RAWbservations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "You've run out of cigarettes, and even roses gotta die" -Stoney LaRue | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some like it RAW! R. Alex Whitlock is the primary author of the site. He is a freelance writer presently working on his second novel and working a solo IT position for an oil services company in the Houston area. -- Lovely Assistant Poster Girl helps RAW out with posts from time to time. She is a college student also based out of Houston, Texas. CONTACT US!
Archives
|
Saturday, August 31, 2002
PROOF THAT CHARLIE RANGEL IS A LIAR It may be provocative but I’ve also said that, at this juncture, I would support Governor Pataki over Cuomo because, up to now, the former governor’s son hasn’t done or said anything to persuade me that he would make a good governor. Rangel makes no attempt to explain his support for Pataki, non-support for Cuomo, his dueling comments on the matter, and his plan to vote for Pataki. Somewhere, at some point, he lied. If you feel like being even more confused, read the entire thing. -30- GOOD THINKIN', BUDDY I was driving back from the Dub Miller show last night. I needed to change the CD in the player, so I slowed down from the 65mph I was going to a more cautious speed of 55 so that I could put some distance between me and the van in front of me. Safety first, you know. As I'm switching out the CD my spider-sense goes off and I look up and I'm about to collide into the van, which is now going 10 miles an hour. On a major freeway. At 2:30 in the morning. I slam on the breaks and move into the other lane wondering what the heck is happening. Was there a broken down car in front of him? No. I don't realize what's going on until I see one of the light signs above that says "DWI Laws Strictly Enforced." Great work, guy. Drive cautiously at 10 miles an hour on a major freeway just past closing time. No officer in his right mind would suspect you're drunk. Good thinking! -30- WHY YOU SHOULDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO ME Apparently, I'm a nutcase:
To make it worse, I confided in my friend Silk with these results: Silk: ya so is mine RAW: OH CRAP RAW: I took an online psychological thing RAW: I'm a weirdo RAW: as in nuts Silk: huh???? RAW: crazy RAW: bonkers Silk: well duh RAW: You're not helping, dear RAW: Highly Schizoid, Schizotypal, Narcissistic RAW: I am moderately paranoid, antisocial, histrionic, and obsessive-compulsive Silk: well ya RAW: YOU'RE NOT HELPING, DEAR Silk: I'm sorry you don't want ot be who you are RAW: [sigh] Link via Neurotic Fishbowl -30- Friday, August 30, 2002
THREE CHEERS FOR TRYING Get Donkey's Rob Humenik ponders whether or not outspoken atheist Michael Newdow is perhaps too extreme for the secular movement, citing a couple articles where Newdow lays out his real agenda: Getting God completely out of the public sphere. Up to and including getting the President to stop mentioning God. I'm actually not that far from Rob on the subject. I thought that the Pledge was fair game, but a misplacement of priorities that was bound to create a bigger backlash than it had effect. Newdow takes it a few steps further and suggests that God ought to be removed from the debate entirely. It's not an uncommon view among many liberals (including many of my lefty friends) that religion ought to be a 'don't ask don't tell' issue. That is, of course, ludicrous. Religion strikes at the heart of who we are. Sure, sometimes it's used to cynically push unrelated causes, but using the arm of the law to squeeze it out of the public discourse is unrealistic and undesirable. Rob clarifies a bit in the comments section and he's not quite as anti-anti-faith as I had originally hoped. One poster in the comments section suggested that one cannot be a "fundamentalist atheist" (a great term Rob derived) because atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a church, but it is a religion in that it requires certain beliefs about the world and it's creation. Agnosticism is the only true lack-of-religion. Several years back when I was agnostic I made the comment that Rob's ponderances reminded me of: The only thing worse than a pushy Christian is a pushy atheist. -30- LYRICS OF THE [UNIDENTIFIED TIME PERIOD] They're gonna put you out on the streets, Lorena All those demons you keep locked away All those shiny skeletons in your closet are gonna break through and get you one day and I'd like to be there when it happens I got my own demons, too, you know I'd like to be there when it happens, baby cause mine got me a long time ago They're gonna put you out on the streets, Lorena They're gonna sing and dance upon your grave They're gonna lock up your heart and throw away the key You better believe me, Lorena. -Bob Schneider, "Lorena" -30- QUOTE OF THE DAY "I think nannies are for people who like to name kids but not raise them. In general, if you can afford a nanny, you have the money for one parent to stay home and raise the kid." -Lee Ann Morawski, Spinster. I don't entirely agree, but I do think that some people don't always understand the sacrifices involved. I know that if we can afford it, I would like my future wife to stay home from work or, if she doesn't want to and can bring home enough money, I'll stay home. -30- GOTTA LOVE THOSE MSN '10 WAYS' LISTS* I have a better idea. Why don't I just throw myself into a steaming vat of acid, instead? *- Meant in the way to suggest that you don't have to love those MSN lists at all. -30- Thursday, August 29, 2002
CHEERING THE WHITE MAN'S BLOOD Orrin Judd links out to an Atlantic article about the consistent draw of violent action movies where the violence is predominantly delivered by blacks on whites: What has already appeared is of immense importance in the history of mass culture, even if it is aesthetically null. The film makers, whether white, or black, have sensed the audience's rage and its mood of revolt against insulting images of blacks in past movies and against the white man in general. The black cinema has discovered the profitability of revenge: the desires to make money and to erase a legacy of racial humiliation coincide perfectly in a cinema whose moments of purest audience joy consist of black men and women responding to white racism by killing oppressors. Movie audiences always wanted heroesfor fantasy release or just the basic pleasure of watching beautiful physical action, but this may be the first time an audience has demanded physical heroism in order to confirm an emerging sense of identity. The mood in the theaters is festive, alternating between admiration and mockery. If a white person wanders into one of these movies, he will have the novel experience of complete exclusion. I actually have no problem with these movies, despite what the title of this entry might imply. There is a lot of rage out there against "the man" and movies are a healthier expression than many of the alternatives. There is the argument that this type of thing inspires young people to violence, but it's not an argument I've ever really bought into. But that's another post. The entry title refers to my experience with seeing such a movie. Since Orrin related his over there, I'll relate mine here. When I was about seventeen or so, four friends and I went to the movie theater in the predominantly minority area of Greenspoint. The only movie that none of us objected to was one called Dead