By TED STRICKLAND and LEE FISHER
September 6, 2008
Ohio is going to be a hard fought-over state in this presidential election. And consequently, the economy of this bellwether state has become highly scrutinized.
But much of this scrutiny has focused only on the admittedly tragic loss of manufacturing jobs, while overlooking major investments in tax reform, technology and higher education. Things in Ohio are not as the news coverage has made them appear.
AP
Dana Corporation's automotive parts manufacturing plant in Lima, Ohio.
There's no question we face serious economic challenges, and that the national economy's decline has hit citizens hard in the wallet.
But the state has too many strengths, too many successes, and too noble a history to be portrayed as a poster child for the country's economic woes. Look under Ohio's hood. Its engine is being redesigned and retooled in ways that offer important lesson on how to make an economy more competitive in a global marketplace.
The biggest shift is in taxes. Ohio business leaders told us that our tax structure was outdated and made the state uncompetitive. So, in a bipartisan manner, we restructured our tax laws to lower the burden for business.
By 2010, Ohio will be one of only two states without a general tax on corporation profits or a property tax on business machinery, equipment and inventories. This year is the last for Ohio's business property tax; next year is the last for the corporation profits tax. And Ohio's personal income tax rates are falling by 21% across the board.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Democrats Lead in Ohio with Tax Cuts
CROSS COUNTRY
Feds grab Freddie and Fannie for Republicans!
Nationalize the Macs!
Privatize the Profits!
Socialize the losses!
Forbes.com
In a desperate attempt to shore up the Republican-led war on the middle class, the federal government will soon take over the two mortgage giants, using our tax dollars. The borrow and spend conservatives are hoping against hope to slow the precipitous decline in housing prices, unavailablity of loans, and skyrocketing rate of foreclosure and default.
Their hope is to lower objections to John McCain, an unfailing supporter of the Bush/Cheney administration's wealth redistribution scheme to enrich the already-rich 2% of the American population who own the largest share of American wealth.
Americans by the millions will not see relief from this, and will turn toward Barack Obama to put in place policies that will help the middle class.
Privatize the Profits!
Socialize the losses!
Forbes.com
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that fund half the U.S. housing market, are about to become subsidiaries of the U.S. government.
The Treasury Department late Friday was putting together final details of a plan to take the two into conservatorship, effectively a government takeover, at a potential cost of tens of billions to taxpayers.
In a desperate attempt to shore up the Republican-led war on the middle class, the federal government will soon take over the two mortgage giants, using our tax dollars. The borrow and spend conservatives are hoping against hope to slow the precipitous decline in housing prices, unavailablity of loans, and skyrocketing rate of foreclosure and default.
Their hope is to lower objections to John McCain, an unfailing supporter of the Bush/Cheney administration's wealth redistribution scheme to enrich the already-rich 2% of the American population who own the largest share of American wealth.
Americans by the millions will not see relief from this, and will turn toward Barack Obama to put in place policies that will help the middle class.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Johnny, We've Heard Ye Before
John McCain gave an overlong, middling speech, fought with technical glitches and jumbled speechwriting at last night's Republican National Convention.
We've heard it before, John, and this is probably the last time anyone outside the 31-percenters will have a chance to hear it. Your speech was swamped by Gov. Palin's speech the night before - hers full of one-liners and bright lies, yours full of the dull same-old same-old.
It's your last day in the spotlight. Now into the oven of the general election, and stick a fork in it.
We've heard it before, John, and this is probably the last time anyone outside the 31-percenters will have a chance to hear it. Your speech was swamped by Gov. Palin's speech the night before - hers full of one-liners and bright lies, yours full of the dull same-old same-old.
It's your last day in the spotlight. Now into the oven of the general election, and stick a fork in it.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Uppity Obama Wins Georgia!
GOP Rep.: Obamas part of 'uppity' class
"Honestly, I've never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama," Westmoreland said. "Just what little I've seen of her and Senator [Barack] Obama, is that they're a member of an elitist class...that thinks that they're uppity."
Palin Speaks, Stocks Slide
Brutal selloff on Wall Street
Dow loses 345 points as mixed retail sales reports, weak job market news and an oil price slide add to fears about a global slowdown.
Dow loses 345 points as mixed retail sales reports, weak job market news and an oil price slide add to fears about a global slowdown.
Obama and Biden will end the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
Biden tells Va. crowd he and Obama would end war
Why has John McCain done nothing to rally the citizens of the US for true support for the war in Iraq?
The answer is, he and Bush do not need the majority of us to support this war, in order to continue getting elected and in order to continue to bleed the country dry to enrich the already rich. It might be true that Republicans lately have shown that they know how to get elected but they don't know how to govern, but the real issues extend much further than that.
The Republicans-in-name-only know how to govern just enough. Just enough to fool some of the people some of the time. Just enough to keep running wars for power and oil. Just enough to keep enough of us believing that just because we haven't been doing so well economically that the policies of the current administration are somehow not to blame or somehow the right thing to do even at the cost to my health, retirement, and sanity.
This is a country where nearly half of us still believe that John McCain, a nearly-30-year Washington insider, is an alternative to what we have now.
If we elect him, we will get what we ask for. More of the same. More Cheney/Bush/Rove.
It's time to support the troops, and end the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008 - 12:27 PM
By BILL GEROUX, TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
VIRGINIA BEACH Democratic vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen., Joe Biden reached out to military families and veterans this morning, saying the Bush administration's mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched the military to its breaking point.
"America's not at war, the military's at war," Biden told a friendly crowd of several hundred listeners at a campaign stop at the Virginia Beach Convention Center. The military "is the only thing we're asking anything of," he said. ...
Why has John McCain done nothing to rally the citizens of the US for true support for the war in Iraq?
The answer is, he and Bush do not need the majority of us to support this war, in order to continue getting elected and in order to continue to bleed the country dry to enrich the already rich. It might be true that Republicans lately have shown that they know how to get elected but they don't know how to govern, but the real issues extend much further than that.
The Republicans-in-name-only know how to govern just enough. Just enough to fool some of the people some of the time. Just enough to keep running wars for power and oil. Just enough to keep enough of us believing that just because we haven't been doing so well economically that the policies of the current administration are somehow not to blame or somehow the right thing to do even at the cost to my health, retirement, and sanity.
This is a country where nearly half of us still believe that John McCain, a nearly-30-year Washington insider, is an alternative to what we have now.
If we elect him, we will get what we ask for. More of the same. More Cheney/Bush/Rove.
It's time to support the troops, and end the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Obama Support Hits 50%
Obama support hits 50 per cent
The Democratic nominee now holds an eight-point lead over Mr McCain – 50 per cent to 42 per cent – according to today’s daily tracking poll released by Gallup.
Mr Obama has bounced back from a poll low earlier this month when the two presidential candidates were tied on 44 per cent. Undecided voters have dropped from 11 per cent to 8 per cent, suggesting that those who have recently made up their minds are opting for Mr Obama.
Experience
Biden, McCain, Obama, and Palin all have the same amount of experience in the Oval Office:
Zero. None. Zilch.
This discussion is over.
Zero. None. Zilch.
This discussion is over.
McCain's Harriet Miers Moment
Thanks, John, for showing us how great is your judgement. Your choice of Sarah Palin, whether you win or lose this race, will go down as the greatest failure of a long, respected career in US political history.
Republican Palin Panic
Republicans around the country are in a panic about the pick of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.
According to sources in the McCain campaign, asking not to be named, John McCain strongly wanted Senator Joseph Leiberman on his ticket as Vice Presidential candidate. Karl Rove and others of influence were adamant against the liberal/independent Leiberman, and McCain responded "in a fit of his own independence" by inviting Palin to Arizona for a quick interview and offer.
Those opposed to Palin, the large majority of influence, went with the presumptive presidential nominee when they all agreed that at the least she would "solidify the religious right base" and help distract the press the day after the end of the Democratic National Convention.
The Republican Party's well oiled machine kicked into gear, supplying talking points and brief Palin histories to sympathetic talking heads, message statements to the host of spurned VP possibles, and drafting quotes to supply to specially selected Republican women to project the image that the party was now united and that Palin was a brilliant pick.
Instead, revelations of Palin's original support for the "Bridge to Nowhere," securing of $27M of US taxpayer funds for her town of Wassila, investigations into her pressure to have her estranged ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Plice, her membership in the anti-American AIP, her hateful preacher who stated that "If you don't vote for George Bush, you will have a hard time getting into heaven," and family issues such as her 17-year-old unwed-daughter's pregnancy have thrown the Republican base into panic.
Fundrasing has bumped for the McCain campaign since the Palin announcement, but polling shows Barack Obama 8 points higher than McCain than he was before the Palin announcement.
Her speech tonight is expected to be a make-or-break moment for Palin. She is at this moment locked in a room with veteran RNC speechwriters
“I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative.”-Faye Palin, Sarah's mother-in-law
"I was committed to voting for McCain, but the whole Sarah thing has made me consider voting for Obama. She seems to have been checked out by the Republicans too little, and my feeling is that she is not ready to be president" Amanda Muller, registered Nebraska Republican.
The unnamed McCain campaign source said "We have sent a task force to Alaska for damage control, and we agree with odds-makers that she has a 50-50 chance of being dumped before November. Some October surprise, huh."
According to sources in the McCain campaign, asking not to be named, John McCain strongly wanted Senator Joseph Leiberman on his ticket as Vice Presidential candidate. Karl Rove and others of influence were adamant against the liberal/independent Leiberman, and McCain responded "in a fit of his own independence" by inviting Palin to Arizona for a quick interview and offer.
Those opposed to Palin, the large majority of influence, went with the presumptive presidential nominee when they all agreed that at the least she would "solidify the religious right base" and help distract the press the day after the end of the Democratic National Convention.
The Republican Party's well oiled machine kicked into gear, supplying talking points and brief Palin histories to sympathetic talking heads, message statements to the host of spurned VP possibles, and drafting quotes to supply to specially selected Republican women to project the image that the party was now united and that Palin was a brilliant pick.
Instead, revelations of Palin's original support for the "Bridge to Nowhere," securing of $27M of US taxpayer funds for her town of Wassila, investigations into her pressure to have her estranged ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Plice, her membership in the anti-American AIP, her hateful preacher who stated that "If you don't vote for George Bush, you will have a hard time getting into heaven," and family issues such as her 17-year-old unwed-daughter's pregnancy have thrown the Republican base into panic.
Fundrasing has bumped for the McCain campaign since the Palin announcement, but polling shows Barack Obama 8 points higher than McCain than he was before the Palin announcement.
Her speech tonight is expected to be a make-or-break moment for Palin. She is at this moment locked in a room with veteran RNC speechwriters
“I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative.”-Faye Palin, Sarah's mother-in-law
"I was committed to voting for McCain, but the whole Sarah thing has made me consider voting for Obama. She seems to have been checked out by the Republicans too little, and my feeling is that she is not ready to be president" Amanda Muller, registered Nebraska Republican.
The unnamed McCain campaign source said "We have sent a task force to Alaska for damage control, and we agree with odds-makers that she has a 50-50 chance of being dumped before November. Some October surprise, huh."
Why the US Faces Broadband Price Hikes
20% of drivers on our highways make up 80% of traffic at any given time. 20% of shoppers in a grocery store buy 80% of the products. 20% of water customers use 80% of our water resources.
The dull argument that the best consumers of a product, service, utility, etc., somehow spoil it or break the system for the rest of us is, and always has been, wrong.
These best consumers built these systems. The Internet wouldn't exist without feverish downloaders. Comcast certainly wouldn't have built their system to its current bandwidth capability without its extreme users' steadily increasing needs, and Comcast wouldn't have increased their capacity if all we do is send a few text emails and post on listservers.
McDonalds is never heard complaining that a few of their customers buy too many of their Happy Meals. These more active consumers built and sustain the enterprise. Should they limit the number of Happy Meals per-customer or charge more per-Happy Meal for those who consume more? Of course not.
Comcast and other providers provide a flat rate service, and until they change to a metered service, they must not chip away at the absolute notion of unlimited. They know that the minute they change to a metered service, their growth will stop dead in its tracks, defeating its plans to use increased bandwidth to resell content.
Our society's culture, economy, security, and communication infrastructure is growing rapidly to depend on the Internet. As this need grows, like electricity and water, the market will shape the Internet as a utility, open, free, and regulated. The underlying commerce and flow of ideas will make use of this resource, but ultimately it will be up to us as a nation and a world to keep it free.
The flat-rate pricing model we’re all used to only works when users consume roughly equal amounts of bandwidth, but the adoption of P2P for non-stop use by a small number of people blows it out the window.
20% of drivers on our highways make up 80% of traffic at any given time. 20% of shoppers in a grocery store buy 80% of the products. 20% of water customers use 80% of our water resources.
The dull argument that the best consumers of a product, service, utility, etc., somehow spoil it or break the system for the rest of us is, and always has been, wrong.
These best consumers built these systems. The Internet wouldn't exist without feverish downloaders. Comcast certainly wouldn't have built their system to its current bandwidth capability without its extreme users' steadily increasing needs, and Comcast wouldn't have increased their capacity if all we do is send a few text emails and post on listservers.
McDonalds is never heard complaining that a few of their customers buy too many of their Happy Meals. These more active consumers built and sustain the enterprise. Should they limit the number of Happy Meals per-customer or charge more per-Happy Meal for those who consume more? Of course not.
Comcast and other providers provide a flat rate service, and until they change to a metered service, they must not chip away at the absolute notion of unlimited. They know that the minute they change to a metered service, their growth will stop dead in its tracks, defeating its plans to use increased bandwidth to resell content.
Our society's culture, economy, security, and communication infrastructure is growing rapidly to depend on the Internet. As this need grows, like electricity and water, the market will shape the Internet as a utility, open, free, and regulated. The underlying commerce and flow of ideas will make use of this resource, but ultimately it will be up to us as a nation and a world to keep it free.
welcome chrome
Yes, Chrome is fast, very, scary fast. Chrome has loaded all websites flawlessly. Pages sometimes look a little different - not better or worse, just different.
But - no Google Toolbar (where are my bookmarks?), Flash (no YouTube G?) EDIT - got Flash...
Gmail's still in beta after all these years. Google is the perfect example of a boyfriend who just can't commit.
But - no Google Toolbar (where are my bookmarks?), Flash (no YouTube G?) EDIT - got Flash...
Gmail's still in beta after all these years. Google is the perfect example of a boyfriend who just can't commit.
Monday, September 01, 2008
LA Times Letter from the Editor - Shame
Letters to the Editor
This letter - and, yes, it’s the only appropriate word – is bullshit.
Not the opinion (that’s fine, she/he is entitled) but the fact that the letter is an obvious lie. There is no Ellie Levitas who was once a magical Democrat who became an Obama opponent. Anyone who has read even a newspaper like the LA Times knows that the words and phrasing of his/her comments are straight from Townhall/Limbaugh/FOX/Rove, etc. Do a simple search (on the sources where people really get their news, not your newspaper) and anyone can find these words and phrases only coming from partisan hacks.
Please, LA Times, be more careful to separate opinion from diatribe.
There was a time when I believed in Obama and his mantra for change. I really can't say when I started questioning my support for him. Maybe it was when he reversed key primary positions upon winning the nomination. Maybe it was when he went with a Washington insider as his vice president. Maybe it was my Republican neighbor incessantly reminding me about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and many others.
I wasn't impressed with Obama's European vacation either, but still thought I could vote for him. Not anymore. Thursday night's Denver rally was a big turnoff for many reasons. The only things missing from the rally were torchlights and Leni Riefenstahl to film it.
