross my mind in disarray,
an intoxicated ricochet"
Another Life:
"Time goes by and I realize that I'm alright,
You thought nothing would be the same,
but life comes 'round again.
Quick wits and all curious,
caught up with what you say,
and makes me grab the time,
before it slips away"
Coming tomorrow: The countdown begins with numbers 9 and 10.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
No Code Blue for 'Scrubs' Yet
So maybe JD's good-bye to Sacred Heart in last season's finale was a little premature.
ABC refused to market the eighth season finale as a series finale, but - with all the old time cast members making cameos, and that extended musical montage that gave us all some closure to the eight-year-long question of whether JD and Elliot would live happily ever after - it sure felt like one.
It has been officially announced by ABC that Scrubs will be returning for a ninth season, although exactly when the new episodes will air, or how many of them there will be, is still unknown.
Zack Braff has confirmed that he will be back for the first six episodes of the new season (he must be taking notes from Brett Favre, because this is the third time Braff has said this is his last season with the show), and seems to indicate that Bill Lawrence will still be working on the show as well, despite the fact that he said multiple times that he was finished after Season Eight.
Apparently Sarah Chalke will be back for at least a few episodes as well. Also, Turk, Dr. Cox, and the Janitor will return as regulars, but I'm interested how they are going to have Turk on the show without Carla.
Most interesting/odd....the show is going to be set in a medical school (instead of at Sacred Heart??), and Turk and Dr. Cox will be professors, while Denise ("Jo" the intern from last season) will be the new chief resident.
So maybe there's going to be some Lost-style time travel going on, because I don't see any other way you can promote an intern to chief resident in the span of one summer. Only time will tell how much of this is true, but it kind of feels like they are grasping a little bit here. I'm afraid that while Scrubs might still be alive, a full recovery is unlikely.
Also, I can't wait for the episode where they reveal Elliot has Dissociative Identity Disorder and has been leading a double life as Dr. Elliot Reed and Dr. Stella Zinman.
ABC refused to market the eighth season finale as a series finale, but - with all the old time cast members making cameos, and that extended musical montage that gave us all some closure to the eight-year-long question of whether JD and Elliot would live happily ever after - it sure felt like one.
It has been officially announced by ABC that Scrubs will be returning for a ninth season, although exactly when the new episodes will air, or how many of them there will be, is still unknown.
Zack Braff has confirmed that he will be back for the first six episodes of the new season (he must be taking notes from Brett Favre, because this is the third time Braff has said this is his last season with the show), and seems to indicate that Bill Lawrence will still be working on the show as well, despite the fact that he said multiple times that he was finished after Season Eight.
Apparently Sarah Chalke will be back for at least a few episodes as well. Also, Turk, Dr. Cox, and the Janitor will return as regulars, but I'm interested how they are going to have Turk on the show without Carla.
Most interesting/odd....the show is going to be set in a medical school (instead of at Sacred Heart??), and Turk and Dr. Cox will be professors, while Denise ("Jo" the intern from last season) will be the new chief resident.
So maybe there's going to be some Lost-style time travel going on, because I don't see any other way you can promote an intern to chief resident in the span of one summer. Only time will tell how much of this is true, but it kind of feels like they are grasping a little bit here. I'm afraid that while Scrubs might still be alive, a full recovery is unlikely.
Also, I can't wait for the episode where they reveal Elliot has Dissociative Identity Disorder and has been leading a double life as Dr. Elliot Reed and Dr. Stella Zinman.
Crazy Mascots
As an alumni of St. Pius X High School, the only school in the entire country with the "Winged Lions" as its mascot, this caught my eye.
Maybe I'm just playing favorites, but the Winged Lion deserves to be on the list, even if its not as good as the Astoria Fighting Fishermen, the Johnson Atom Smashers, or the Avon Old Farms Winged Beavers.
Sadly, the St. Pius X Winged Lions are about to enter their final year of existence. In September 2010, it will be merged into Pope John Paul II High School, which is surely to have a less-cool nickname. Unless they go with "Fightin' JP Deuces".
Maybe I'm just playing favorites, but the Winged Lion deserves to be on the list, even if its not as good as the Astoria Fighting Fishermen, the Johnson Atom Smashers, or the Avon Old Farms Winged Beavers.