Presidents. Most of us had never heard of it. So we were the only five white people in a theater with about forty or so people in it. The plot follows a group of Vietnam veterans through (graphic images) of the war and their return to racism at home. The climax involves the death of about a dozen white guys (mostly cops and security guards) along with a scene at the end where the main character justifies the slaughter as the honest response to racial injustice. Every time a white character would die (whether at the hands of one of the black heroes or the Vietcong) the crowd erupted in cheers. Terry, Alana, and Julia started joining in the cheers about halfway through. It was partly because this was the closest thing they had to a party to go to that night, partially a when-in-Rome sort of thing, and mostly a way to digest the horror (particularly of the devestatingly graphic Vietnam scenes) that was all too real in their LSD-induced haze (My date Presh and I were the sober caretakers). It was a little creepy at the begining, but in the end (particularly when our friends joined in) it became part of the experience. I also should note that it wasn't entirely racial. When the hero beat the crap out of his wife, they were cheering nonetheless. In the end, I had a great time. I don't think I'll ever rent the movie though. Since I don't hang out with druggies anymore or have angry black friends, it just wouldn't quite be the same. -30- PREDICTIONS! GET YOUR PREDICTIONS!!! I have three predictions: 1. We will invade Iraq before this time next year. 2. Bush's support will rise, but not even close to his levels during the Afghanistan evasion. Probably somewhere in the 70's. 3. The liberal elements of the media will cite this and infer that the public is against the Iraqi invasion, despite that probably well over 2/3 will support the military action. -30- COLORING THE DEBATE (MP3 DEBATE CONCLUSION) It was a very interesting discussion and thanks to those who waded through it. Please let me know your thoughts. Owen posted yesterday on his blog that he's moderated his opinion of how dangerous and file-swapping really is an accepts, though not to the degree I do, the "pox on both houses" argument. For my part, he may well be correct about the CD prices. I would love to hear an explanation for how music videos are anything but a sinkhole for money and a luxury competitors in a non-oligarchic industry would not be able to afford, but by and large considering their influence over the airwaves, they could be worse. The rest of my arguments still stand, though, and I believe provide sufficient ammunition to shoot down the rectitude of the RIAA. As a fiction-writer-type-person, one thing that interested me most about the discussion with Owen was the character motivation. I've been accused of seeing the world in black and white before, but very often I'm skilled at taking an argument and being able to turn it into a red-blue argument (or, to avoid the famous 2000 map, a green-orange one). It helps me insofar that I don't plug my philosophical beliefs into my favorite characters and view moral worthiness is not determined by whether they are a Democrat or Republican. The main character in my first novel is a libertarian-minded Republican and in my second is a pro-life Democrat. Different experiences lead to different conclusions. They're both still wrong, though, of course. It's nonetheless helpful in both my fiction and non-fiction writing to be able to take a disagreement I am having and put it in the green-orange context. I thought about this and started doing it during my discussion with Owen as we both admitted our various biases. In Owen's case, he saw a computer platform die due to piracy so the evils of it is very real to him. He prefers national musicians over local ones and is not a music afficionado in the sense that I am, so the record company provides him with a valuabe service by filtering artists and presenting the best ones for his consumption. Furthermore, he is in college which is where the most blatant piracy in the country takes place, so he's seeing the worst of it and therefore much more concerned. In my case, I would say 2/3 of my CD collection is composed of artists that have never been signed or, even if they have, have either been dropped or recieved relatively little national airplay. Most of them I would have discovered even if they hadn't been signed. I rarely listen to the radio anymore. The services provided to me by record companies is minimal. Their primary effect on my life and music selection is obstructive. They shut down Napster, they are trying to keep me from burning CDs that I already own, and they dominate the airwaves and squeeze out my favorite musicians. I am also inclined to purchase CDs where I download the mp3s so my anecdotal evidence suggests that they won't go out of business anyway. If they do, I won't lose any sleep at night over it. In both of our cases, this colors our perspective of the entire debate. Even though we more or less are sharing the same set of facts, our primary concerns are different. To him, the record company may be out of bounds, but they have to protect themselves. To me, I don't care about the RIAA much one way or another; I just want them to get out of the way so that I can buy the CDs (most of which aren't theirs) and do with them what I want. We both agree that the record companies are wrong. We both agree that the freeloaders are wrong. The question is, who is more wrong and where are the wrongs more damaging? That's where we disagree, and if you look at our character backstories, you understand why perfectly. -30- RUMBLE IN THE BAYOU CITY: THE MP3 DEBATE, PART TWO If you haven't read Part One, it's here. Alex, You make a good case that the recording industry has engaged in certain practices that are unethical (I'll yield the point that they're not entirely blameless), although I'm not sure all your reasoning holds. To begin with, you seem to object a bit too much to record companies trying to get as much money they can out of consumers, when that's what virtually every company does - maximizing profits. The industry also has a fairly hands-off approach to low-level piracy, such as making copies onto different formats of existing music. However, some of their efforts to curb the truely destructive forms of piracy can get in the way of legitimate listening, as you point out with the new copy-protection. An analogy here, although not a perfect one, would be the old copy-protection for computer games on floppy disks. If you lost a sheet that came with the game containing codes and picures that must be imputed before playing the game, you were left with a few worthless floppy disks (this happened to me a few times, especially on the ST). Copy-protection in the recording industry seems to be slightly more harsh, and they obviously haven't worked the bugs out, but the intent is the same: to prevent mass copying of their music. You describe this as confrontational, but with the prevalence of piracy, I think it's mostly desparation. They are indeed paranoid, but piracy is costing them and legitimate buyers billions a year. I don't buy the argument that most people are buying more CDs because of file sharing, either. There are far too many variables to calculate for certain, I'll grant, but the truth is that pirates of any stripe are more likely to buy more music, software, or movies than the general public. It's