Ellie Levitas
Cypress
This letter - and, yes, it’s the only appropriate word – is bullshit.
Not the opinion (that’s fine, she/he is entitled) but the fact that the letter is an obvious lie. There is no Ellie Levitas who was once a magical Democrat who became an Obama opponent. Anyone who has read even a newspaper like the LA Times knows that the words and phrasing of his/her comments are straight from Townhall/Limbaugh/FOX/Rove, etc. Do a simple search (on the sources where people really get their news, not your newspaper) and anyone can find these words and phrases only coming from partisan hacks.
Please, LA Times, be more careful to separate opinion from diatribe.
Palin Pile-on
I hate to go for the easy target...
She really, really, doesn't have the experience to be president. You know it.
Her trooper scandal has legs.
She directed indicted Senator Stevens' PAC.
In a widely distributed video clip, she avows that she doesn't know what the Vice President does.
Her 17-year old daughter is pregnant, unmarried. The father of the child (OK, I'm not sure of the details of Alaska's statutory rape laws) is a rapist. (I don't believe the rumors that Palin's young baby is actully that of her then-16-year-old daughter)
Her choice by McCain seems to be a botched, compromised, choice by-committee. It really shows how poor McCain's judgement is, and how poor his leadership skills would be as president. This may, in fact, take down the candidacy.
Agreed, she has led a campaign for part-time mayorship, and governorship of one of the United States. She speaks clearly (but is too dull to know how to pronounce the word "nuclear..." do we need another president with that deficiency???). She walks the conservative walk in her personal life to all accounts.
Another Republican failure, and an American failure if ~ half of the U. S. continues to support this failing party.
She really, really, doesn't have the experience to be president. You know it.
Her trooper scandal has legs.
She directed indicted Senator Stevens' PAC.
In a widely distributed video clip, she avows that she doesn't know what the Vice President does.
Her 17-year old daughter is pregnant, unmarried. The father of the child (OK, I'm not sure of the details of Alaska's statutory rape laws) is a rapist. (I don't believe the rumors that Palin's young baby is actully that of her then-16-year-old daughter)
Her choice by McCain seems to be a botched, compromised, choice by-committee. It really shows how poor McCain's judgement is, and how poor his leadership skills would be as president. This may, in fact, take down the candidacy.
Agreed, she has led a campaign for part-time mayorship, and governorship of one of the United States. She speaks clearly (but is too dull to know how to pronounce the word "nuclear..." do we need another president with that deficiency???). She walks the conservative walk in her personal life to all accounts.
Another Republican failure, and an American failure if ~ half of the U. S. continues to support this failing party.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Potomac Watch - WSJ.com
Potomac Watch - WSJ.com
"Democrats Offer Stealth LiberalismAugust 29, 2008; Page A15DenverThe Reagan revolution is dead! Just don't expect us to bet this election on it!If there's a theme that's emerged from this week's Democratic National Convention here, this is it. To listen to liberal pundits and party leaders (and Bill Clinton on stage Wednesday night) modern conservatism has had its run and is now kaput. Americans -- burdened by "inequality," soaring doctor bills, falling home prices -- are ready for a new Great Society. We are all progressives now."
I'll tell you one thing: modern conservatism was dead the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.
Two 8-year runs of voodoo economics, resulting in two recessions, welfare for the wealthy, shrinking middle class incomes, a significant number of Americans without medical insurance or access to reasonable health care, etc., etc., etc., it should be obvious that it's time for a turn back to the center.
"Democrats Offer Stealth LiberalismAugust 29, 2008; Page A15DenverThe Reagan revolution is dead! Just don't expect us to bet this election on it!If there's a theme that's emerged from this week's Democratic National Convention here, this is it. To listen to liberal pundits and party leaders (and Bill Clinton on stage Wednesday night) modern conservatism has had its run and is now kaput. Americans -- burdened by "inequality," soaring doctor bills, falling home prices -- are ready for a new Great Society. We are all progressives now."
I'll tell you one thing: modern conservatism was dead the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.
Two 8-year runs of voodoo economics, resulting in two recessions, welfare for the wealthy, shrinking middle class incomes, a significant number of Americans without medical insurance or access to reasonable health care, etc., etc., etc., it should be obvious that it's time for a turn back to the center.
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain/Palin
Yes, the end of the McCain candidacy.
A woman has run for the Vice Presidency before, and lost.
This will bring over as many as zero Hilary Clinton voters to the McCain ticket.
This woman has no experience or even exposure to national security or defense issues.
What qualifies her to be President? She'll be one "BOO" or melanoma away from the Oval Office, and it's irresponsible for McCain to ask her to join the ticket. He must have been turned down by quite a few qualified and experienced prospects.
As Gustav roars down on New Orleans Monday, the Republican convention will open in the Twin Cities with a wet whimper, and today's news adds nothing.
A woman has run for the Vice Presidency before, and lost.
This will bring over as many as zero Hilary Clinton voters to the McCain ticket.
This woman has no experience or even exposure to national security or defense issues.
What qualifies her to be President? She'll be one "BOO" or melanoma away from the Oval Office, and it's irresponsible for McCain to ask her to join the ticket. He must have been turned down by quite a few qualified and experienced prospects.
As Gustav roars down on New Orleans Monday, the Republican convention will open in the Twin Cities with a wet whimper, and today's news adds nothing.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
McCain and Space Shuttle - Aging, Creaky, and Wrong
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/27/mccain_calls_for_shuttle_extension/
NASA's Space Shuttle program has been a success, and has benefitted our nation and our world far beyond the investment we as taxpayers have made.
It is time to put this dated program out to pasture. And put the dated candidate out there with it. His judgement and understanding of this issue is obviously flawed and motivated only by the pork barrel politics of federal programs used to prop up partisan state elections.
Presidential contender John McCain and two other bigshot Republican senators have written to George Bush urging that NASA keep the Space Shuttle fleet alive beyond 2010. The politicians are concerned about US reliance on Russia for manned space transport in the early years of the next decade.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Senators McCain, Hutchison (Texas) and Vitter (Louisiana) wrote to the President on Monday.
"At a minimum, we request that you direct NASA to take no action for at least one year from now that would preclude the extended use of the space shuttle beyond 2010," the three men stated.
At present, NASA's plan is that the shuttle fleet would not fly beyond 2010...
NASA's Space Shuttle program has been a success, and has benefitted our nation and our world far beyond the investment we as taxpayers have made.
It is time to put this dated program out to pasture. And put the dated candidate out there with it. His judgement and understanding of this issue is obviously flawed and motivated only by the pork barrel politics of federal programs used to prop up partisan state elections.
Friday, August 22, 2008
John McCain is an Out-of Touch Elitist II
John McCain spends approximately a quarter of a million dollars a year on household help.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Barack Obama - Right on Iraq, Right for America
Condoleezza Rice says Iraq troop deal is close - Times Online: "US and Iraqi negotiators have been locked in discussions on the content of the accord since March, with the issue growing increasingly sensitive as a number of Iraqi leaders express their desire for a timeline for the exit of the remaining 144,000 US troops from their country."
Iraq, the American people, and Barack Obama are all calling for US withdrawl from Iraq.
He's right, and we must cast our votes for him so this continued occupation of Iraq will be stopped.
Iraq, the American people, and Barack Obama are all calling for US withdrawl from Iraq.
He's right, and we must cast our votes for him so this continued occupation of Iraq will be stopped.
-John McCain is an Out-of Touch Elitist
McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.
'I think — I'll have my staff get to you,' McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. 'It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you.'
The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia,"
'I think — I'll have my staff get to you,' McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. 'It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you.'
The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia,"
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Above My Pay Grade
Conservatives and Christians alike resoundingly have a new outlook on Barack Obama after his appearance at the Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA.
When asked by Pastor Rick Warren "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?," Senator Obama replied: "whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."
The deep love and respect for God shown by Senator Obama touched the hearts and souls of Christians nationwide.
When asked the same question, Senator John McCain answered: "At the moment of conception." His answer was perceived by most at the event as short, to the point, and not supported by Science or the Christian Bible.
Neither the written Word of God in the Old Testament nor the words of Jesus Christ or his Apostles show any direct answer to this question.
The audience at Saddleback and watching on television and the Internet heard a question from Pastor Warren that was coded. The code translates to "if you support human life, and if you avow support to human rights, you have to support the total ban on abortion."
The informed members of this audience know that abortions have fallen worldwide since 1990, and in the U. S. at a slower rate since 2000 than for the previous decade. This rate of abortion has fallen worldwide, equally in places where it is legal and where it is illegal. They agree with Senator Obama that women don't make the decision to abort "casually," that they "wrestle" with it.
Obama's one mistake with this answer was not answering on a political and ethical level. On that level, his answer would be "At birth. Before birth, the baby is part of the mother and the mother's human rights to carry the child to full term or not must be respected and supported."
Faced with his perception of this question as softball, John McCain answered with a simplisttic, irrelevant war cry.
Faced with the politcally conservative encoding of the question, his interpretation and answer were thoughtful and reflective.
When asked by Pastor Rick Warren "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?," Senator Obama replied: "whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."
The deep love and respect for God shown by Senator Obama touched the hearts and souls of Christians nationwide.
When asked the same question, Senator John McCain answered: "At the moment of conception." His answer was perceived by most at the event as short, to the point, and not supported by Science or the Christian Bible.
Neither the written Word of God in the Old Testament nor the words of Jesus Christ or his Apostles show any direct answer to this question.
The audience at Saddleback and watching on television and the Internet heard a question from Pastor Warren that was coded. The code translates to "if you support human life, and if you avow support to human rights, you have to support the total ban on abortion."
The informed members of this audience know that abortions have fallen worldwide since 1990, and in the U. S. at a slower rate since 2000 than for the previous decade. This rate of abortion has fallen worldwide, equally in places where it is legal and where it is illegal. They agree with Senator Obama that women don't make the decision to abort "casually," that they "wrestle" with it.
Obama's one mistake with this answer was not answering on a political and ethical level. On that level, his answer would be "At birth. Before birth, the baby is part of the mother and the mother's human rights to carry the child to full term or not must be respected and supported."
Faced with his perception of this question as softball, John McCain answered with a simplisttic, irrelevant war cry.
Faced with the politcally conservative encoding of the question, his interpretation and answer were thoughtful and reflective.
Democrats and Drilling - WSJ.com
Democrats and Drilling - WSJ.com
How can such a respected newspaper print such baldfaced lies an obfuscation disguised as journalism?
I'll keep this simple.
The oil industry makes money when the price of oil goes up, and when the price of oil goes down. This is shown as these companys' profits hit new records each quarter (nothing wrong with turning a profit).
The Department of Energy, today and when describing George H. W. Bush's Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling in 1990 project that approximately 75-80 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from offshore and Alaskan resources.
The areas banned by this order contain between 1% and 7% of oil recoverable in U. S. waters. That leaves a lot of area already leased by the oil companies that has not been developed, even as we give huge tax credits and incentives on the federal level for them to explore for new oil.
Let's see the oil companies exploit their current leases first. Let's see them do so in a safe and clean manner. Then, let's consider less Federal regulation.
80 billion barrels of oil pumped here do not go directly into U. S. refineries to be sold to U. S. gas stations, increasing supply to lower cost. This crude oil goes into the worldwide market - this much extra supply would reduce the price of crude oil today by about fifty cents a day. Half a dollar.
Its effect on the price of crude in the 12-14 years before these new offshore/ANWAR wells can start delivering can't be predicted. It's effect on the price of gasoline at the pump would be minimal today, a few cents per gallon, and future price can't be predicted.
This ban was put in place by Republican President Bush in 1990 because the potential environmental costs far outweigh the negligible effect on gasoline prices, then and now. Congress, in 1982 under Republican President Reagan placed into the Department of Energy's appropriations the same ban on offshore drilling, for the same reasons. Current President Bush recinded his father's ban, but Congress rightly has left their ban on the books.
When John McCain takes a breath and spews "Drill Here and Drill Now," he gets a reaction from an ignorant faction of the public. Let's be smarter. Let's not be fooled.
Whether Congress recinds, partially or wholly, the Federal restrictions, State and Local governments will have much say in this. The potentially devestating effects on the local environment and economy of accidents and ongoing use of offshore drilling and pumping can be far too costly for any local governemnt to afford.
For this reason, the Federal government has every right and obligation to have the final say on reasonable restrictions. All else is short-term political pandering.
the anticarbon Speaker lampooned drilling as "a hoax on the American people," while Barack Obama called it "another Washington gimmick." Now the Democratic Presidential candidate has also said he might be willing to change his mind and tolerate the exploitation of domestic energy resources. The good news for converts like Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama is that they have immediate opportunities to quiet Republicans and other skeptics and prove their new pro-drilling bona fides.
...
the Democratic choice is between sticking with an anticarbon theology that opposes all new drilling, or siding with American consumers who want more energy supplies so they don't have to pay $4 for gas and blow their family budget to keep the lights on
How can such a respected newspaper print such baldfaced lies an obfuscation disguised as journalism?
I'll keep this simple.
The oil industry makes money when the price of oil goes up, and when the price of oil goes down. This is shown as these companys' profits hit new records each quarter (nothing wrong with turning a profit).
The Department of Energy, today and when describing George H. W. Bush's Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling in 1990 project that approximately 75-80 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from offshore and Alaskan resources.
The areas banned by this order contain between 1% and 7% of oil recoverable in U. S. waters. That leaves a lot of area already leased by the oil companies that has not been developed, even as we give huge tax credits and incentives on the federal level for them to explore for new oil.
Let's see the oil companies exploit their current leases first. Let's see them do so in a safe and clean manner. Then, let's consider less Federal regulation.
80 billion barrels of oil pumped here do not go directly into U. S. refineries to be sold to U. S. gas stations, increasing supply to lower cost. This crude oil goes into the worldwide market - this much extra supply would reduce the price of crude oil today by about fifty cents a day. Half a dollar.
Its effect on the price of crude in the 12-14 years before these new offshore/ANWAR wells can start delivering can't be predicted. It's effect on the price of gasoline at the pump would be minimal today, a few cents per gallon, and future price can't be predicted.
This ban was put in place by Republican President Bush in 1990 because the potential environmental costs far outweigh the negligible effect on gasoline prices, then and now. Congress, in 1982 under Republican President Reagan placed into the Department of Energy's appropriations the same ban on offshore drilling, for the same reasons. Current President Bush recinded his father's ban, but Congress rightly has left their ban on the books.
When John McCain takes a breath and spews "Drill Here and Drill Now," he gets a reaction from an ignorant faction of the public. Let's be smarter. Let's not be fooled.
Whether Congress recinds, partially or wholly, the Federal restrictions, State and Local governments will have much say in this. The potentially devestating effects on the local environment and economy of accidents and ongoing use of offshore drilling and pumping can be far too costly for any local governemnt to afford.
For this reason, the Federal government has every right and obligation to have the final say on reasonable restrictions. All else is short-term political pandering.
Friday, May 25, 2007
knowledge and belief
I know that gravity exists, because I fall every time I jump.
I believe in gravity, since there is no completely convincing scientific explaination, every time I want to jump.
I believe in gravity, since there is no completely convincing scientific explaination, every time I want to jump.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
>Illegal Downloading Drops Among Youth
OK...
The RIAA reports that sales of CDs are down about 24% over the last three years, and now this industry survey concludes that infringing downloads are down 24%...
Did you know that the music industry's biggest year was also the biggest year for (original) Napster?