Sadly, the St. Pius X Winged Lions are about to enter their final year of existence. In September 2010, it will be merged into Pope John Paul II High School, which is surely to have a less-cool nickname. Unless they go with "Fightin' JP Deuces".
Why I Hate New York City - It's So Poor
One of the biggest reasons why I hate New York City is the constant need for everything in the city to be described in the superlative. It's the "greatest" city in the world, it's the "biggest" city in America, it has the "best" food, the "most diverse" population, the "best" arts, the "most famous arena in the world", and on and on and on and on.
New Yorkers frequently speak and act as if they fully believe that they are actually the "greatest people in the world", and I can understand how they are so easily blinded to reality when they are surrounded by such superlative propaganda every single day.
But, finally, here is a New York City superlative that I can fully support: A recent article in the City Journal makes the claim that New York City is the poorest place in America (with Detroit running a close second).
According to the article, a salary of $100,000 in NYC buys you the same standard of living as roughly $50,000 in Chicago or $62,000 in Washington, DC. The cost of housing in New York City is nearly 70 percent higher than Chicago, while the cost of groceries are nearly 30 percent higher.
The bottom line: "The result is that New York City residents have far less purchasing power than anyone seems to realize."
Maybe they are just too blinded by all the superlatives to notice how much they are paying for everything. And then comes the even better part:
"The next step is to apply these cost-of-living differentials to the most recent census estimates for per-capita income. This calculation yields a measurement of each city’s average standard of living. Once you crunch the numbers, you find that the real standard of living in Washington, D.C. is 118 percent higher than in New York City. In Chicago, it’s 75 percent higher."
So to all those people living in New York - paying WAY too much for a tiny apartment, squeezing themselves into a packed subway car twice a day, and generally being surrounded by so many people in the street than it makes it near-impossible to breathe or think - who are telling themselves its all worth it because they live in the greatest city on Earth: You might want to break out of the bubble and reconsider. Your city is a financial hell-hole, and I'm laughing at you.
The author, Eamon Moynihan (who is one of my heroes for writing this), deserves to have the last word. Pay attention to his answer to the question of why New York City is such a mess (hint: "regulation"):
"It’s clear that New York has a big problem. On a comparative basis, we’re poor, thanks to a stratospheric cost of living—which itself is the result, I believe, of excessive and poorly designed regulation...right now, New York is simply too expensive."
New Yorkers frequently speak and act as if they fully believe that they are actually the "greatest people in the world", and I can understand how they are so easily blinded to reality when they are surrounded by such superlative propaganda every single day.
But, finally, here is a New York City superlative that I can fully support: A recent article in the City Journal makes the claim that New York City is the poorest place in America (with Detroit running a close second).
According to the article, a salary of $100,000 in NYC buys you the same standard of living as roughly $50,000 in Chicago or $62,000 in Washington, DC. The cost of housing in New York City is nearly 70 percent higher than Chicago, while the cost of groceries are nearly 30 percent higher.
The bottom line: "The result is that New York City residents have far less purchasing power than anyone seems to realize."
Maybe they are just too blinded by all the superlatives to notice how much they are paying for everything. And then comes the even better part:
"The next step is to apply these cost-of-living differentials to the most recent census estimates for per-capita income. This calculation yields a measurement of each city’s average standard of living. Once you crunch the numbers, you find that the real standard of living in Washington, D.C. is 118 percent higher than in New York City. In Chicago, it’s 75 percent higher."
So to all those people living in New York - paying WAY too much for a tiny apartment, squeezing themselves into a packed subway car twice a day, and generally being surrounded by so many people in the street than it makes it near-impossible to breathe or think - who are telling themselves its all worth it because they live in the greatest city on Earth: You might want to break out of the bubble and reconsider. Your city is a financial hell-hole, and I'm laughing at you.
The author, Eamon Moynihan (who is one of my heroes for writing this), deserves to have the last word. Pay attention to his answer to the question of why New York City is such a mess (hint: "regulation"):
"It’s clear that New York has a big problem. On a comparative basis, we’re poor, thanks to a stratospheric cost of living—which itself is the result, I believe, of excessive and poorly designed regulation...right now, New York is simply too expensive."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