where their interests lie, and they do need something to copy. Moreover, while the recording industry isn't a charitable organization, or even entirely ethical, I don't think it's a monopolistic monolith either. I really haven't seen any evidence of price gouging among the record producers, especially considering that the average price of a CD is less than $13. It's like the accusations against the oil industry for price fixing - there are plenty of accusations, but I've yet to see any considerable proof. I'll admit they're going too far in some instances. For example, the copy-protected CDs need to be fixed or abolished. I'll also admit the major record companies are far more wasteful than local artists, but most small business enterprises are more thrify than large corporate bureaucracies, and monopoly power has scare little to do with it the vast majority of the time. As for my earlier computer game analogy, I believe it still holds. While it is true that the demo or shareware versions of some games allow for the consumer to experience the overall gameplay (i.e. Doom), a great many don't. Many provide only a level or two, usually the best in the game. If the difficulty increases or the gameplay shifts at any point in the game, you cannot gauge the game's quality from the demo alone. I can't tell you how many games I've gotten due to impressive demos where the difficulty became impossible after the third level, and the demo had only included the first. There are also games where the gameplay switches from action to stealth a third of the way through, or where it turns out the game is far too short, and was thus a waste of cash. With CDs, you run precisely the same risk. Are the songs on the radio representative of the entire album? Are the magazine and/or online reviews right? What if they conflict? Who to believe? I suppose I'm no music aficionado, but the difference in music quality between CD and MP3 doesn't quite catch my ear (I have a large collection of LPs and a turntable, to show you how much small differences in quality matter to me). And most people probably don't care about having the album covers of CDs (I don't). So I don't believe the difference in product is substantial enough to invalidate my analogy. Perhaps that is what truely paints my feelings about music piracy - my ire for software piracy and its results. I'm still a bit more down on consumers than the RIAA. Sincerely, Owen M. Courrèges --- Owen, I don't object to the record companies trying to make money. That's they're job. However, I do have problems with the way that they use their self-perpetuating dominance to extract money from everyone. They don't operate in a free-market system so I don't believe it's right to act like they do and abuse artists and other companies because they are prevalent for reasons other than the quality/price of their product. It's wrong in the way predatory pricing is: using their unfair advantage unfairly. Their "hands-off" approach to low-level piracy is something they are forced into. As I mentioned they opposed nearly every method that this low-level piracy uses to the extent that they would punish legitimate copiers as well. Copying a CD to tape is legally protected, they have no choice but to respect it. Not that they haven't tried to undermine it, though. I remember the old code-card for SimCity. I hated that. At the same time, though, it was a reasonable response to what was a devastating epidemic. However, if you notice very few of them do it anymore. I believe that there are a couple reasons for that. First of all, the software market was an array of smaller companies that lived and died by their applications. Secondly, they proved counterproductive. Once a couple companies stopped doing it, people showed a strong preference for their products. Then CDs became prevalent and that provided a new way of doing it since CDs couldn't be copied. Now that CDs are easily copiable, they have not returned to their old ways because the companies are considerably more large and can take bigger losses to piracy. Their livelihood no longer depends on it and it would do more harm than good for everyone involved. That's where one of my big problems with the record industry comes in to play. They are acting as though their life is in danger and therefore the ends necessarily justify the means. People on the pro-swapping side of the debate aren't helping because many of them talk about how the record companies will "have to" give away their music or they will go out of business. I've heard the same argument for Microsoft regarding open-sourcing. I don't buy it there, either. One of the things I've thought long and hard about (for a novel idea I'm working on) is what would be the worst that can happen if file-swapping becomes an overwhelming epidemic. None of the conclusions I came to involved them shutting down and the airwaves suddenly being without music. They are simply too dominant to ever really go away. Whatever hurts them will also hurt would-be rivals and if the entire industry were to collapse (which it wouldn't), they would probably be the only five entities left standing. My primary worry would be the smaller record labels going under, but the small labels are owned by the big ones. The smaller labels are regional and will likely stay afloat the same way that independent artists do. What would happen, though, is that the big record companies would become smaller. They wouldn't be able to throw millions upon millions of dollars music videos that don't bring in revenue. They would have to depend more on free publicity by radio stations rather than million-dollar marketing campaigns. They would be more dependent on who listens to their music rather than trying to tell us who to listen to. They would have to become more flexible. These are things they should be doing anyway -- and would be doing, except that they don't have to because of their dominance of the market. The worst-case scenario is that they do not change their methods of operation a single iota and lose to someone who adapt to it. In the absolute worst-case scenario, they won't be driven out of business but they will lose their invulnerability, which quite frankly they shouldn't have anyway (no business should). The record companies aren't fighting for their lives, they're fighting to maintain their invincibility to the market factors that most industries are susceptible to. Either they know that and are just being greedy or they don't know that and are being dangerously paranoid. If it's the former, I don't feel much sympathy because they don't have their dominance (and invulnerability) by having an exceptional product so it's not entirely legitimate. If it's the latter, they are the biggest danger to themselves by overreacting themselves into oblivion. They're increasingly leading themselves wide open to criticism by legitimate customers who want to be able to listen to and watch what they buy. They can make the freeloaders as angry as they want and it won't matter. When they start making their customers angry, they may well be affecting their own pocketbooks. You don't believe that swapping has lead to an increase in CD purchasing. You're right that there are a number of variables and therefore we will never really know. If we continue to disagree on this point, we are generally unlikely to reach any sort of consensus. however, since I used to be skeptical about it to I'll try to