We certainly have to monetize file trades of all kinds. This shouldn't misdirect us from the fact that the RIAA is the biggest, evilest enemy of the music industry, and that the music industry will continue to change dramatically with or without them.
Washington, DC (May 24, 2007)--The results of a recent nationwide survey released by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) show that illegal downloading of digital copyrighted works by youth (ages 8 to 18) has dropped by 24 percent in the last three years. The survey, first conducted in 2004, indicated that 60 percent of survey participants reported downloading software, music, movies, or games without paying for it; in 2006, the percentage of those who downloaded without paying dropped to 43 percent; and in 2007, the percentage decreased to 36 percent. Youth report that parental oversight is a significant motivator and key influencing factor in their online behavior.
...
Business Software Alliance
www.bsa.org
OK...
The RIAA reports that sales of CDs are down about 24% over the last three years, and now this industry survey concludes that infringing downloads are down 24%...
Did you know that the music industry's biggest year was also the biggest year for (original) Napster?
We certainly have to monetize file trades of all kinds. This shouldn't misdirect us from the fact that the RIAA is the biggest, evilest enemy of the music industry, and that the music industry will continue to change dramatically with or without them.
Friday, May 18, 2007
George W. Bush: You Stink and so does the Dollar
Strive to be a better president, so we can have an economy that is good for the rest of us.
My MBAs can't afford a home
UCLA instructor gets a lecture as tenants take protest to class - Los Angeles Times: "My MBAs can't afford a home"
Bla, bla, bla
Eric Sussman seems to have forfeited his right to claim membership in the human race.
To place this so-called plight of his precious MBA students anywhere near the reality that his tenants live in should keep him from having any contact or control with anyone trying to live in L.A. on a small or average income.
He has earned a seven-figure equity profit from his investment in this building. If he isn't an idiot, he earns a significant monthly profit from rents after expenses.
This slumlord should be made to live in this building for a year, and to live on the average pay of his tenants, before he can dismiss them as sub-human.
Bla, bla, bla
Eric Sussman seems to have forfeited his right to claim membership in the human race.
To place this so-called plight of his precious MBA students anywhere near the reality that his tenants live in should keep him from having any contact or control with anyone trying to live in L.A. on a small or average income.
He has earned a seven-figure equity profit from his investment in this building. If he isn't an idiot, he earns a significant monthly profit from rents after expenses.
This slumlord should be made to live in this building for a year, and to live on the average pay of his tenants, before he can dismiss them as sub-human.
In Defense of Barry Bonds
OK, professional athletes can be fat, overpaid, entitled pussies, and their fanboys can be self-hating morons who worship at an empty alter.
Barry Bonds is on the juice. He can't come out and say it, but it's the truth. Babe Ruth was on a different kind of juice, and Hank Aaron was a skilled and persistent athlete, but Bonds has enhanced his athleticism with man-made concoctions. I'm sure Bonds also wears shoes better than my black-on-black Converse All Star Hi Tops when he plays baseball, and I'm sure he wears a batters glove better than a sandlot slugger would own.
Barry Bonds grew to a stature that has allowed him to learn how to connect a bat to a ball - a task some say is the most difficult in sport - a recipient of a lucky sperm that actually took advantage of what he was born-into (unlike, for example the chimp who is in the White House right now, born on third, thinking he hit a triple...). I'm sure that hitting a ball is pretty much the only thing he has done with passion through his life - he's had a rough family life, and doesn't speak to his team mates, reporters, etc. (the juice ain't good for social skills). No amount of juice will automatically make you hyper-muscular - I'm sure he crafts and shapes his stature with exercise.
If Bonds didn't juice, he would probably still connect with as many balls. He just probably wouldn't hit them as far. He wouldn't have had as many home runs, but he would have had more base hits, and he would have had to run more, and he would have exposed himself to more injury and body wear-and-tear. Just a different kind of success.
Who has enabled his success? Us. Baseball fans, whether we overtly support juicing or not. Modern professional baseball is nothing but big entertainment business, make no mistake about that. We vote with our dollars, even in times of somewhat declining support for professional baseball, and enable these talented and lucky prima donnas to earn their astronomical salaries.
If we really didn't want our athletes to enhance their performance, we would vote with our wallets by not purchasing things from baseball broadcasts' sponsors, we wouldn't buy overpriced licensed merchandise and then use our bodies as billboards for MLB products, and we wouldn't buy tickets. But we do spend this money, enough to keep a few team owners and athletes in mind-numbing wealth.
We need to admit that players put man-made concoctions in their bodies. Some of these substances are prescribed, sanctioned and legal, and some are not.
I propose that we simply do monthly blood testing for performance-enhancing drugs, post the results in the media and on every program at every game, and let us as consumers decide whom we will support. Maybe we'll decide to support athletes who are not juicing. Maybe we will choose to eschew athletes and support educators or independent musicians. But maybe we will chose to support athletes according to their results - after all, these drugs hurt no one but the one taking them - in the context of the limits and possibilities of their game.
Go A-Rod! With some luck and persistence, you may someday make Bonds a footnote, an asterisk, a good hitter.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
...oh and another thing
red light, flashing red light stop sign...STOP! Stop your car. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know the word. If you come to a complete stop, you will actually get to your destination quicker. If you come to a complete stop, everyone else will know who stopped first.
And when you stop, don't open your door. Not to litter, spit, or puke. I'm sorry, but I've seen each of these this year. What's the matter with you? Keep it in your car.
And when the light turns green, go. Just go. Don't leadfoot it. Just go, and we'll all get where we're going.
And when the light turns yellow, stop if you can, and clear the intersection if you can't. This isn't rocket science.
That's probably not all...
And when you stop, don't open your door. Not to litter, spit, or puke. I'm sorry, but I've seen each of these this year. What's the matter with you? Keep it in your car.
And when the light turns green, go. Just go. Don't leadfoot it. Just go, and we'll all get where we're going.
And when the light turns yellow, stop if you can, and clear the intersection if you can't. This isn't rocket science.
That's probably not all...
Friday, May 11, 2007
L. A. Freeway Drivers: LISTEN UP!
geez...why should I have to say this stuff?
Every day, I encounter at least three situations in my 21-mile-each-way commute that puts me in mortal danger. Having been hit twice (totalled once) in the last few months puts me, let's say, on edge.
Oh, and let's make drivers ed mandatory for all highschool students wanting to get a license, provided free in school, as it was when I was growing up (many moons ago, in a state far, far, away, before Prop 13 in CA...). And make obtaining a licence for anyone a high bar to hurdle - this will be tough on immigrants, but the concentration of people in L. A. from many places in the world where the only requirement for obtaining a drivers licence is a pulse is a big reason why we see so much shitty driving.
Oh, and since auto insurance is mandatory (as it should be)
I could go on...and I probably will...
- Use your turn signals - here's the procedure:
- When you need to change lanes, put your turn signal on!
- let the directional signal blink for five seconds
- look left, look right (no matter what direction you are turning)
- change lanes if and when it's safe
- Don't expect other drivers to have keen intuition, ESP, or even for them to be looking at you. They're doing their makeup, eating a Kit Kat, watching and episode of Wife Swap, or reading People magazine on their PDA. They're not looking at you. This means you have to do everything in your power to get their attention, plan ahead, and do things safely.
- RESPECT other peoples' turn signals! If they are ahead of you in either adjacent lane and they turn on their signal, they want to change lanes! Don't close that gap - you are so not worth more than they are. I don't care what kind of car you drive or what kind of car they drive. I don't care if you or they have a fish on the back bumper, or if you're practicing your gang signs because you never learned how to spell, if you see their signal, defer.
- Pick a lane and stay in it and travel the speed of traffic! If you are in the #1 lane (the fast lane, duh), you will probably be driving faster than the other lanes to your right. The same goes for middle lanes. The same goes for the right lane - people need to exit once in a while, don't waste their time and make them use more fuel and spew more poison into the air just because you feel like doing 45 MPH in the right lane on the 405.
- A safe distance from the car ahead of you is one car length for every ten miles per hour - you can figure this out by finding a fixed object like a sign or fence post on the left, start counting one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, etc., when the car ahead of you passes, and when you pass the same marker at ten-one-thousand, if the roads aren't wet you are probably driving at a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of you.
- We all know that driving a safe distance from the car ahead of you is virtually impossible on the L. A. freeways because someone will inevitably close that safe gap by merging, without putting down the Us Weekly, at a rate of speed just a little slower that yours, without using their signal. But keep trying.
- If you see a gap in another lane, analyze it to make sure that it is unreasonable, not just the proper distance between cars. You are actually slowing thousands of drivers by closing this gap, and you will have gained precisely one car length - congratulations, Lucy.
- Don't slow other drivers! Don't close the gap, do keep up with the speed of traffic in your lane, and especially, when the traffic slows, don't speed up, stop speed up, stop speed up, stop...pick a speed, and stick to it. Unless there is an accident in your lane or a really, really stupid driver (OK that's most of you), there is a speed that traffic will travel, even if it's idle speed (the speed at which your car goes with your foot off the pedals). Your speeding-up and slowing-down causes a ripple effect in the traffic behind you - each car that slows causes ten to slow behind them (with residual effect on adjacent lanes), and each of these slowed cars causes ten more to slow, causing exponential slowing, the main problem on the freeways - we actually have enough road to handle the cars we have, if people drive properly.
- Don't drive distracted - driving on the L. A. Freeways is probably the most difficult and dangerous thing you will do all day. Starting in July, 2008, you could get a $20-50 fine for holding a cell phone to your ear - get a headset for $3. Learn your directions before, so you won't have to stay glued to your map or GPS device. Put enough Linkin Park and Modest Mouse in your iPod so the music lasts the whole trip without your attention.
Every day, I encounter at least three situations in my 21-mile-each-way commute that puts me in mortal danger. Having been hit twice (totalled once) in the last few months puts me, let's say, on edge.
Oh, and let's make drivers ed mandatory for all highschool students wanting to get a license, provided free in school, as it was when I was growing up (many moons ago, in a state far, far, away, before Prop 13 in CA...). And make obtaining a licence for anyone a high bar to hurdle - this will be tough on immigrants, but the concentration of people in L. A. from many places in the world where the only requirement for obtaining a drivers licence is a pulse is a big reason why we see so much shitty driving.
Oh, and since auto insurance is mandatory (as it should be)
- Insure the driver, not the car. Who cares what we drive and where we park it - cars don't kill people, people kill people
- Make auto insurance No Fault. Spread costs around and insurance companies will spend the same amount of money they do now. Leave fault to law enforcement. Don't let insurance companies raise rates or cancel people simply because these drivers have had some bad luck.
I could go on...and I probably will...
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Metric Now!!!
Sun may never set on British Empire's pint The Register
In 1970, when I was a teenager in a Midwest town, they taught me the metric system, saying "we'll be switching over from the English system in a few years..."
Enough already. Join the rest of the world. Think with ten fingers, not pecks and quarts.
Start an American revolution. Work and live in the metric system from now on, and let other people figure out what the hell you are talking about. They'll adapt.
This stuff just makes Americans and English look stupid, reactionary, and hostile.
In 1970, when I was a teenager in a Midwest town, they taught me the metric system, saying "we'll be switching over from the English system in a few years..."
Enough already. Join the rest of the world. Think with ten fingers, not pecks and quarts.
Start an American revolution. Work and live in the metric system from now on, and let other people figure out what the hell you are talking about. They'll adapt.
This stuff just makes Americans and English look stupid, reactionary, and hostile.
Gas Prices Reach New Historical High
California Gasoline Prices Adjusted for Inflation
According to California's figures, we've leaped over 1980 and '81 to have the highest gasoline prices in history adjusted for inflation. The cost then, in current $ averaged about $2.60 per gallon, and so-far this year we're spending an average of $2.80 per gallon, and it's only May.
I just spent $3.41 per gallon, and that's at the cheap station in Alhambra. Pricier westside locations are nearing - maybe topping - $4.00 per gallon.
Some days, I think we should all drive gas guzzling behemoths, so we actually reach a crisis point with supply and the guys in Detroit pull those 200 MPG carburetor plans out from deep storage...but I still gaze with wonder whenever I see a sparking Suburban or H2 with dealer plates and a fat 'n happy four-foot woman driving it (or a size-challenged over-compensating trust fund kid). What kind of freak would buy such a vehicle in this day and age, just as an FU in the face of the rest of us?
We will inevitably reach the end of affordable oil. In the meantime, stinking slobbering showoff vehicles kill us with more crap in our air, their drivers all oblivious to the self-hate they must have. Are SUVs the new suicide-by-cigarette?
We each have to make a choice to consume less by buying reasonable cars - yay for me, I drive a gas-sipping Toyota Yaris - and to drive less, drive when and where others aren't etc. Higher gas prices are unfortunately a regressive tax, since most of us don't have the choice to cut our driving in half (shame on employers who aren't telecommuting-tolerant). We have to choose to drive better - pick a lane and stay in it, don't swerve around trying to gain a car length or two (and for god's sake use your turn signal if you do, and respect others' turn signals...), don't speed up and slow down to fill gaps when we will all get there faster if you choose a steady pace, plan your exits in-advance, use onramps to get up to the speed of the traffic (you will use a little more gas, but many cars will be able to retain their current speed), pick a speed and stay with it...the list goes on. It's just common sense.
What steams me is that the historical high in no way reflects a historical high in crude oil prices. The only thing that tracks reasonably with gas prices is oil company profits. Can I go ahead and conclude that when the C-level execs, board members, and shareholders want a raise, they concoct one out of thick air, and thick goo? The rest of us suffer while they have record profits, salaries and bonuses, and dividends.
The oil companies have too-long acted monopolistically and our health, economy, and security are suffering. As we increase our lifespans, the things that we die from are more and more from our environment. When historical-price wages and income are stagnant or shrinking for most of us and gas prices continue to skyrocket, we will spend less and less on the consumer goods and which have fueled the economy recently. And when we choose to go to war for oil and profit - monetary and political - our nation is in danger.
It's time to consider dropping all tax breaks to oil companies. They always will find a way to be profitable, whether crude oil prices are $20 per barrel or $80 per barrel. The hidden costs of war to protect the interest of the oil companies are horribly huge, both monetarily and morally. We have to here the minutes of Cheney's energy task force meeting at the White House before 9/11, and most likely this will put the light of day on high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to treat gas as a utility, since it is needed at every level of commerce and since the price can be gamed at will.
According to California's figures, we've leaped over 1980 and '81 to have the highest gasoline prices in history adjusted for inflation. The cost then, in current $ averaged about $2.60 per gallon, and so-far this year we're spending an average of $2.80 per gallon, and it's only May.
I just spent $3.41 per gallon, and that's at the cheap station in Alhambra. Pricier westside locations are nearing - maybe topping - $4.00 per gallon.
Some days, I think we should all drive gas guzzling behemoths, so we actually reach a crisis point with supply and the guys in Detroit pull those 200 MPG carburetor plans out from deep storage...but I still gaze with wonder whenever I see a sparking Suburban or H2 with dealer plates and a fat 'n happy four-foot woman driving it (or a size-challenged over-compensating trust fund kid). What kind of freak would buy such a vehicle in this day and age, just as an FU in the face of the rest of us?
We will inevitably reach the end of affordable oil. In the meantime, stinking slobbering showoff vehicles kill us with more crap in our air, their drivers all oblivious to the self-hate they must have. Are SUVs the new suicide-by-cigarette?