explain how free downloading leads to an increase in CD purchasing using my personal experience, which I doubt is unique. First, of course, there was Napster. When I would hear about an artist coming to Houston, I would go and download their material to see if I wanted to see them play and whether or not I liked their music. When I would see that I'm downloading from the same person for different artists, I would look at their catalog and see what else they had. Then I would download that. So, by downloading Dub Miller and Mark David Manders, I found Owen Temple, Jason Boland, and Roger Creager. I ended up purchasing seven of their CD's. That is seven CD's that I would not have found and purchased if it hadn't been for fileswapping. Through Jason Boland I discovered Cross Canadian Ragweed and Great Divide, who sing some of the same songs (something I wouldn't have known if I hadn't searched through Napster). Then Napster went down and I couldn't find artists anymore, so I didn't have a way to search for new artists and my CD buying became limited to those artists I already knew. Then along came AudioGalaxy, which had a function up top that would tell you what people who downloaded a particular artist were also downloading. So people who download Bob Schneider also download Matthew Ryan? I wonder what Ryan sounds like. Now I own two Schneider CDs and a Ryan one. People who download Matthew Ryan also download Tim Easton. Now I own two Easton CDs. As time progressed, however, more and more of the artists on AudioGalaxy became Xed out, meaning that the copyright was invoked and therefore their catalogues became unavailable. I still found a number of artists, though. However, they were generally local, unsigned artists whose copyright was never invoked. I follow Victory Gin in California and Ken Bierschbach in Michigan. The record industry's obstinance has actually weened me away from their music because I discovered their unblocked alternatives. Now AudioGalaxy is goe. The only worthwhile engines are Kazaa, Gnutella, and other decentralized networks. Because they can't officially recognize individual artists, there is no "recommended list" anymore and I haven't purchased a new artist since AG's collapse. So who is really winning here? You may respond by saying that I am the exception to the rule because I still buy CDs and some people don't. That's true, but as you say "pirates are more likely to buy music anyway." That means that we do purchase CDs. If we were all simply freeloaders why would we ever buy them? Are you suggesting that most of us only buy the ones we can't download? If that were the case, the industry would be doing better right now than they were a couple years ago. A couple years ago the world was at our fingertips and CD sales were good. Since Napster was shut down, sales have gone down considerably. Is it because they shut Napster down? Probably not for the most part, but it's certainly not because of file-swapping, which is much more difficult now than it was while sales were good. They're winning the battle, but losing the war. As for whether or not the music industry is a monopoly and price-gouging, it depends on your definition of both. It's not a monopoly in that they are five companies, but they have formed the RIAA and become a trust, which largely has the same effect. They file lawsuits and determine prices in unison. They have nothing to fear from one another and are rarely in competition with each other. As for "price-gouging," I believe that the general definition is the arbitrary setting or prices at artificially high levels to a captive consumer in order to maximize profits. Whether or not they explicitly do that is iffy since they aren't currently making a profit. However, they are raising prices to artificially high levels to cover for their massive mismanagement and failing to correct their mistakes. Why do I say artificially high? That's why I mentioned the thrifty independent artists. The RIAA could use some thriftiness, but since they are invulnerable there are few market incentives for them to do so when they can just raise prices. Of course they're going to be more bloated than the local indies, but at the end of the day it should still be cheaper than a group of about ten people doing the same thing. The indies have to hire out a recording studio, pay producers, and pay a printing studio at contract rates. The big ones, however, own the studio and have the producers on salary. That's how economies of scale work, but they rarely apply to invulnerable entities (government, monopolies, etc). I'm not sure what kinds of CDs you usually buy, but the last time I paid $12 for a CD was when it was at a used store (which, btw, the RIAA tried to sue out of existence. I forgot to mention that one). Honestly, the difference it quality isn't a big deal with me, either. It is with a lot of my friends, though. The booklet is a big deal for me, though, and not for them. Some people don't have CD burners and purchase the CD so that they can listen to it in their car. Others feel guilty if they don't buy the CD. Some don't have a high-speed connection (which is another thing that makes college students so dangerous) and can only download a couple songs. There are a lot of people with a lot of reasons to buy CDs even when they have some or all of the songs in mp3 format. I understand about the software thing, but I don't see the two as directly comparable. Software has an extremely high fixed cost, so three people in a garage are not going to be able to make Quake IV. Music on the other hand has a much lower fixed cost, so the music can survive without the record companies in a way that software can't. Whether signed or not, 95% of the artists out there will be recording anyway (as opposed to software, which dies with its company and/or platform). A number of people I enjoy have been signed and dropped by major labels. Some never plan to be signed. Wholistically speaking, they need us more than we need them and they continue to behave just the opposite, which is why I come down on the side of the consumers more than the RIAA. Alex --- Alex, I think we have a few more points of contention, so I just have a few more points to add: 1) I've never seen substantive evidence that the RIAA sets prices. Similar pricing can be attributed to oligopolistic competition, as in the airline and oil and gasoline industries. As for price-gouging, the costs of locally-produced CDs are weak guide to what the costs of major record labels are. The marketing costs, efforts to recruit new artists, retailers' cut, etc, don't even factor into the efforts of a locally-produced CD. Accordingly, I see no reason to believe that record companies are exempted from normal economic factors. They aren't "invulnerable." As for the average cost of CDs, I'd still wager it's around $13. For new albums the average is a bit higher, but I've never bought one for $20 or more. The last two recent releases I purchased were $13 and $14 dollars (Avril Lavigne and Counting Crows). Prices are higher at places like Warehouse Music, but that's largely because they have a massive retail markup, often as much as four dollars more than, say, Best Buy. 2) Copy-protection went the way of the dinosaur for computer games because the size increased with the expansion of CD-ROM. It is still far more difficult to copy computer games (you have to have a CD-R drive and know how to copy all of the files) that it was in the age of floppies. A few games still use it as well - Half-Life had a special code that had to imputed before playing for the first time. Another reason the old copy-protection codes went away is that new technology was developed. Macrovision's copy-protection technology, present in roughly 80% of major American PC games, tends to ward off a much copying (a great deal of computer piracy now has to occur over computer networks). The music industry is trying to implement something similar, but they're running into problems, as you've pointed out. Efforts to keep out mass copying are preventing legitmate CD users from playing their own music. The technology for music copy-protection, being underdeveloped as it is, is thus inherently more instrusive. 