We each have to make a choice to consume less by buying reasonable cars - yay for me, I drive a gas-sipping Toyota Yaris - and to drive less, drive when and where others aren't etc. Higher gas prices are unfortunately a regressive tax, since most of us don't have the choice to cut our driving in half (shame on employers who aren't telecommuting-tolerant). We have to choose to drive better - pick a lane and stay in it, don't swerve around trying to gain a car length or two (and for god's sake use your turn signal if you do, and respect others' turn signals...), don't speed up and slow down to fill gaps when we will all get there faster if you choose a steady pace, plan your exits in-advance, use onramps to get up to the speed of the traffic (you will use a little more gas, but many cars will be able to retain their current speed), pick a speed and stay with it...the list goes on. It's just common sense.
What steams me is that the historical high in no way reflects a historical high in crude oil prices. The only thing that tracks reasonably with gas prices is oil company profits. Can I go ahead and conclude that when the C-level execs, board members, and shareholders want a raise, they concoct one out of thick air, and thick goo? The rest of us suffer while they have record profits, salaries and bonuses, and dividends.
The oil companies have too-long acted monopolistically and our health, economy, and security are suffering. As we increase our lifespans, the things that we die from are more and more from our environment. When historical-price wages and income are stagnant or shrinking for most of us and gas prices continue to skyrocket, we will spend less and less on the consumer goods and which have fueled the economy recently. And when we choose to go to war for oil and profit - monetary and political - our nation is in danger.
It's time to consider dropping all tax breaks to oil companies. They always will find a way to be profitable, whether crude oil prices are $20 per barrel or $80 per barrel. The hidden costs of war to protect the interest of the oil companies are horribly huge, both monetarily and morally. We have to here the minutes of Cheney's energy task force meeting at the White House before 9/11, and most likely this will put the light of day on high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to treat gas as a utility, since it is needed at every level of commerce and since the price can be gamed at will.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Grocery Giants' War on the Middle Class!
In sunny SoCal, grocery behemoths Ralphs (Kroger Corp.), Albertsons, and Vons/Pavilions (Safeway Corp) are preparing to do battle with their biggest enemies: their customers.
These public companies must perform for their C-Level executives, board members, and shareholders with growth. As a line-item in a profit-and-loss statement, labor costs are the number one item, and their greatest expense keeping them from further profit growth - energy, real estate, and other costs can't compare. While the exes and board members receive lavish salaries and benefits, regardless of growth or success in many cases, their employees are asked to happily accept their role as runners to the bottom while the companies are mis-managed to mediocrity.
These companies can act as one to direct a huge pool of employees in SoCal, and they have opposition, the UFCW. I worked for a long-gone store in the '80s and I had to join the UFCW - they took my dues and provided no support the few times I asked, so I have to union-love here. But the union can act as one for its members as these members can't against the unified front of the major grocery store owners.
Four years ago things came to a head in a debilitating strike. The three store chains were having profitable years. In this growth-at-any-cost struggle, the companies decided to unilaterally increase their profit at the expense of their lowest-paid. Living costs, especially health care, had greatly increased for these workers over the previous few years - growth in the SoCal economy had largely been restricted to real estate, and many grocery workers weren't in a position to benefit from this, and tax breaks given were only for the wealthy, including corporate cheifs David Dillon, Steven Burd, and Lawrence Johnston.
Yet, these workers were asked to bear the brunt of this growth madness by paying more for less medical care, accepting more part time work (excluding them from corporate healthcare altogether), and agreeing to a longer, sometimes impossible, climb to more stable full-time positions with appropriate benefits. Creating a huge straw man out of Wal-Mart , the employers bred fear by saying that their workers could either accept these demands or be swept into the fiery blue furnace with the happy smiling face.
With no good faith on the part of the employers in negotiations (in violation of federal law) and collusion to split profits during the strike (again, in violation of federal law), the unions voted to strike. Ralphs, Vons, and Albertons hired scabs to replace their longtime employees. Customers stayed away. Union members picketed, lost homes, and went to the emergency room for medical care.
The UFCW found no heart, soul, or brains to come up with a way to support their dues-paying members, and folded. Instead of a stream back to their previous positions, long-term employees flooded away from the stores, many landing worse or no job for a good amount of time. What we see now in 2007 in these stores is a much-smaller-than-before fresh crop of faces, responsibility-without-authority for those in customer-contact positions, and a sameness from store to store that makes us feel like these grocery stores are one big chain.
I now give all of these stores about 30% of what business I gave before the strike, just on principle, and I bet I'm not the only customer they have essentially lost. Their reliance on affinity programs, unstaffed customer service counters, etc., make grocery shopping a chore. Non-union Trader Joes, Farmers Markets, Costco, and even the internet, make my grocery consuming a better experience than it was, and I for one am not going back.
Now, the giants want their employees to pay a larger percentage of their healthcare costs. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, mostly due to public-company middlemen that didn't exist a generation ago, drug costs, longer lives that require more healthcare and drugs, etc. There's no law that says that companies have to provide medical care for their employees - this practice started when postwar tax breaks were granted to companies that did, and at that time is was considered cheaper than actually paying employees more - but corporate executives and board members get state-of-the-art healthcare benefits while they could pay for these services, all the while expecting their lowest-paid employees to pay a significant portion of their income for the meagerest of healthcare.
This imbalance must end. We have to find some way to pay even our lowest-paid so they can afford great healthcare (with affordable catastrophic-event coverage available), require employers and governments to insure all employees equally (wouldn't the free-market bring down costs for all if this was required?), or provide a single-payer plan at the federal level (to make us competitive on a global level again). Anything less, and the greatest country in the world with the best available medical care should be considered a human rights criminal of the highest order.
Speak out!
Contact the princes who rule these companies and demand some equity, with no strikes necessary. Vote with your $$$ and don't shop where the economic divide is wide enough to swallow you whole.
Grocery Store CEOs with public political contribution info ;-)
David B Dillon
CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director
Kroger Co
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100
http://www.kroger.com
david.dillon@kroger.com
$7,950
Republican
$200
Democrat
$4,750
special interest
total: $12,900
Lawrence Johnston
Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Chairman of Exec. Committee
Albertsons Llc
250 Parkcenter Boulevard
Boise, ID 83726-0020
http://www.amstr.com/
larry.johnston@albertsons.com
$10,000
Republican
$45,750
special interest
total: $55,750
Steven Burd
Chairman
Safeway Inc
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229
http://www.safeway.com
steven.burd@safeway.com
$20,000
Republican
$5,200
Democrat
$13,750
special interest
total: $38,950
These public companies must perform for their C-Level executives, board members, and shareholders with growth. As a line-item in a profit-and-loss statement, labor costs are the number one item, and their greatest expense keeping them from further profit growth - energy, real estate, and other costs can't compare. While the exes and board members receive lavish salaries and benefits, regardless of growth or success in many cases, their employees are asked to happily accept their role as runners to the bottom while the companies are mis-managed to mediocrity.
These companies can act as one to direct a huge pool of employees in SoCal, and they have opposition, the UFCW. I worked for a long-gone store in the '80s and I had to join the UFCW - they took my dues and provided no support the few times I asked, so I have to union-love here. But the union can act as one for its members as these members can't against the unified front of the major grocery store owners.
Four years ago things came to a head in a debilitating strike. The three store chains were having profitable years. In this growth-at-any-cost struggle, the companies decided to unilaterally increase their profit at the expense of their lowest-paid. Living costs, especially health care, had greatly increased for these workers over the previous few years - growth in the SoCal economy had largely been restricted to real estate, and many grocery workers weren't in a position to benefit from this, and tax breaks given were only for the wealthy, including corporate cheifs David Dillon, Steven Burd, and Lawrence Johnston.
Yet, these workers were asked to bear the brunt of this growth madness by paying more for less medical care, accepting more part time work (excluding them from corporate healthcare altogether), and agreeing to a longer, sometimes impossible, climb to more stable full-time positions with appropriate benefits. Creating a huge straw man out of Wal-Mart , the employers bred fear by saying that their workers could either accept these demands or be swept into the fiery blue furnace with the happy smiling face.
With no good faith on the part of the employers in negotiations (in violation of federal law) and collusion to split profits during the strike (again, in violation of federal law), the unions voted to strike. Ralphs, Vons, and Albertons hired scabs to replace their longtime employees. Customers stayed away. Union members picketed, lost homes, and went to the emergency room for medical care.
The UFCW found no heart, soul, or brains to come up with a way to support their dues-paying members, and folded. Instead of a stream back to their previous positions, long-term employees flooded away from the stores, many landing worse or no job for a good amount of time. What we see now in 2007 in these stores is a much-smaller-than-before fresh crop of faces, responsibility-without-authority for those in customer-contact positions, and a sameness from store to store that makes us feel like these grocery stores are one big chain.
I now give all of these stores about 30% of what business I gave before the strike, just on principle, and I bet I'm not the only customer they have essentially lost. Their reliance on affinity programs, unstaffed customer service counters, etc., make grocery shopping a chore. Non-union Trader Joes, Farmers Markets, Costco, and even the internet, make my grocery consuming a better experience than it was, and I for one am not going back.
Now, the giants want their employees to pay a larger percentage of their healthcare costs. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, mostly due to public-company middlemen that didn't exist a generation ago, drug costs, longer lives that require more healthcare and drugs, etc. There's no law that says that companies have to provide medical care for their employees - this practice started when postwar tax breaks were granted to companies that did, and at that time is was considered cheaper than actually paying employees more - but corporate executives and board members get state-of-the-art healthcare benefits while they could pay for these services, all the while expecting their lowest-paid employees to pay a significant portion of their income for the meagerest of healthcare.
This imbalance must end. We have to find some way to pay even our lowest-paid so they can afford great healthcare (with affordable catastrophic-event coverage available), require employers and governments to insure all employees equally (wouldn't the free-market bring down costs for all if this was required?), or provide a single-payer plan at the federal level (to make us competitive on a global level again). Anything less, and the greatest country in the world with the best available medical care should be considered a human rights criminal of the highest order.
Speak out!
Contact the princes who rule these companies and demand some equity, with no strikes necessary. Vote with your $$$ and don't shop where the economic divide is wide enough to swallow you whole.
Grocery Store CEOs with public political contribution info ;-)
David B Dillon
CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director
Kroger Co
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100
http://www.kroger.com
david.dillon@kroger.com
$7,950
Republican
$200
Democrat
$4,750
special interest
total: $12,900
Lawrence Johnston
Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Chairman of Exec. Committee
Albertsons Llc
250 Parkcenter Boulevard
Boise, ID 83726-0020
http://www.amstr.com/
larry.johnston@albertsons.com
$10,000
Republican
$45,750
special interest
total: $55,750
Steven Burd
Chairman
Safeway Inc
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229
http://www.safeway.com
steven.burd@safeway.com
$20,000
Republican
$5,200
Democrat
$13,750
special interest
total: $38,950
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
On the Web, oldies are golden again - Los Angeles Times
On the Web, oldies are golden again - Los Angeles Times
Sales of albums by contemporary musicians have been falling for years, but
what the industry calls deep catalog albums (more than 3 years old) have
been
making a comeback, with their sales soaring 104.2% from 2005 to 2006.
That has
been a boon for Avalon and other older artists.---
As more music becomes available digitally, semi-obscure artists are finding
they have devoted fans. On Rhapsody, for instance, Top 100 artists produce only
25% of the songs played, said Tim Quirk, Rhapsody's vice president for music
content and programming.In contrast, nearly half of retail store sales are
generated by that elite group. Less popular artists get playtime too — 90% of
the 195,200 artists on Rhapsody are played at least once a month.
This is not a story about Frankie Avalon and Fabian.
This is a story of the survial of the music industry, and issues that the industry should have addressed a decade ago.
Every work of recorded music should be available without DRM from a variety of competitive retailers on the web for 50 cents each, with higher-resolution, surround, etc., versions for more. And these should be available for playing on subscription-streaming services.
The income from lapsed-artists like Frankie Avalon and Fabian, and from works that have fallen into the public domain, can help fund the development of new music, so music, and it's industry, can have a future.
Every work recorded over the last century+ has value.
Monday, February 12, 2007
5.1 Sound is not 3D
Surround sound, for movies or for music, is wonderful.
5.1 was developed as a minimum configuration that could deliver 360 degree full-range sound, and it works well. Tony Grimani and Tomlinson Holman, then at Lucasfilm's THX division, coined the phrase and researched the concept.
Every sound we hear arrives from a sphere around us. Unless we are in an anechoic chamber - a room with no reflections - we can tell where a sound source is from just about anywhere in the room. Our ear/brain mechanism evolved so this system could help us survive.
Dimensionality of Sound Systems:
Mono - one-speaker sound comes from a point, and a point has no dimension.
Stereo (two or more reproduction channels can be called Stereo) - Two-channel Stereo is single-dimension: Width. Instead of a point, the sound source is a line, which again mathematically has no dimension, but two-speaker Stereo provides a sonic image of a certain width and can provide an image of a center source.
Surround - 3.x Stereo (adding at least one channel of reproduction behind the listener) can provide a dimension in addition to Width: Depth. This makes 5.1 Surround two-dimensional.
A height channel, as used in Tomlinson Holman's TMH 10.2 system and some IMAX presentations, would be the next dimension to add to Stereo sound reproduction. Eight channels or more are available in surround distribution platforms such as Blu Ray disc, HD-DVD disc, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TruHD, Windows Media, Quicktime... Perhaps a mono Height channel could be commonly used with these platforms. The Center Surround should probably be implemented with the last of the eight channels - this is already commonly mixed for distribution with Dolby EX and DTS-ES, and can overcome our lack of ability to hear a phantom image well from behind us. The Right Wide and Left Wide channels should probably be next on the list, to compensate for our difficulty in hearing a phantom image from directly to the right or left of us.
The addition of a Height channel would be the minimum necessary change to be able to make any audio system three-dimensional.
5.1 was developed as a minimum configuration that could deliver 360 degree full-range sound, and it works well. Tony Grimani and Tomlinson Holman, then at Lucasfilm's THX division, coined the phrase and researched the concept.
Every sound we hear arrives from a sphere around us. Unless we are in an anechoic chamber - a room with no reflections - we can tell where a sound source is from just about anywhere in the room. Our ear/brain mechanism evolved so this system could help us survive.
Dimensionality of Sound Systems:
Mono - one-speaker sound comes from a point, and a point has no dimension.
Stereo (two or more reproduction channels can be called Stereo) - Two-channel Stereo is single-dimension: Width. Instead of a point, the sound source is a line, which again mathematically has no dimension, but two-speaker Stereo provides a sonic image of a certain width and can provide an image of a center source.
Surround - 3.x Stereo (adding at least one channel of reproduction behind the listener) can provide a dimension in addition to Width: Depth. This makes 5.1 Surround two-dimensional.
A height channel, as used in Tomlinson Holman's TMH 10.2 system and some IMAX presentations, would be the next dimension to add to Stereo sound reproduction. Eight channels or more are available in surround distribution platforms such as Blu Ray disc, HD-DVD disc, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TruHD, Windows Media, Quicktime... Perhaps a mono Height channel could be commonly used with these platforms. The Center Surround should probably be implemented with the last of the eight channels - this is already commonly mixed for distribution with Dolby EX and DTS-ES, and can overcome our lack of ability to hear a phantom image well from behind us. The Right Wide and Left Wide channels should probably be next on the list, to compensate for our difficulty in hearing a phantom image from directly to the right or left of us.
The addition of a Height channel would be the minimum necessary change to be able to make any audio system three-dimensional.
Friday, January 26, 2007
CMT.com : News : Nashville Skyline : That Gurgling Sound? CD Sales Down the Drain
CMT.com : News : Nashville Skyline : That Gurgling Sound? CD Sales Down the Drain
More people are listening to more music than ever before.