3) While most software developing couldn't survive without development companies, they could concievably endure without the major publishers, and so the analogy still applies roughly to the music industry. And while it is true that music itself would survive even if file-sharing went out of control, the lure of "making it big" would be greatly diminished. In that sense, I still feel the record companies serve an important purpose - they organize everything for major artists, from marketing to music videos. If you like small, local, unknown bands, this doesn't matter as much, but that doesn't describe most listeners. I can't concieve that massive property rights violations can really be positive. As easy a target as the major record labels are, I don't think they're engaged in half the practices they've been accused of. They're paranoid and taking counterproductive actions (not even trying to adapt to new technologies isn't smart), some that hurt consumers, but they aren't the stuff of 19th century robber barons. Sincerely, Owen M. Courrèges --- Owen, 1) Many of the factors you cite that national record companies use ought to pay for themselves in increased sales and not require an increase in price. If they don't pay for themselves, they ought to find more effective means of advertising. Retailers' cut also applies for CDs sold at stores, which a locally produced CD at Cactus Records costs roughly the same or a little cheaper ($1 or 2) than the national releases. Recruiting costs are a consideration, but considering the ratio of artists that want signed and slots that they can sign, they're efforts are probably focused on deciding who to sign rather than seeking talent. That may be costly, but not enough to compensate for the scale differential. My belief that they are exempt from normal economic factors rides on my earlier argument about their self-perpetuating domination of the airwaves. If you're not signed with one of them, you're not getting on the radio (with occasional exception on small stations). Similarly, we're never likely to hear them. They have a captive audience. A deal like that is so hard to screw up you are practically invulnerable. I rarely find new releases for under $15. Amazon, the cheapest source around in my experience, old releases bottom out at $13, going up from there. Some complain about $18 prices, but I've not experienced that personally. Which Counting Crows CD did you get? I actually put a couple in my cart today. 2) Learn something new every day. I'm glad Macrovision did something right. They're the ones that do the copy-protection for VCRs and DVDs I was complaining about. I don't consider a first-time code to be true copy-protection on the level that Macrovision and the like is. In any case, I retract most of my suppositions regarding the computer game market. 3) I don't disagree that record companies serve an important purpose. In the novel plot I mentioned before the resulting chaos is much worse than the current system. In the end, though, I don't believe that would happen. If it does, it will be because of the way they handle this mess. Sales were still good when Napster was at its peak. I don't believe they behaved wrongly or stupidly for doing what they did to Napster (because it could have gotten bad in the long run), but they have replaced Napster with nothing. They don't even see a need to give us what many of us want (a chance to preview it) and have to break the law to get and now are trying to take away things we can already do (put it on the computer). But they don't have to. They're invincible. When they finally are threatened, they manage to blame everyone else and try to respond to new technology by negating existing technology. The problem is that I am suffering for their paranoia and stupidity and overreactions. That makes me so angry and very unsympathetic. As long as they keep it us-vs-them, I'm stuck in the 'them' category. They should be trying to get as many of their customers as possible on their side right now. If that attitude causes their downfall (and I don't think it will, but it's the only thing that could), then they deserve what they get. Intellectual property rights are defined by the law and the rights-holder. The ways they choose to evoke them can be quite wrong-headed (when they tried to make taping a TV show illegal, for instance), and two wrongs can make it right when nothing else will do so. Alex -30- Wednesday, August 28, 2002
RUMBLE IN THE BAYOU CITY: THE MP3 DEBATE, PART ONE My mind has been a bit fried lately, so it's time for some prepackaged (yet wholesome and entertaining) material! I was actually intending to blog this anyway, and what better time than the present? I had a very interesting discussion with Owen Courreges of the Owen Courreges blog (hey, I guess not everyone has initials that make a devestatingly punny blog name). There are links to the original posts, but it is not necessary for the sake of the conversation for you to read them. It may provide helpful context, though. I will follow up the emails with some final thoughts. The backstory: RAW writes something a long time ago: More than the law, though, there is an ethical implication to all of this. It is their moral right to charge what they want and disseminate their works as they so desire. It is our moral wrong to subvert that buy downloading and burning CD's that we would otherwise buy. Most claim not to do this -- and many don't -- but many do. They know they do. RAW writes something recently: It turns out that [file-swappers] may unknowingly already have [demonstrated good faith]. As most people are aware, mp3 quality is traditionally lower than on the original CD. Why is this the case? Because the file-swappers chose for it to me. Somewhere early on, 128kbs (kilobytes per second of music) became the standard for ripping mp3s. If the original rippers had been looking to replace CDs, they likely would have tried to rip the music at the near-CD-quality 192kbs. If the purpose of this was to circumvent the record companies and get music for free or at very reduced cost, why would we not have ripped the songs at full quality? Owen blogs back: With all respect to Whitlock, this is a flimsy rationalization, like so many I've heard before. First of all, his argument is speculative - who is to say the MP3 using public would use the low quality music files? It seems more likely to me that they would simply rely on file sharing much as they do now rather than accept inferior subsitutes. RAW comments on Owen's blog: I will continue to do it because I discover new music through it and, in the end, buy CDs because of it. There are those pure rationalizers