Contrast 2007 in the music biz to 1983. In 1983, the music industry was introducing the CD - "Perfect Sound Forever." The CD was released to replace the LP, then the high-quality music distribution format (cassettes would remain for convenience and low-price). Within a few years, most titles weren't being released on LP, lower royalties were negotiated for artists to support the emerging format, returns were still paid-for by the artist yet retailer returns were ended or curtailed and defective CDs were far less common than defective LPs. The music industry profited from a boom (as did the home electronics industry), from the novelty of CDs, replacing of old LPs with catalog CD reissues, etc.
Now, the consumer has spoken - they want to access music via computers (and cell phones, gaming devices, etc.). They want a broad selection, available now. The music industry didn't invent this, sue their best customers for doing this, and didn't fashion a way to derive revenue from it, so guess what? Music sales are down!
As Flippo points out in the CMT.com article, there is much great music out there that few of us will hear. We have lost the great filter provided by people passionate about music who ran record companies, replaced by a perpetual motion machine of new music provided by millions of artists, and we have to construct our own filters, or adopt hodge podge structures like MySpace.
This is all good, but we are at the beginning of a rough ride. We need to find a way to appropriately compensate people for creating art, and to pay them or others for distributing it (licence the ISPs!). The changes needed to compensate artists for their music will involve large conflicts that strick at the core of our Culture, our Commerce, and our Constitution.
More people are listening to more music than ever before.
Contrast 2007 in the music biz to 1983. In 1983, the music industry was introducing the CD - "Perfect Sound Forever." The CD was released to replace the LP, then the high-quality music distribution format (cassettes would remain for convenience and low-price). Within a few years, most titles weren't being released on LP, lower royalties were negotiated for artists to support the emerging format, returns were still paid-for by the artist yet retailer returns were ended or curtailed and defective CDs were far less common than defective LPs. The music industry profited from a boom (as did the home electronics industry), from the novelty of CDs, replacing of old LPs with catalog CD reissues, etc.
Now, the consumer has spoken - they want to access music via computers (and cell phones, gaming devices, etc.). They want a broad selection, available now. The music industry didn't invent this, sue their best customers for doing this, and didn't fashion a way to derive revenue from it, so guess what? Music sales are down!
As Flippo points out in the CMT.com article, there is much great music out there that few of us will hear. We have lost the great filter provided by people passionate about music who ran record companies, replaced by a perpetual motion machine of new music provided by millions of artists, and we have to construct our own filters, or adopt hodge podge structures like MySpace.
This is all good, but we are at the beginning of a rough ride. We need to find a way to appropriately compensate people for creating art, and to pay them or others for distributing it (licence the ISPs!). The changes needed to compensate artists for their music will involve large conflicts that strick at the core of our Culture, our Commerce, and our Constitution.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Music industry divided over digital future | CNET News.com
Music industry divided over digital future CNET News.com
---
"Many people around the world tell me that we've handled our problems in an incorrect manner but no one tells me what we should have done," John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Reuters.
"Free is just impossible to compete with."
---
Bullshit.
Any music industry spokesperson who states this is a brilliant example of why the music industry is suffering. Also, journalists who support this argument should go back to writing classified ad copy for the local dog trainer.
(We've been through this...) Licence the music through the ISPs - they are the new radio (with extra added value for music marketers). A buck or two a month for each subscriber will bring untold riches to the music industry, in amounts far exceeding the wildest estimations of any supposed losses due to file trading. ASCAP and BMI have it fairly right with broadcasters, venues, etc., and we can get this right.
Also, you have to be an absolute moron to say that we can't compete with free. When was the last time you bought water? dirt? air? a bible? The list of things that we pay for that we could get for free is staggering - someone just figured out how to market it properly.
I didn't know JFK, but John Kennedy, you are no JFK...
---
"Many people around the world tell me that we've handled our problems in an incorrect manner but no one tells me what we should have done," John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Reuters.
"Free is just impossible to compete with."
---
Bullshit.
Any music industry spokesperson who states this is a brilliant example of why the music industry is suffering. Also, journalists who support this argument should go back to writing classified ad copy for the local dog trainer.
(We've been through this...) Licence the music through the ISPs - they are the new radio (with extra added value for music marketers). A buck or two a month for each subscriber will bring untold riches to the music industry, in amounts far exceeding the wildest estimations of any supposed losses due to file trading. ASCAP and BMI have it fairly right with broadcasters, venues, etc., and we can get this right.
Also, you have to be an absolute moron to say that we can't compete with free. When was the last time you bought water? dirt? air? a bible? The list of things that we pay for that we could get for free is staggering - someone just figured out how to market it properly.
I didn't know JFK, but John Kennedy, you are no JFK...
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
RIAA Terrorists!
A terrorist doesn't exist to kill people or destroy property. They may not be concerned with the death and destruction they cause, but these, to a terrorist, are merely collateral. If they target specific people or properties, we can easily call them assasins or arsonists.
A terrorist lives to keep others in fear.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't care one way or another about the lives they took, families they ruined, or buildings and planes they destroyed. They cared that they believed that they had been wronged. And they cared that Americans would live from then on with the fear that death and destruction could happen to them at any time.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't killing anybody. But they are making a significant percentage of the population live in fear, simply because these people are listening to songs or watching movies.
These lobbying organizations have gamed the system. They have, through acts like the DMCA, distorted the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding Copyright. Copyright infringment is a federal offense, but the RIAA has not been able to show cause for the federal government to take a single person to task for trading a file on the internet.
Those of us who derive revenue from intellectual property want to continue to derive revenue - show us the money. The recent history of the music and movie industries has been to deprive the creative sources that provide the actual work of proper compensation, all the while directing revenue up up up the food chain, making these industries more and more dependent on blockbuster hits and less able to support the broad creative impluse that feeds this commerce.
The consumer has grown up seeing that music and movies are seemingly free - radio and TV, for example, have provided entertainment at only the cost of the hardware to receive and display it and at the cost of increased consumer-good prices. Most people don't understand this any more than they understand the fine points of intellectual property law or performance rights society royalty distribution, they just know the stuff keeps flowing toward them.
The entertainment industry, instead of understanding and embracing the opportunites presented by new technology, has run from the internet like their ancestors ran from the giant beast that was eating the sun, which we now calmly understand is simply an eclipse.
The entertainment industry, much like our current administration in Washington, has forgotten, rejected or ignored the simple use of law enforcement to stop crimes against their industry. Instead, they rely on civil suits and a massive PR machine (lawyers and marketers paid-for by you and me by ever-increasing entertainment-product costs) to terrorize people into supporting the current regime, a culture of greed that is a top-heavy and failed business model. A certain percentage of the population will be cowed into obeying. A few executives will be able to afford a nicer car for their spoiled kid or a longer fall vacation on a warm sea, but our culture will suffer.
These industries are releasing fewer and fewer works, yet more and more works are being created. As they release fewer works, they complain that they are not selling as much as they used to! Incredible on their part, but probably not incredible that some people will fall for it.
Instead of fear, RIAA, why not let your member companies sell music?
A terrorist lives to keep others in fear.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't care one way or another about the lives they took, families they ruined, or buildings and planes they destroyed. They cared that they believed that they had been wronged. And they cared that Americans would live from then on with the fear that death and destruction could happen to them at any time.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't killing anybody. But they are making a significant percentage of the population live in fear, simply because these people are listening to songs or watching movies.
These lobbying organizations have gamed the system. They have, through acts like the DMCA, distorted the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding Copyright. Copyright infringment is a federal offense, but the RIAA has not been able to show cause for the federal government to take a single person to task for trading a file on the internet.
Those of us who derive revenue from intellectual property want to continue to derive revenue - show us the money. The recent history of the music and movie industries has been to deprive the creative sources that provide the actual work of proper compensation, all the while directing revenue up up up the food chain, making these industries more and more dependent on blockbuster hits and less able to support the broad creative impluse that feeds this commerce.
The consumer has grown up seeing that music and movies are seemingly free - radio and TV, for example, have provided entertainment at only the cost of the hardware to receive and display it and at the cost of increased consumer-good prices. Most people don't understand this any more than they understand the fine points of intellectual property law or performance rights society royalty distribution, they just know the stuff keeps flowing toward them.
The entertainment industry, instead of understanding and embracing the opportunites presented by new technology, has run from the internet like their ancestors ran from the giant beast that was eating the sun, which we now calmly understand is simply an eclipse.
The entertainment industry, much like our current administration in Washington, has forgotten, rejected or ignored the simple use of law enforcement to stop crimes against their industry. Instead, they rely on civil suits and a massive PR machine (lawyers and marketers paid-for by you and me by ever-increasing entertainment-product costs) to terrorize people into supporting the current regime, a culture of greed that is a top-heavy and failed business model. A certain percentage of the population will be cowed into obeying. A few executives will be able to afford a nicer car for their spoiled kid or a longer fall vacation on a warm sea, but our culture will suffer.
These industries are releasing fewer and fewer works, yet more and more works are being created. As they release fewer works, they complain that they are not selling as much as they used to! Incredible on their part, but probably not incredible that some people will fall for it.
Instead of fear, RIAA, why not let your member companies sell music?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Bush Signs Military Trial Law As 'Vital Tool' Against Terrorism - Preview
Bush Signs Military Trial Law As 'Vital Tool' Against Terrorism - Preview
Way to go!
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we make ten more terrorists dedicated to destroying America.
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we will have ten of our own soldiers treated in this fashion.
This bill is just plain evil, handing down terror to our children and their children.
Way to go!
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we make ten more terrorists dedicated to destroying America.
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we will have ten of our own soldiers treated in this fashion.
This bill is just plain evil, handing down terror to our children and their children.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
If Illegal Downloading Ended Today, Would the Record Biz Still Be In Trouble?
Yes, the biz would still be in trouble.
(As Bob Lefsetz says every other day) When Napster was at its peak, so was the music industry.
After this peak, the music industry cut their artist rosters by 20% or more and release 20% fewer titles per year than during their peak. More indie titles are being released, but the good filter that used to exist in the music industry is gone, and the indie titles don't have appropriate marketing muscle to be brought to the next level of sales.
They seemingly target those within their organization with any knowledge of music. I agree that the quality of releases has rapidly deteriorated. The live concert business shows what music can sell, and the record industry hasn't responded.
The music industry sues its best customers! Their own intelligence tells them that (and this has been true since the days of cassette taping) the people who buy the most blank media and download the most (traded or paid-for) buy the most music. You may use apocryphal stories of your nephew in college to deny this, but the record companies know this.
Yes, people do buy what they can get for free! Air, water, dirt, bibles...arguments that a marketer can not compete against free are wrong, and self-hating.
Slowly, the technology, availability, and pricing structure for music downloads is righting itself. With the introduction of the CD, we basically killed the singles market that generated the album market, but downloads are the cornerstone of a new singles market. Terrestrial radio has gone back to limited playlists of the golden era of '60s Top 40 radio (tight playlists didn't spontaneously germinate in the '00s), but with the Internet, satellite radio, etc., we have more opportunity than ever to hear new music - it's just a media and a market in transition.
(As Bob Lefsetz says every other day) When Napster was at its peak, so was the music industry.
After this peak, the music industry cut their artist rosters by 20% or more and release 20% fewer titles per year than during their peak. More indie titles are being released, but the good filter that used to exist in the music industry is gone, and the indie titles don't have appropriate marketing muscle to be brought to the next level of sales.
They seemingly target those within their organization with any knowledge of music. I agree that the quality of releases has rapidly deteriorated. The live concert business shows what music can sell, and the record industry hasn't responded.
The music industry sues its best customers! Their own intelligence tells them that (and this has been true since the days of cassette taping) the people who buy the most blank media and download the most (traded or paid-for) buy the most music. You may use apocryphal stories of your nephew in college to deny this, but the record companies know this.
Yes, people do buy what they can get for free! Air, water, dirt, bibles...arguments that a marketer can not compete against free are wrong, and self-hating.
Slowly, the technology, availability, and pricing structure for music downloads is righting itself. With the introduction of the CD, we basically killed the singles market that generated the album market, but downloads are the cornerstone of a new singles market. Terrestrial radio has gone back to limited playlists of the golden era of '60s Top 40 radio (tight playlists didn't spontaneously germinate in the '00s), but with the Internet, satellite radio, etc., we have more opportunity than ever to hear new music - it's just a media and a market in transition.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Labor Day, a Day Late, Still Relevant
This is for my dad.
He grew up in the midwest during the Great Depression, to factory-worker parents. He joined the US Navy at the tail-end of WWII, training in the Pacific Northwest and being shipped-out to Guam to support the training for the invasion of Tokyo (as mindful as we all need to be about the use of nuclear weapons, I'm glad that invasion never happened). After the war, he trained in Electronics at the Great Lakes school under the GI Bill, got a job near his parents, met my mom and got married, and worked for Ma Bell for forty years until his retirement.
All the while, he was a member of the Communications Workers of America. He was able to afford a small house in a decent neighborhood in a small Indiana city. We never wanted for food or shelter. We took occasional driving vacations. We saw our dad home for dinner most every night. We had free phone service! The local family doctor took care of our needs - we could afford him, and medical insurance covered the big things.
Now, at 78, he has had a stroke. He has lost some mobility because his hearing and sight have been impaired, but he is still all there. He is past his time for vacations, but he is home for evey meal. He has a $30 copay for medical care, but the big things are still taken care of by the same medical insurance he has always had. He still gets a discount on phone service! He retired with a modest lump-sum pension, which is largely intact after 20 years (after appreciating greatly during the '90s).
My mom survives by taking care of him and putting up with him - I'm not sure of the ratio here. She worked out of the home when I and my brother got to high school, not because she had to but because she liked the work and the extra money, and she continued to work until a few years ago.
This is a world I don't really know. Despite my dedication and perseverence, I haven't known stability from my employers. My medical insurance gets stinkier and stinkier with each year, and (I don't blame them) my current employer may drop this. I haven't received a Cost of Living raise since I started this job, despite successful performance. I can't afford to buy the cheapest home in the city where I live (granted, it's a pretty expensive city). With two teenage boys, I can see that I won't be able to afford to pay directly for their college educations.
We are in the midst of a vast social experiment. Most families need two working parents to have the income, adjusted for inflation, that our parents had, yet the currently politically correct view is that current political policy is family friendly. Unions, like liberals, have been demonized, and a gullible minority of Americans have bought into this enough to move an Electoral College majority, plainly against the self-interest of these voters. My father is alive today and enjoying his life as best he can largely because the union was there to support him while he worked. Can you remember a time when your phone service was a better value and more reliable than the '50s and '60s? Of course not. You can say the same thing about American-made cars, appliances, etc.
Toyota is opening a factory soon in San Antonio, TX; as the US Big Three are closing plants and destroying workers' lives (while fattening shareholders, board members, and C-level execs), Toyota has apparently figured-out which cars Americans want to buy and how to make them here without a unionized labor force. If we stop demonizing unions and just fix what's wrong with management and investment, the high cost of US labor will lessen as a factor in our global economy.
We just want to be able to afford to pay our doctor, our dentist, and our college. We want to be able to afford an appropriate house in a relatively safe, clean, quiet neighborhood, close to our work. We don't need a fancy single-payer medical care system, as we do not need luxury medical care 100% paid by our employer. We just want some security, so that we can afford our piece of the pie and don't lose the chance because our boss or the board of directors needs a second European vacation or German car this year.