who have stopped buying CDs (because they "refuse" to support record companies or whatnot) and one of my earliest posts was a condemnation of that mindset. Letters To and Fro Owen I left a comment to your reaction on my piracy post, which I was unaware of until today. There are a lot of bad apples in the file-swapping community, but our actions simply do not suggest that our ultimate goal was to circumvent the record industry. Otherwise they would have been ripped at full quality. Convenience is the primary factor. I buy more CD's now than I ever did before and have the same criterion that I used to (if it has 4 worthwhile songs, I want it). The difference is that I've been introduced to more artists than ever before. Illegal, sure, but not unethical in my view as long as I am continuing to financially support the artists I enjoy. Others, of course don't, and that ought to be condemned. I attacked the whole "art should be free" sentiment in one of my earliest posts. RAW --- Alex, I think I understand your position better now, but I still think it has one flaw. You seem to use file sharing to preview new music, and if you hear something you like, you purchase it. You don't just keep the MP3 on your computer and use that as your personal stereo, or burn off an copy and put it in your CD deck. As a result, you purchase more CDs than before. I'll grant you that falls under the "illegal but not unethical" view quite easily. However, I think most file sharers do, to varying degrees, use MP3s to listen to copyrighted songs repeatedly without buying the albums. That doesn't mean they don't buy CDs at all, or that they're even buying fewer CDs, it just indicates that their interest in file sharing moves well beyond previewing new artists. They want to enjoy the music for free. The quality may be lower, sure, but it isn't the-cost-of-a-CD lower for most people. "Free" has a greater lure than "slightly higher quality." So while what you're doing is ethical, I think it's unusual for file sharers to employ such limited use (maybe being a college student gives me this impression). Most file swappers are acting in bad faith, and like software pirates, are just stealing. Sincerely, Owen M. Courrèges -- Owen, I believe that it's immoral to use file-swapping to circumvent purchasing CDs, but I also don't believe that the record companies are acting ethically, even if acting legally (and I'm not convinced they are, but even if so). They put music fans in a difficult position, simultaneously dominating the airwaves and using that control to milk consumers out of every dime they can. While I would chalk this up to the free market, it isn't because the avenues of distribution are inherently limited (radio stations) and controlled by another small set of companies that use their influence to dominate that limited market. In the end, that means that we are left to choose whether or not to buy a CD based on the three songs off of it that we heard on the radio, maybe two of which we liked (and we can't listen to more because the record companies authorize which songs can be played on the air, so even if the stations wanted to, they often would not be able to). We may or may not be able to listen to the CD at the record store, but even then one run-through is not enough time to be able to absorb the music. So we have to gamble $20 on whether or not it's worth purchasing (as opposed to, for instance, seeing a movie which provides as low as a $2 gamble if you're willing to wait for it to get off the new release rack at the video store). I don't believe that's right and I believe it to be a product of their insular dominance of the market. So what are our rights as listeners? I don't believe we have the right to free music, but I do believe that we have the right to know what we're buying and make an informed decision about it. Nearly every other form of entertainment provides for that. Not for free (if you want to see a movie before you buy it, you'll pay at least $2), but not at the high price of procuring the entire album. Record companies are resistent to giving listeners any of these rights and up until recently they didn't have to because circumstances never forced them to. They have been using their dominance to unethically force us to pay for things [ie tracks] we don't want in order to purchase what we do. Now file-swappers are using the Internet to unethically avoid paying for music that they take. Unlike many pro-Napster types, I don't rationalize piracy away. In fact, I see it as a real threat. Just as the record companies use their opportunities against my legitimate interests, those that don't pay the record companies would do the same by choking record company profits and output. I both want record companies to get their money and fans to get their music at reasonable costs. So with neither extreme operating ethically, what is the answer? The Internet and Napster companies have tipped the balance of power from the record companies to the consumers. Just as the consumers had to bend a little to the will of the record companies' greed, the record companies are going to have to figure out a way to bend a little to the will of the angry fans. I'm not sure this is as hard or drastic as what both sides of the debates think. The entire file-swapping machinery is built on the mass discontent of fans. If they can placate some of the more fair-minded ones (such as myself) the freeloaders will largely be left out in the cold. That's why I mentioned the 64kbs solution. It would have allowed me to listen to the music and decide if I wanted it. It would have allowed those that want to casually own a copy (which would previously have been acquired by taping it while it's on the radio) to have one, without giving them what others have paid for. Even if the freeloaders are a majority of file-swappers, they would not have nearly as many people to swipe their music from and, quite frankly, it wouldn't be worth the effort to track down a 192kbs file when a 64kbs one is free. The 128kbs standard has stuck because it was the path of least resistence. Freeloaders like the path of least resistence. Is it unfair that record companies should have to give things away in order to get people to buy what they really want? Maybe, but not much less fair than the arrangement was a few years ago before the balance of power shifted. It would be nice if there was a way that we could buy what we want without having to buy what we don't want. The record companies have not given us anything close to that option. Until they do, I simply can't muster any sympathy for them. In the meantime, I want to be able to know what I'm buying before I buy it and try different kinds of music without having to pay for it up-front or relying on the monolithic radio station to get around to playing it. I don't think that's too much to ask. So I think we agree more than you thought at first and less than you thought afterwards. I agree that there are a lot of freeloaders with indefensible ethical "philosophies" and I don't agree with what they do. I just disagree with the notion that the system (RIAA trust and radio oligopoly) should be able to force us to buy what we don't want in order to get what we do in the name of intellectual property when there are other issues (legal and ethical) involved. Alex --- Alex, The only thing is that I don't see the record companies acting unethically. I don't honestly think they care if a small minority of the file sharing community uses MP3s to preview music; they care about the legions that use MP3s as a replacement for actually buying the music. I buy a great deal of CDs that I haven't previewed, but it's no different from buying video games. I can try a demo, but that doesn't have the entire game. I can rent it, but that costs almost five dollars (file swapping costs nothing), and the option isn't available for PC games. In the end, when I buy the game, I'm taking a big gamble, far bigger than with a CD. So music piracy isn't significantly different from computer piracy. It might be nice for consumers to copy games - as is done commonly on university networks. It may also be that consumers are put in a difficult position, that they cannot preview the games. Yet software companies have no ethical obligation to insure that you can preview their product to your satisfaction. You can read reviews, you can play a demo (analagous to listening to songs on the radio), or you can ask around. You just can't play the entire game, or even a substantial amount of it, before deciding. Accordingly, I think consumers are behaving in a manner far greedier than corporations. They expect a use of intellectual property to which they are not legally or ethically entitled. Software piracy has killed many systems. I used to own an Atari ST, which had a cult following during the late 1980's and early 90's. But piracy went out of control and killed the platform, which though technologically inferior to the IBM, could have survived for years longer. The cost of games skyrocketed and quality shot down. People weren't copying games to preview them, but to own them. So unless the music companies have truely acted unethically, and thus far the evidence shows they haven't (at least not moreso than the gaming industry, which has similar limitations), then I still believe the burden for any problems rests with the consumers, who are violating property rights. You aren't going so far as to completely rationalize file swapping, but I don't believe the "pox on both your houses" mantra works in this case. You are imposing an ethical obligation on the record companies that shouldn't exist, and has never existed, with intellectual property rights. I don't believe this has anything to do with the miscontent of fans (except the fact, I'll admit, that fans don't like parting with their money). It's about a new techology that allows for piracy. If people can get something for nothing, they often will. The record companies are probably acting impractically, because the new technology is there and unavoidable, but I just don't see consumers as having a "right to preview the entire product" with intellectual property. It would set a dangerous precedent to awknowledge one. Sincerely, Owen M. Courrèges -- Owen, At the end you say that there should not be an acknowledged right to preview an entire product prior to purchasing it, and on a legal level I agree with that. I don't think that file-swapping should be legal. The impositions placed on Napster were legally sound and should remain so. AudioGalaxy, on the other hand, had a better and more ethical model (when served notice, they pretty successfully shut out copyrighted music) but it didn't matter one iota to the record companies. I don't believe that their motives are as sound as you seem to. Their actions demonstrate that they want to limit any and all use of their music to milk every dime they can out of consumers. They want people who own a CD to buy a seperate tape if they wanted to listen to the music in their car.They oppose ripping CDs that you own so that you can listen to it on your computer. They are attempting to force dining establishments from playing the radio because they have not bought the rights to the music they intend merely for the background. In Canada, they collect a royalty for every blank tape sold. They pay radio stations to play the song, chalk it up to promotions, charge the artist for it, and then collect royalties from the station every time the song is played. They are collecting money from everyone at every step of the process. They have a right to be compensated for their creations, but it isn't an unlimited one. Their ability to make these demands is largely a product of their self-perpetuating dominance of the market. It's not that dissimular from what the movie industry's track record. They opposed VCR's ability to record. They presently have copy-protection on VCRs that prevent many DVDs and tapes from being copied. On TV-VCR combos, that makes it so some people cannot watch DVDs that they own on their own DVD players without buying extra devices and undergoing inconvenience. It also prevents people from being able to make copies of their own movies so that they can watch them where they have a VCR but not a DVD (which is legally protected under fair-use). You can argue that they are taking all these measures to prevent illegal copying, but they've nonetheless succeeded in crossing the line from protective to confrontational. When I was young, I bought blank audio tapes to record radio shows with my best friend. I had to pay extra money for a DVD player that was copy-protection disabled so that I didn't have to buy a new TV or flipswitch in order to watch DVDs that I gave the movie industry. If I want to buy the newest Charlie Pride CD I can't rip it to mp3 and listen to it on my desktop anymore. I won't even be able to play it some places straight from the CD. They're become downright paranoid. I can't blame the pirates for it because they oppose some of these things before they are even abused. VCR's, for instance, never cost the movie studios their shirts. We're guilty until proven innocent. It's not ethical to punish everyone for the sins of some, unless it's practical and necessary. Shutting down Napster may have been practical, but releasing CD's that only play in some places to eliminate an epidemic that they can't and that does not demonstrate a serious dent in sales* is neither practical nor necessary. If someone owns 10,000 mp3s and has bought 300 CDs, are they damaging the industry more than someone who owns 50 CDs and doesn't download mp3s? In an earlier letter, you said "That doesn't mean they don't buy CDs at all, or that they're even buying fewer CDs, it just indicates that their interest in file sharing moves well beyond previewing new artists." Many studies show that they're not buying fewer CDs, but more. Not all they have on their computers, mind you, but more overall because they're discovering new kinds of music. On Napster, there was a function where you could check people's catalogues and download from there (mentality being that if you both like the same artist, maybe you'll also like the other artists they have but you haven't heard before). AudioGalaxy had a "people who download Artist A also have downloaded a lot of B,C, and D" list up top. Since you're in college, you're likely seeing the worst of it. I know when I was in college my view of file-swapping was much more grim than it is now. College students have the combination of being techno-savvy and having less money than outlets for their cash. What some people are missing though is that when they do have the money, people are more than willing to pay for it. I don't just want a Bleu Edmondson CD. I want the CD with the tracks printed on it and his logo. I want the quadrofold insert so that I can read the lyrics. I