No matter how we spin the current economy, for most of us it is a weak recovery from a recession. Two things stand out: real estate, where indeed some people have been lifted from rent-to-own but most growth has been in second and third homes, and consumer spending, which will certainly end as more people slip off the unemployment edge or get Wal-Marted into a part time job with no benefits. When this is gone, this weak recovery combined with welfare for the wealty and this hideous war in Iraq might combine to give us the Bush Depression.
We can fix this by ending this war on the middle class. Make taxes fair - close all loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, and then everyone can get a break. Remove the middlemen from business! HMOs suck money from consumers and doctors with no added benefit to us - removing this blight alone could right the course of the staggering increases in healthcare costs.
My Day-after-Labor-Day toast is to unions, and what they have done to make our country strong, prosperous, and safe.
He grew up in the midwest during the Great Depression, to factory-worker parents. He joined the US Navy at the tail-end of WWII, training in the Pacific Northwest and being shipped-out to Guam to support the training for the invasion of Tokyo (as mindful as we all need to be about the use of nuclear weapons, I'm glad that invasion never happened). After the war, he trained in Electronics at the Great Lakes school under the GI Bill, got a job near his parents, met my mom and got married, and worked for Ma Bell for forty years until his retirement.
All the while, he was a member of the Communications Workers of America. He was able to afford a small house in a decent neighborhood in a small Indiana city. We never wanted for food or shelter. We took occasional driving vacations. We saw our dad home for dinner most every night. We had free phone service! The local family doctor took care of our needs - we could afford him, and medical insurance covered the big things.
Now, at 78, he has had a stroke. He has lost some mobility because his hearing and sight have been impaired, but he is still all there. He is past his time for vacations, but he is home for evey meal. He has a $30 copay for medical care, but the big things are still taken care of by the same medical insurance he has always had. He still gets a discount on phone service! He retired with a modest lump-sum pension, which is largely intact after 20 years (after appreciating greatly during the '90s).
My mom survives by taking care of him and putting up with him - I'm not sure of the ratio here. She worked out of the home when I and my brother got to high school, not because she had to but because she liked the work and the extra money, and she continued to work until a few years ago.
This is a world I don't really know. Despite my dedication and perseverence, I haven't known stability from my employers. My medical insurance gets stinkier and stinkier with each year, and (I don't blame them) my current employer may drop this. I haven't received a Cost of Living raise since I started this job, despite successful performance. I can't afford to buy the cheapest home in the city where I live (granted, it's a pretty expensive city). With two teenage boys, I can see that I won't be able to afford to pay directly for their college educations.
We are in the midst of a vast social experiment. Most families need two working parents to have the income, adjusted for inflation, that our parents had, yet the currently politically correct view is that current political policy is family friendly. Unions, like liberals, have been demonized, and a gullible minority of Americans have bought into this enough to move an Electoral College majority, plainly against the self-interest of these voters. My father is alive today and enjoying his life as best he can largely because the union was there to support him while he worked. Can you remember a time when your phone service was a better value and more reliable than the '50s and '60s? Of course not. You can say the same thing about American-made cars, appliances, etc.
Toyota is opening a factory soon in San Antonio, TX; as the US Big Three are closing plants and destroying workers' lives (while fattening shareholders, board members, and C-level execs), Toyota has apparently figured-out which cars Americans want to buy and how to make them here without a unionized labor force. If we stop demonizing unions and just fix what's wrong with management and investment, the high cost of US labor will lessen as a factor in our global economy.
We just want to be able to afford to pay our doctor, our dentist, and our college. We want to be able to afford an appropriate house in a relatively safe, clean, quiet neighborhood, close to our work. We don't need a fancy single-payer medical care system, as we do not need luxury medical care 100% paid by our employer. We just want some security, so that we can afford our piece of the pie and don't lose the chance because our boss or the board of directors needs a second European vacation or German car this year.
No matter how we spin the current economy, for most of us it is a weak recovery from a recession. Two things stand out: real estate, where indeed some people have been lifted from rent-to-own but most growth has been in second and third homes, and consumer spending, which will certainly end as more people slip off the unemployment edge or get Wal-Marted into a part time job with no benefits. When this is gone, this weak recovery combined with welfare for the wealty and this hideous war in Iraq might combine to give us the Bush Depression.
We can fix this by ending this war on the middle class. Make taxes fair - close all loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, and then everyone can get a break. Remove the middlemen from business! HMOs suck money from consumers and doctors with no added benefit to us - removing this blight alone could right the course of the staggering increases in healthcare costs.
My Day-after-Labor-Day toast is to unions, and what they have done to make our country strong, prosperous, and safe.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Film piracy: Is it theft?
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Film piracy: Is it theft?
A wonderful two-headed interview (not a debate, since the interviewees are in different places) about art, technology and business today. The video feed can be watched at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm.
Dan Glickman of the MPAA sticks to the ignorant caveman definitions and uses of the words "theft" and "piracy" as commonly applied to intellectual property rights and technology today. He seems to be ignorant of the entertainment industry's own successful processes that compete with "free."
John Perry Barlow smartly and soberly (hmmm, he wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead) provides clear examples of how he has prospered from "free" (his example of the Dead's blanket permission for their fans to tape and distribute concerts). His scathing point that the entertainment industry is peopled by men who are older, less flexible, and less smart that the average young consumer today, and the industry must adapt.
The industry should have adapted ten years ago, yet they collectively cry like babies and misdirect attention to make up for the fact that their share of the entertainment pie does not continue to grow exponentially, all while consumers and artists are not being served.
The music industry, from the rise of Rock 'n Roll and the LP record, and the movie industry, from the birth of the summer blockbuster and the home video market, have prospered and found brilliant ways to provide less value to consumers and less compensation to artists. The entertainment industry, and perhaps more importantly our artistic culture, will never truly prosper until this gets turned around, with consumers receiving far greater quality and value and artists (in both broad and deep ways) receiving far more support and compensation for their work.
A wonderful two-headed interview (not a debate, since the interviewees are in different places) about art, technology and business today. The video feed can be watched at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm.
Dan Glickman of the MPAA sticks to the ignorant caveman definitions and uses of the words "theft" and "piracy" as commonly applied to intellectual property rights and technology today. He seems to be ignorant of the entertainment industry's own successful processes that compete with "free."
John Perry Barlow smartly and soberly (hmmm, he wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead) provides clear examples of how he has prospered from "free" (his example of the Dead's blanket permission for their fans to tape and distribute concerts). His scathing point that the entertainment industry is peopled by men who are older, less flexible, and less smart that the average young consumer today, and the industry must adapt.
The industry should have adapted ten years ago, yet they collectively cry like babies and misdirect attention to make up for the fact that their share of the entertainment pie does not continue to grow exponentially, all while consumers and artists are not being served.
The music industry, from the rise of Rock 'n Roll and the LP record, and the movie industry, from the birth of the summer blockbuster and the home video market, have prospered and found brilliant ways to provide less value to consumers and less compensation to artists. The entertainment industry, and perhaps more importantly our artistic culture, will never truly prosper until this gets turned around, with consumers receiving far greater quality and value and artists (in both broad and deep ways) receiving far more support and compensation for their work.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Tower files Chapter 11, seeks buyer
Tower files Chapter 11, seeks buyer
Simply no surprise. Simply an example of a top-heavy public company that hasn't managed to figure out how to turn a growing-profit in a changing market. Not necessarily a sign of impending doom for the music industry.
I don't think that a packaged music format, something that people can pick up, feel, and pay-for at a cash 'n wrap, will at some point cease to exist. I do believe that we have seen the last successful disc-based format (at least I hope so). SA-CD and DVD-A (including its cousin DualDisc) were tremendous improvements over CD, sounding better, providing high-resolution and surround music capabilities, having limited video capability (for DVD-A), containing backwards compatibility, etc., yet in a non-rush to market these properly, the music industry let them become a failed experiment. New formats Blue Ray and HD-DVD can be described with the same advantages over CD, yet unless the music and video industries can quickly come to their senses, both formats will go down in flames.
There are other ways to distribute content. I hope that the physical medium will have no moving parts. Flash memory is getting denser, more robust, and cheaper every day, but it probably has limitations that will prevent it from getting as cheap per storage-unit as current magneto-optical systems. Spinning discs were from day-one an anachronism, designed from hearts raised with the romantic notion of spinning vinyl, and even in the late-'70s not the only choice for dense data storage. The Sony/Philips hegemony of patent rights, replication facilities, and constant hardware upgrade and replacement cycles has been very effective to them but it has held-back media technology by decades. Whatever way the planet spins toward for physical content distribution, I hope that we see the light before a spinning disc or (hard drive) platter is chosen.
The People have spoken (and have been speaking for a decade) - they download and trade files of audio and video content. It's just plain natural for us to have a (currently) open communications system like the internet and share what we can. Certainly a one-to-many hobbled system like iTunes is one way to generate revenue for copyright holders (hopefully to creative artists), albeit a limited hierarchical one. The browsing process at the iTunes store can be replicated in a retail brick 'n mortar environment, possibly with technology that lets us listen to anything in the store beyond the primitive listening stations, relatively unchanged since the 1950s; browsing through a stack of CDs at Tower, we see something we like (the visual will continue to be very important) and pick it up. What if the music on this music-carrier immediately started playing in our earpiece tethered to our cellphone, and we could add this to a playlist for download, add the physical album to our shopping cart at the cash 'n wrap (perhaps to be replicated, printed, and shrink-wrapped on-the-spot!), or to a save-for-later list? This could satisfy both our urges for immediate-download-gratification and hunter-gatherer instinct directing us to take home a trophy (the shopping gene, common to men and women!).
Why isn't Tower at every live performance? Set up a small shop selling the artist's (and related artists') CDs, offering on-the-spot downloads to phones and iPods, selling instant CD-Rs of tonight's shows, sharing profits 50/50 with the artist? This works at every level of the music industry, from opening acts at local clubs to sold-out U2 arena shows.
Some say iTunes etc. is pushing us toward a singles-market instead of an album market, but in the century of music distribution, we have seen this cycle a few times - after the height of the 78 RPM album in the '30s, and again in the album-oriented '70s and '80s. These cycles should be looked-upon as a refresher for the industry, not as a coffin-nail in an industry.
Some say Tower's biggest challenge comes from Wal-Mart, Target and Circuit City. This may be so currently, but again people forget recent history. Most people, through Rock 'n Roll era, the Hi Fi boom, and the rise of the LP record and CD, bought most of their discs at Sears or J. C. Penney, at rackjobbed sections of the store. These sections carried only the hits, but they replaced what was sold, and could be depended-upon to have popular stuff at a reasonable price, close-to-home whether you lived in Manhattan KS or Manhattan, New York, NY. A specialty retailer like Tower will always sell the hits, but what differentiates them from the mass-marketers would be depth of catalog. Unfortunately since mass-marketers (including internet-based retailers) often look at music and video products as loss-leaders, drawing people to their stores to ultimately purchase more-profitable items, Tower has had to increasingly charge higher prices than mass-marketers and is looked-on as a high-priced alternative. The record labels should have recognized Tower's worth and found a way for them and other specialty retailers to prosper in the face of mass-market competition.
And don't get me started on independent record stores. The major labels had essentially booted the indies by the early '80s by refusing to sell direct to them. A linear decline in independent store success continues to this day. Successful indies, I guess Amoeba would be the poster child, could concentrate on depth, scale, and vibe, while using tools like live performances, trade in used product (at-best a wash for the music industry, trading actual sales for marketing value), etc. And Starbucks would have to qualify as a successful indie record store chain, exploiting their captive, homogeneous audience with very focused custom product.
Tower has a lot going for it if it wants to survive as an independent entertainment retailer - a known name, refined distribution mechanism (if they haven't fatally poisoned this stream by not paying their suppliers), physical locations probably still with good locations and affordable leases, etc. If they can show that they can adapt, and in-fact lead, they can choose to prosper.
Simply no surprise. Simply an example of a top-heavy public company that hasn't managed to figure out how to turn a growing-profit in a changing market. Not necessarily a sign of impending doom for the music industry.
I don't think that a packaged music format, something that people can pick up, feel, and pay-for at a cash 'n wrap, will at some point cease to exist. I do believe that we have seen the last successful disc-based format (at least I hope so). SA-CD and DVD-A (including its cousin DualDisc) were tremendous improvements over CD, sounding better, providing high-resolution and surround music capabilities, having limited video capability (for DVD-A), containing backwards compatibility, etc., yet in a non-rush to market these properly, the music industry let them become a failed experiment. New formats Blue Ray and HD-DVD can be described with the same advantages over CD, yet unless the music and video industries can quickly come to their senses, both formats will go down in flames.
There are other ways to distribute content. I hope that the physical medium will have no moving parts. Flash memory is getting denser, more robust, and cheaper every day, but it probably has limitations that will prevent it from getting as cheap per storage-unit as current magneto-optical systems. Spinning discs were from day-one an anachronism, designed from hearts raised with the romantic notion of spinning vinyl, and even in the late-'70s not the only choice for dense data storage. The Sony/Philips hegemony of patent rights, replication facilities, and constant hardware upgrade and replacement cycles has been very effective to them but it has held-back media technology by decades. Whatever way the planet spins toward for physical content distribution, I hope that we see the light before a spinning disc or (hard drive) platter is chosen.
The People have spoken (and have been speaking for a decade) - they download and trade files of audio and video content. It's just plain natural for us to have a (currently) open communications system like the internet and share what we can. Certainly a one-to-many hobbled system like iTunes is one way to generate revenue for copyright holders (hopefully to creative artists), albeit a limited hierarchical one. The browsing process at the iTunes store can be replicated in a retail brick 'n mortar environment, possibly with technology that lets us listen to anything in the store beyond the primitive listening stations, relatively unchanged since the 1950s; browsing through a stack of CDs at Tower, we see something we like (the visual will continue to be very important) and pick it up. What if the music on this music-carrier immediately started playing in our earpiece tethered to our cellphone, and we could add this to a playlist for download, add the physical album to our shopping cart at the cash 'n wrap (perhaps to be replicated, printed, and shrink-wrapped on-the-spot!), or to a save-for-later list? This could satisfy both our urges for immediate-download-gratification and hunter-gatherer instinct directing us to take home a trophy (the shopping gene, common to men and women!).
Why isn't Tower at every live performance? Set up a small shop selling the artist's (and related artists') CDs, offering on-the-spot downloads to phones and iPods, selling instant CD-Rs of tonight's shows, sharing profits 50/50 with the artist? This works at every level of the music industry, from opening acts at local clubs to sold-out U2 arena shows.
Some say iTunes etc. is pushing us toward a singles-market instead of an album market, but in the century of music distribution, we have seen this cycle a few times - after the height of the 78 RPM album in the '30s, and again in the album-oriented '70s and '80s. These cycles should be looked-upon as a refresher for the industry, not as a coffin-nail in an industry.
Some say Tower's biggest challenge comes from Wal-Mart, Target and Circuit City. This may be so currently, but again people forget recent history. Most people, through Rock 'n Roll era, the Hi Fi boom, and the rise of the LP record and CD, bought most of their discs at Sears or J. C. Penney, at rackjobbed sections of the store. These sections carried only the hits, but they replaced what was sold, and could be depended-upon to have popular stuff at a reasonable price, close-to-home whether you lived in Manhattan KS or Manhattan, New York, NY. A specialty retailer like Tower will always sell the hits, but what differentiates them from the mass-marketers would be depth of catalog. Unfortunately since mass-marketers (including internet-based retailers) often look at music and video products as loss-leaders, drawing people to their stores to ultimately purchase more-profitable items, Tower has had to increasingly charge higher prices than mass-marketers and is looked-on as a high-priced alternative. The record labels should have recognized Tower's worth and found a way for them and other specialty retailers to prosper in the face of mass-market competition.
And don't get me started on independent record stores. The major labels had essentially booted the indies by the early '80s by refusing to sell direct to them. A linear decline in independent store success continues to this day. Successful indies, I guess Amoeba would be the poster child, could concentrate on depth, scale, and vibe, while using tools like live performances, trade in used product (at-best a wash for the music industry, trading actual sales for marketing value), etc. And Starbucks would have to qualify as a successful indie record store chain, exploiting their captive, homogeneous audience with very focused custom product.
Tower has a lot going for it if it wants to survive as an independent entertainment retailer - a known name, refined distribution mechanism (if they haven't fatally poisoned this stream by not paying their suppliers), physical locations probably still with good locations and affordable leases, etc. If they can show that they can adapt, and in-fact lead, they can choose to prosper.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News | Reuters.com
US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News | Reuters.com
I'm not a member of a political party.
I have never been a member of a political party, I probably never will be, but I kind a wish that there was a party to which I would like to be invited. Am I missing out of some fun?
Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party these days is sort of like being a fan of a Major League Baseball team. You might get interested by one or two players or strategies, but these things by their nature will change every few years. You then stick through the winnings and losings because you're comfortable, because you know where the cleanest restrooms are, because, well, they're still in the game, aren't they?
It's particularly present in the Republican party these days - a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or even a Goldwater Republican wouldn't recognize the party today. The majority of the tiny minority that keeps the barely-conservative current administration in power hardly understands what the elite plans for these what's-the-matter-with-Kansas crowd. The current Rove-army is very smart at getting their people elected largely against the self-interest of many of the people who vote for them.
If the Democrats wantopinioninon, they should not take subtle strategic moves like these movements of primaries. They should require a primary, with common rules, in each of the fifty states, on the same day. Let's pick May 15.
That gives six months for their nominees to campaign - well enough. It gives the national party less influence on any one state, but I'm sure they will allocate engery, time, money, money, money, to the states where their efforts will produce candidates that will influence the national election, (did I say money?).
Let's say the Republicans do this too. In 2008. A six month presidential election. Let's say they agree that the six months will be spent with at least one joint appearance in each of the 50 states, in a large public facility, with full media coverage (every radio and TV outlet will carry this in the local area). Two presidential candidates talking to each other - discussing, debating, maybe estrategiczing, in front of a non-cherry-picked audience that would be seeing the same show, without filters.
I must say that a candidate with the obvious lack of appropriate knowledge communicationsions skills as our current president would never have made it through this process. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not a member of a political party.
I have never been a member of a political party, I probably never will be, but I kind a wish that there was a party to which I would like to be invited. Am I missing out of some fun?
Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party these days is sort of like being a fan of a Major League Baseball team. You might get interested by one or two players or strategies, but these things by their nature will change every few years. You then stick through the winnings and losings because you're comfortable, because you know where the cleanest restrooms are, because, well, they're still in the game, aren't they?
It's particularly present in the Republican party these days - a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or even a Goldwater Republican wouldn't recognize the party today. The majority of the tiny minority that keeps the barely-conservative current administration in power hardly understands what the elite plans for these what's-the-matter-with-Kansas crowd. The current Rove-army is very smart at getting their people elected largely against the self-interest of many of the people who vote for them.
If the Democrats wantopinioninon, they should not take subtle strategic moves like these movements of primaries. They should require a primary, with common rules, in each of the fifty states, on the same day. Let's pick May 15.
That gives six months for their nominees to campaign - well enough. It gives the national party less influence on any one state, but I'm sure they will allocate engery, time, money, money, money, to the states where their efforts will produce candidates that will influence the national election, (did I say money?).
Let's say the Republicans do this too. In 2008. A six month presidential election. Let's say they agree that the six months will be spent with at least one joint appearance in each of the 50 states, in a large public facility, with full media coverage (every radio and TV outlet will carry this in the local area). Two presidential candidates talking to each other - discussing, debating, maybe estrategiczing, in front of a non-cherry-picked audience that would be seeing the same show, without filters.
I must say that a candidate with the obvious lack of appropriate knowledge communicationsions skills as our current president would never have made it through this process. Wouldn't you agree?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Recall Ahnold? Maybe, but at Least Vote in Your Own Best Interest
Once again, California is a laughing stock because we elected an actor as governor. History isn't kind to our previous experience with this, and look at the squirmy leftovers from the Reagan administration currently working in the GWB administration, how well their policies have treated you, and how popular they are. Many of us may have felt a certain need to get Gray Davis out of office, but what is the price we are paying for the recall frenzy?
If you still are of the belief that Davis deregulated the energy industry in California and caused rolling blackouts, or that he tripled our car tax, do a little more research. These things were put into place by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, a meaner and grayer Gray. Wilson is not a stupid man, but deregulation and tax cuts as an ideological tactic were all the rage, and apparently the majority of us bought into this despite the fact that most of us would never benefit - short term or long - from these ideas as implemented to buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.
A great source for information might be the book and movie "The Smartest Men in the Room" about the rise and fall of Enron. The traders at Enron and other companies had found ways to game the power distribution system in California to their financial advantage. As long as a resource or utility is being traded, someone will find a way to profit - these guys just used their corporate influence (including a long-standing relationship with the Bush family and those currently in-power in the White House) to take this profitability to a new level, without regard to the effect on the California energy market and Californians in-general.
In 2001 the state suffered rolling blackouts January 17-18, during the time of year when California typically used the least electricity. Davis bought power at highly unfavorable terms on the open market, since the California power companies were technically bankrupt and had no buying power. The "Smartest..." writers report their conclusion that, while he stood his ground for a while, Davis eventually capitulated to the terms set forth by the bankers controlling energy interests so he could secure his financial position for a possible presidential run in 2004; I can't see this, since his political support and popular poll number was at this time very low.
In April of 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with Bush political advisers to discuss whether the actor should run for Governor of California in 2002. Karl Rove says "That would be really nice. That would be really, really nice."
On May 17 2001, Schwarzenegger met with Enron CEO Ken Lay, Michael Milken, and 12 other California Republicans at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. There they share (according to Enron emails) "an insider's conversation of what's going on with the energy situation." Later, during his campaign for governor, Schwarzenegger claims he is unable to remember anything about the meeting, including whether he even met Ken Lay.
In early 2003 an effort to recall the unpopular Davis, funded largely by the black-hearted and covetous Darrell Issa, began. When Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring, the Republican party (not yet suffering from record-low poll numbers nationally themselves) knew they had a chance and threw their support behind him. Schwarzenegger blamed Davis for the energy crisis, for the end of the VLF Offset signed - with a sunset clause - by Pete Wilson, and for spending too much time in office raising political funds. Thus, Davis was replaced in this recall, based on this pack of lies.
Davis may not have led effectively in the energy area, but no reasonable person can disagree that the game was rigged against him on international, national, and statewide levels. What's funny is that the pricing that Gov. Davis agreed to with his back in a corner in 2001 actually is saving Californians today, since energy prices have since skyrocketed. One of the largest interests supporting the Schwarzenegger campaign was car dealerships, funding the spread of lies about the VLF Offset, and Schwarzenegger paid them back by holding a political rally at a car dealership in the San Fernando valley at taxpayers' expense, signing bills taking away existing consumer rights in automobile transactions. And since his election, Schwarzenegger has spent a record amount of time raising a record amount of political money, far exceeding Davis' best efforts.
Aren't Arnold's actions in that recall effort enough to convince any California resident that he was the wrong choice? Our constitutional recall provision is not bad in-itself, but shouldn't we save it for truly criminal actors and punish ineffective leaders in elections? Gov. Shwartzenegger's ineffectiveness as governor, his misguided and costly special election effort, and low current popular support should speak for themselves.
Let's vote for our own interest in November, and put this Experiment in Arnold back where it belongs.
If you still are of the belief that Davis deregulated the energy industry in California and caused rolling blackouts, or that he tripled our car tax, do a little more research. These things were put into place by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, a meaner and grayer Gray. Wilson is not a stupid man, but deregulation and tax cuts as an ideological tactic were all the rage, and apparently the majority of us bought into this despite the fact that most of us would never benefit - short term or long - from these ideas as implemented to buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.
A great source for information might be the book and movie "The Smartest Men in the Room" about the rise and fall of Enron. The traders at Enron and other companies had found ways to game the power distribution system in California to their financial advantage. As long as a resource or utility is being traded, someone will find a way to profit - these guys just used their corporate influence (including a long-standing relationship with the Bush family and those currently in-power in the White House) to take this profitability to a new level, without regard to the effect on the California energy market and Californians in-general.
In 2001 the state suffered rolling blackouts January 17-18, during the time of year when California typically used the least electricity. Davis bought power at highly unfavorable terms on the open market, since the California power companies were technically bankrupt and had no buying power. The "Smartest..." writers report their conclusion that, while he stood his ground for a while, Davis eventually capitulated to the terms set forth by the bankers controlling energy interests so he could secure his financial position for a possible presidential run in 2004; I can't see this, since his political support and popular poll number was at this time very low.
In April of 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with Bush political advisers to discuss whether the actor should run for Governor of California in 2002. Karl Rove says "That would be really nice. That would be really, really nice."
On May 17 2001, Schwarzenegger met with Enron CEO Ken Lay, Michael Milken, and 12 other California Republicans at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. There they share (according to Enron emails) "an insider's conversation of what's going on with the energy situation." Later, during his campaign for governor, Schwarzenegger claims he is unable to remember anything about the meeting, including whether he even met Ken Lay.
In early 2003 an effort to recall the unpopular Davis, funded largely by the black-hearted and covetous Darrell Issa, began. When Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring, the Republican party (not yet suffering from record-low poll numbers nationally themselves) knew they had a chance and threw their support behind him. Schwarzenegger blamed Davis for the energy crisis, for the end of the VLF Offset signed - with a sunset clause - by Pete Wilson, and for spending too much time in office raising political funds. Thus, Davis was replaced in this recall, based on this pack of lies.
Davis may not have led effectively in the energy area, but no reasonable person can disagree that the game was rigged against him on international, national, and statewide levels. What's funny is that the pricing that Gov. Davis agreed to with his back in a corner in 2001 actually is saving Californians today, since energy prices have since skyrocketed. One of the largest interests supporting the Schwarzenegger campaign was car dealerships, funding the spread of lies about the VLF Offset, and Schwarzenegger paid them back by holding a political rally at a car dealership in the San Fernando valley at taxpayers' expense, signing bills taking away existing consumer rights in automobile transactions. And since his election, Schwarzenegger has spent a record amount of time raising a record amount of political money, far exceeding Davis' best efforts.
Aren't Arnold's actions in that recall effort enough to convince any California resident that he was the wrong choice? Our constitutional recall provision is not bad in-itself, but shouldn't we save it for truly criminal actors and punish ineffective leaders in elections? Gov. Shwartzenegger's ineffectiveness as governor, his misguided and costly special election effort, and low current popular support should speak for themselves.
Let's vote for our own interest in November, and put this Experiment in Arnold back where it belongs.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Estate Tax on Minimum Wage Bill? It's a tax on the Death of Common Sense!
Other than in some bizarre world of state-supported class warfare, the recent (and recently defeated) bill teaming a Minimum Wage hike with cutting the Estate Tax was politics at its lowest.
We're all suffering because of the disparity between poor and rich. None of us are benefitting from the fact that the lowest paid worker in the US earns less that he or she has, adjusted for inflation, since the introduction of the Federal Minimum Wage. I'm not suggesting a Minimum Wage beyond that as a safety net (although a Living Wage, adjusted for local cost of living, would be a tremendous boon for all), but it is just plain wrong for the best and wealthiest country in the world to ensure that our lowest-paid workers can not sustain a family of four above the poverty line.
In this great country, we do not create royalty. The Estate Tax (go directy to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars if you call it the Death Tax...) is not an either/or proposition - the bulk of this un-earned income should be passed to heirs, but it is reasonable to expect some of this to be redistributed, as our founding fathers would have suported. And please, no hysterical stories of farms or small businesses going under - if the founder of a business is wealthy enough to be affected by the Estate Tax, he or she can afford a lawyer and a financial planner to keep this from happening.
In this great country, we value hard work and families. Minimum Wage earners are actually working for something (unlike trust-fund kids in most cases) and deserve respectful treatment and a place at the table. If employers won't do this, simply because they can, the safety net of the Minimum Wage is a reasonable way to direct these business owners to contribute to their brothers, their neighborhood, and their society.
After all, the GAO's own studies show some interesting things: most new jobs are created by small business owners. Most Minimum Wage-earning employees are employed by small business owners. Small Business owners in the states with the highest Minimum Wage are also the most prosperous, even adjusted for increased cost-of-living in these states. These same small business owners benefit most from more stable employees, safer neighborhoods, increased local spending, etc., that the increased Minimum Wage delivers.
A spending cut (instead of a tax cut/welfare for the wealthy) would be appropriate to balance a Minimum Wage hike. Maybe even a federal tax break to the business owner for each new employee hired at the Minimum Wage or higher after the Minimum Wage is increased.
I can already hear the Republican congressional candidates already practicing their speeches: "We tried to increase the Minimum Wage in congress, but the Democrats voted it down!" When will people stop believing this crap?
We're all suffering because of the disparity between poor and rich. None of us are benefitting from the fact that the lowest paid worker in the US earns less that he or she has, adjusted for inflation, since the introduction of the Federal Minimum Wage. I'm not suggesting a Minimum Wage beyond that as a safety net (although a Living Wage, adjusted for local cost of living, would be a tremendous boon for all), but it is just plain wrong for the best and wealthiest country in the world to ensure that our lowest-paid workers can not sustain a family of four above the poverty line.
In this great country, we do not create royalty. The Estate Tax (go directy to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars if you call it the Death Tax...) is not an either/or proposition - the bulk of this un-earned income should be passed to heirs, but it is reasonable to expect some of this to be redistributed, as our founding fathers would have suported. And please, no hysterical stories of farms or small businesses going under - if the founder of a business is wealthy enough to be affected by the Estate Tax, he or she can afford a lawyer and a financial planner to keep this from happening.
In this great country, we value hard work and families. Minimum Wage earners are actually working for something (unlike trust-fund kids in most cases) and deserve respectful treatment and a place at the table. If employers won't do this, simply because they can, the safety net of the Minimum Wage is a reasonable way to direct these business owners to contribute to their brothers, their neighborhood, and their society.
After all, the GAO's own studies show some interesting things: most new jobs are created by small business owners. Most Minimum Wage-earning employees are employed by small business owners. Small Business owners in the states with the highest Minimum Wage are also the most prosperous, even adjusted for increased cost-of-living in these states. These same small business owners benefit most from more stable employees, safer neighborhoods, increased local spending, etc., that the increased Minimum Wage delivers.
A spending cut (instead of a tax cut/welfare for the wealthy) would be appropriate to balance a Minimum Wage hike. Maybe even a federal tax break to the business owner for each new employee hired at the Minimum Wage or higher after the Minimum Wage is increased.
I can already hear the Republican congressional candidates already practicing their speeches: "We tried to increase the Minimum Wage in congress, but the Democrats voted it down!" When will people stop believing this crap?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Gas Prices High? Gas the Rich!
Oil approaches record high prices - the Saudis game the system to inflate prices
arbitrarily, the Bush administration has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, we were
supposed to pay for this imperialistic war with Iraqi oil...
Multi-national oil companies are making record profits!
US refineries are making record profits!
Oil and refining company C-level executives are receiving record compensation!
What's difficult to understand about this? While not one company, these organizations
operate monopolistically. We all suffer some direct loss of money from higher prices at the
pump; we can choose to drive less to some extent, but commutes are generally
non-discretionary. We will soon start to suffer regressively from higher
consumer-good/service costs, fewer new jobs, layoffs, etc. The already-wealthy will continue
to be wealthy through this, but the middle and lower classes will be increasingly harmed.
The Gods of growth and short-term economic (and political) profits must not be honored! The very essence of the United States depends on a diverse, free, and prosperous middle class. The religious right, in particular, has been gamed by one flavor of politician - the politicians have pampered this minority and pandered to them by convincing them that they are the majority, when in-fact they have more in common with the other political party in terms of self-interest and economic survival. How can a rust belt resident whose hard-won middle class job has been tossed away by a government working only for the interests of big-money, big-medicine, and big-oil?
Oil and gasoline get sold as a commodity, but in fact this market is gamed like a Vegas sports board. No surprise that consumer pricing rises and falls nationally. It's time to regulate this industry as a utility, for the good of us all, not the good of a few.
arbitrarily, the Bush administration has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, we were
supposed to pay for this imperialistic war with Iraqi oil...
Multi-national oil companies are making record profits!
US refineries are making record profits!
Oil and refining company C-level executives are receiving record compensation!
What's difficult to understand about this? While not one company, these organizations
operate monopolistically. We all suffer some direct loss of money from higher prices at the
pump; we can choose to drive less to some extent, but commutes are generally
non-discretionary. We will soon start to suffer regressively from higher
consumer-good/service costs, fewer new jobs, layoffs, etc. The already-wealthy will continue
to be wealthy through this, but the middle and lower classes will be increasingly harmed.
The Gods of growth and short-term economic (and political) profits must not be honored! The very essence of the United States depends on a diverse, free, and prosperous middle class. The religious right, in particular, has been gamed by one flavor of politician - the politicians have pampered this minority and pandered to them by convincing them that they are the majority, when in-fact they have more in common with the other political party in terms of self-interest and economic survival. How can a rust belt resident whose hard-won middle class job has been tossed away by a government working only for the interests of big-money, big-medicine, and big-oil?
Oil and gasoline get sold as a commodity, but in fact this market is gamed like a Vegas sports board. No surprise that consumer pricing rises and falls nationally. It's time to regulate this industry as a utility, for the good of us all, not the good of a few.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Viral Marketing - cure or cause...
Viral marketing - buzz word of the dot-com and genX era. It's still thrown around as fresh, new, hip.
The trouble is that viral marketing is truly the only way any passion gets spread from one person to many people. Anyone in advertising who thinks that their major TV commercial with one showing will persuade one person to buy one product is delusional. Apple couldn't, in 1984 or today, honestly claim that their product would help any one person escape from the shackles of conformity, but their ads certainly did create a centrally accessible and memorable image for those who chose to convert to the cult. This membership mentality led people to use the products in a way that showed others that they, too should use the product.
A biological virus does not get spread if the virus is know to the host (unless the host is pathological). I will willingly "Tell a Friend" about a product or service if they ask, and if I truly believe in that product or service. But, I will not share the love about anything (sorry about the evangelical religious implications, but this is fundamentally true) without a reason. I choose not to wear designer clothes that highlight the designer's name; I might if the designer paid me to do it, but instead, we seem to pathologically love to pay more of our hard earned money to be walking commercials for overpriced sweatshop clothes. You might find me wearing a shirt with a Gibson or Fender guitar, not to sell the shirt but to evoke a feeling and share the image.
To instill this feeling in consumers so they pass along the love and desire for a product of ours, we must follow simple rules. Make better products, make products people want (are you listening, Ford and Chevrolet?), price them accordingly, and create a common, desirable, attractive image that makes people want to join the club. This truly is Viral Marketing in a way a "Tell a Friend" affinity or reward program can never be.
The trouble is that viral marketing is truly the only way any passion gets spread from one person to many people. Anyone in advertising who thinks that their major TV commercial with one showing will persuade one person to buy one product is delusional. Apple couldn't, in 1984 or today, honestly claim that their product would help any one person escape from the shackles of conformity, but their ads certainly did create a centrally accessible and memorable image for those who chose to convert to the cult. This membership mentality led people to use the products in a way that showed others that they, too should use the product.
A biological virus does not get spread if the virus is know to the host (unless the host is pathological). I will willingly "Tell a Friend" about a product or service if they ask, and if I truly believe in that product or service. But, I will not share the love about anything (sorry about the evangelical religious implications, but this is fundamentally true) without a reason. I choose not to wear designer clothes that highlight the designer's name; I might if the designer paid me to do it, but instead, we seem to pathologically love to pay more of our hard earned money to be walking commercials for overpriced sweatshop clothes. You might find me wearing a shirt with a Gibson or Fender guitar, not to sell the shirt but to evoke a feeling and share the image.
To instill this feeling in consumers so they pass along the love and desire for a product of ours, we must follow simple rules. Make better products, make products people want (are you listening, Ford and Chevrolet?), price them accordingly, and create a common, desirable, attractive image that makes people want to join the club. This truly is Viral Marketing in a way a "Tell a Friend" affinity or reward program can never be.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Hollywood continues to seek ways to reduce movie downloads
Whoever Hollywood is...isn't the creative artists who must derive some income from their work. Hollywood isn't serving them (realistically, they rarely do).
Hollywood seems be comprised of technological hillbillies - have these people never gotten off the Hollywood Hills farm? They built an industry, in-fact a culture, based on what seems to the average consumer to be free entertainment. We pay for this free stuff through higher consumer product costs, and sometimes pay double by paying for cable or satellite delivery that includes commercials we already paid for...but sometimes we prefer to be fat and dumb. Where we are swift and smart is adapting to new technology, and the internet has provided us with seemingly free entertainment.
This genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle. The people have spoken, and we will continue to hunt and gather stuff to consume - unfortunately, this of course leaves little bread for those of us who create this stuff. We keep using our unlimited curiosity and ingenuity to find this stuff, and there will never really be technology that will keep us from it - the entertainment companies, with Sony's recent debacle as a prime example, must get this concept as a start of a new system to encourage creativity while deriving revenue for their buisnesses and the creators of the art.
As an example, income for songwriters comes in-part from performance rights societies - ASCAP, BMI, etc., from licenses paid by broadcasters, venues, etc., and distributed to copyright holders. The big, bad, un-understood internet is the distribution mechanism just as radio and restaurants are. Radio and restaurants do not pay to own the music, as consumers of music do not (since consumers do not pay to own the music, just a licence for an image of that music, we must stop now and once and for all calling them "pirates" when they trade files). The Internet Service Providers must pay a similar blanket license fee for being the pipe.
When this license is paid (and hopefully distributed equitably), the issue of internet file trading goes away.
The only people who could possibly fight this are the ISPs, understandably, since it would cut into their bottom line one way or another. Ultimately though, without this, their bottom line will go away.
Hollywood seems be comprised of technological hillbillies - have these people never gotten off the Hollywood Hills farm? They built an industry, in-fact a culture, based on what seems to the average consumer to be free entertainment. We pay for this free stuff through higher consumer product costs, and sometimes pay double by paying for cable or satellite delivery that includes commercials we already paid for...but sometimes we prefer to be fat and dumb. Where we are swift and smart is adapting to new technology, and the internet has provided us with seemingly free entertainment.
This genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle. The people have spoken, and we will continue to hunt and gather stuff to consume - unfortunately, this of course leaves little bread for those of us who create this stuff. We keep using our unlimited curiosity and ingenuity to find this stuff, and there will never really be technology that will keep us from it - the entertainment companies, with Sony's recent debacle as a prime example, must get this concept as a start of a new system to encourage creativity while deriving revenue for their buisnesses and the creators of the art.
As an example, income for songwriters comes in-part from performance rights societies - ASCAP, BMI, etc., from licenses paid by broadcasters, venues, etc., and distributed to copyright holders. The big, bad, un-understood internet is the distribution mechanism just as radio and restaurants are. Radio and restaurants do not pay to own the music, as consumers of music do not (since consumers do not pay to own the music, just a licence for an image of that music, we must stop now and once and for all calling them "pirates" when they trade files). The Internet Service Providers must pay a similar blanket license fee for being the pipe.
When this license is paid (and hopefully distributed equitably), the issue of internet file trading goes away.
The only people who could possibly fight this are the ISPs, understandably, since it would cut into their bottom line one way or another. Ultimately though, without this, their bottom line will go away.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
CNN.com - Cheney:�Terrorists win if U.S. loses 'nerve' in Iraq - Dec 6, 2005
No, Dick, the terrorists won when you took the war to Iraq. Your war for political and personal economic profit, based on lies, should never have happened - you know it, and you are lauging at us.
Please resign, and save this great country from further embarassment and isolation.
Please resign, and save this great country from further embarassment and isolation.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
reviewjournal.com -- News - VIETNAM VETERANS: Goodman announces 'operation'
Dear Mr. Howard,
TMitchell@reviewjournal.com; KHoward@reviewjournal.com
Your recent article on Mayor Goodman's Operation Welcome Home contained a grossly wrong statement of fact - please correct and retract this.
You reported:
"When U.S. military personnel came home 30 years ago as the Vietnam War ended, many were told to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes or else face the scorn of an ungrateful public.
Angry crowds sometimes gathered to spit on them when they returned."
There are no substantiated reports of soldiers returning from Vietnam being spat upon.
Crowds angry at the war did gather. Some US low-level personell may have recommened civilian clothes instead of uniforms. A few misguided civilians may have directed their scorn at soldiers instead of politicians. But protesters spitting on veterans? Entitlement mentality wishful thinking, and a re-writing of history for a purpose.
I was too young to serve, but many cousins and acquaintences did. They all reported that they returned to a different America - one that did not have an unquestioning support for the war. Many felt, and still feel, disrespected for the duty they did for us, but none report anything like spitting.
In many ways, these soldiers were the victims, not of the public but of the politicians. They universally feel, as do todays soldiers in Iraq (two of my nephews included) that they should either be given a clear task and the proper support to complete the task, or that they be removed from harm's way.
I will be waiting for notice of your correction.
sf
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Oct-18-Tue-2005/news/3877922.html
reviewjournal.com -- News - VIETNAM VETERANS: Goodman announces 'operation': "When U.S. military personnel came home 30 years ago as the Vietnam War ended, many were told to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes or else face the scorn of an ungrateful public.
Angry crowds sometimes gathered to spit on them when they returned."
TMitchell@reviewjournal.com; KHoward@reviewjournal.com
Your recent article on Mayor Goodman's Operation Welcome Home contained a grossly wrong statement of fact - please correct and retract this.
You reported:
"When U.S. military personnel came home 30 years ago as the Vietnam War ended, many were told to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes or else face the scorn of an ungrateful public.
Angry crowds sometimes gathered to spit on them when they returned."
There are no substantiated reports of soldiers returning from Vietnam being spat upon.
Crowds angry at the war did gather. Some US low-level personell may have recommened civilian clothes instead of uniforms. A few misguided civilians may have directed their scorn at soldiers instead of politicians. But protesters spitting on veterans? Entitlement mentality wishful thinking, and a re-writing of history for a purpose.
I was too young to serve, but many cousins and acquaintences did. They all reported that they returned to a different America - one that did not have an unquestioning support for the war. Many felt, and still feel, disrespected for the duty they did for us, but none report anything like spitting.
In many ways, these soldiers were the victims, not of the public but of the politicians. They universally feel, as do todays soldiers in Iraq (two of my nephews included) that they should either be given a clear task and the proper support to complete the task, or that they be removed from harm's way.
I will be waiting for notice of your correction.
sf
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Oct-18-Tue-2005/news/3877922.html
reviewjournal.com -- News - VIETNAM VETERANS: Goodman announces 'operation': "When U.S. military personnel came home 30 years ago as the Vietnam War ended, many were told to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes or else face the scorn of an ungrateful public.
Angry crowds sometimes gathered to spit on them when they returned."
Friday, October 21, 2005
'Rudderless White House' Fights Miers' Choppy Seas - Los Angeles Times
Last November, it was obvious that:
The economic recovery was going slow and benefitting a small, and wealthy, portion of the US.
The war in Iraq was based on either lies or stupidity.
The insurgency and civil war in Iraq was increasing daily.
Top level Executive branch officials were suspected of or implicated in crimes involving national security.
Disaster preparedness was already under scruitiny.
etc.
Observing this rationally, no president with this record would be re-elected. Yet a (small) majority voted for him.
Now a majority of these people think he is doing a poor job. It was obviously the same job he was doing when they voted for him.
Was it just the response to the natural disaster? The worsening of the war in Iraq? Their obvious loss of real income/purchasing power? The millions that have fallen off the unemployment count, unable to find an equivalent job, or any job at all? Is George W. Bush a different, lesser, man than he was before the election?
Did they just figure out that he is not the man do do all this "hard work" moments after the election?
The economic recovery was going slow and benefitting a small, and wealthy, portion of the US.
The war in Iraq was based on either lies or stupidity.
The insurgency and civil war in Iraq was increasing daily.
Top level Executive branch officials were suspected of or implicated in crimes involving national security.
Disaster preparedness was already under scruitiny.
etc.
Observing this rationally, no president with this record would be re-elected. Yet a (small) majority voted for him.
Now a majority of these people think he is doing a poor job. It was obviously the same job he was doing when they voted for him.
Was it just the response to the natural disaster? The worsening of the war in Iraq? Their obvious loss of real income/purchasing power? The millions that have fallen off the unemployment count, unable to find an equivalent job, or any job at all? Is George W. Bush a different, lesser, man than he was before the election?
Did they just figure out that he is not the man do do all this "hard work" moments after the election?
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
New York Daily News - Home - Michael Goodwin: She's already failed
So Harriet Meirs had an opinion - so what? She's entitled to that. It may or may ever mean anything in relationship to her (potential) Supreme Court opinions.
What should bother those on the right as well as the left is that her opinion was in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban most abortions in the US. The reasonable among us on both sides realize that abortion, gay marriage, and using turn signals on the freeway will never be a part of the US Constitition.
The very idea of any of these cultural ideas growing permanent roots in the fertile earth of this document is a wacky liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and (not very) deep down, every sane constitutional scholar (trust me, I'm not claiming to be one) knows this to be true.
Whether Harriet Meirs has ever failed (she seems to be generally successful in her vocational life by any objective measure), I just do not know. Maybe, just the fact that so many on the left and the right object to her should tell us that she actually is the right person for the job, who knows...
What should bother those on the right as well as the left is that her opinion was in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban most abortions in the US. The reasonable among us on both sides realize that abortion, gay marriage, and using turn signals on the freeway will never be a part of the US Constitition.
The very idea of any of these cultural ideas growing permanent roots in the fertile earth of this document is a wacky liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and (not very) deep down, every sane constitutional scholar (trust me, I'm not claiming to be one) knows this to be true.
Whether Harriet Meirs has ever failed (she seems to be generally successful in her vocational life by any objective measure), I just do not know. Maybe, just the fact that so many on the left and the right object to her should tell us that she actually is the right person for the job, who knows...
Friday, October 14, 2005
Rove Makes Fourth Grand Jury Appearance in CIA Leak Case - (AP) Los Angeles Times
Last Exit Before Toll, Karl, Last Exit Before Toll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)