want his picture on the back of it. When I was in college I couldn't afford it, but now I can. I don't buy the CDs solely out of obligation, I also buy them because I want them and have the money. I may not be in the majority on that, but I'm not as small a minority as you might think. I go to see a lot of statewide acts at bars. I always download what I can before I see them so that I'm familiar with what they're singing. I have some friends that I often meet there and they do the same thing. We were doing it before we even met each other. Different people have different philosophies. Some people believe that it's okay to keep some mp3s you didn't buy the CD for as long as you will when you get the money or it's just a track or two on a CD you wouldn't purchase even if you didn't have the songs. Some just keep the songs long enough to decide if they are worth purchasing. Others have time limits. In the end, though, people make money so that they can spend it. They go to see movies at the theater and pay $7 when a few months down the line they can rent it for $3. They rent it for $3 when they can wait for it to get off the new release rack and pay $1.50 or see it for free on television. I personally don't play many video and computer games, so I'm speaking from limited personal experience on it. I did play when I was in high school though, so I'll draw from that. Let's say you get a shareware version of Doom, which I recall being one of three levels in the game. After playing the first level, you know a lot about the rest of it. You know the style of play, what the levels look like, the graphics, and so forth. The only thing that is different is going to be the blueprints. Therefore, you have a pretty good idea of what you're getting if you purchase the rest of the game. On the other hand, let's say in order to purchase Legend of Zelda, you also had to purchase its two sequels. You love LoZ, so can you assume that you will like all three? It would be a pretty faulty assumption because while the character and "universe" is the same, the gameplay between Zelda 1 and 2 is remarkably different. I think that is more comparable to the way CDs work. Artists intentionally put different kinds of songs on their CDs. That's by-and-large a good thing, but it also greatly increases the risks of buying a CD. I once bought a Natalie Imbruglia CD because I liked the song "Torn" so much, only to discover that was the only song on the CD that she didn't personally write; the rest were crap. The difference of which songs make the radio and don't is often substantial (and works both ways, my favorite songs are usually not one of the airplayed). Another key difference between software and music is that software's primary utility is on the computer. You don't play Triad in the car on your way to work or in the background while you're working. Therefore, once you have it installed on your computer, you have 9.5/10 of it right there. Most people don't read the instructions anyway and throw the box out. Unlike the lower-quality mp3s, you have the product in its entirety. You have exactly what you would get if you went out and bought the program. That is what makes software piracy so much more dangerous than music or movie piracy, and in my mind not all that comparable. Five companies own the only music 90% of Americans will ever hear. The record companies charge exhorbant amounts for CDs and the people have never really had exposure to alternative material. I watch a lot of local and statewide bands and by-and-large, they charge the same prices ($15) or less ($12) than the record companies for their material (About $15-18). Despite the fact that they sell considerably fewer records, they still make money. Of course, they have considerably less overhead than the major companies do, but they spend their money wisely. Record companies, on the other hand, throw millions at extremely (and obviously) stupid things (Mariah Carey), projects that they don't even try to recuperate their investment on (extravagent music videos), and then foot us with the bill. That's a luxury only monopolies have, and the RIAA trust is virtually one. Meanwhile, what are we supposed to do? I have one friend that refuses to listen to music put out by the big five, but it's not easy to find much else. I have (local bands), but it required a lot more money and time than the average person has. Since there is no real competition, some have resorted to virtual theft**. Like I've repeatedly said, I don't believe it is right to take music without paying for it. On the other hand, it provides a check and balance for the record companies to keep them from doing what they please. They seem to believe that if they give us an inch, we will take a mile. Some will take the mile and there isn't anything they can do about it. For most of us (enough to keep everyone rich, anyway), their refusal to budge and consider real market solutions have placed us on the opposite side of the line in the sand they've drawn. Right now the biggest threat the record company has is itself. The digitization and portability of music will happen with or without them. The high barriers-to-entry prevent an outside company to really take advantage of it, so the result is virtual theft of their music. I suggested the 64kbs model as one way they could have circumvented the movement. A band called Reckless Kelly made 1:00 of a few of their songs available on Internet. Because of that, it is virtually impossible to download most of those songs in its full form because everyone has that 1:00 copy. Phil Pritchett has a not-so-well recorded live version of a few of his songs on his website, and therefore if you find that song on a file-swapping application, it's probably that copy of it. That's why I think the 64kbs system would have worked because it would have drowned the well ripped copies from the search engines. There is a good chance it still would. They could try the 1:00 thing that Reckless Kelly did or the alternate live tactic that Phil used. There are a millon ways they could use this to their advantage, but they're too afraid of the technology to even try it. With their stronghold on the airwaves, they have no incentive to. With their reactionary approach to new technologies, they're not going to unless they are pushed. Unlike the Atari ST, the record companies will survive. If they don't, it will take a lot more than file-swapping to do them in. There are more than enough of us that are happy to give them enough money to keep everyone rich. Punishing us for those that won't is unnecessary, impractical, and unethical. Alex --- Come back tomorrow for more! -30- Tuesday, August 27, 2002
AUTOBAHN MY PETARD! On the way back from the computer store, I saw a sign for SBC Communications DSL service. "The Autobahn of the Internet" 
Yep. You just truck along on it. Let me tell you... -30- Monday, August 26, 2002
DISPATCHES FROM THE WORKING WORLD, PART THREE: LESSONS LEARNED If your computer randomly shuts down for the fifth time in a day and you flip it the bird, you can see your own reflection on the black screen. So, in essence, you are only flipping the bird to yourself. And it wins yet again. -30- DISPATCHES FROM THE WORKING WORLD, PART TWO: HEAVEN HELP ME I have an Excel spreadsheet template designed to insert the prices and speeds of various processors. From there it goes into a formula to determine what is the optimum price (highest spead for lowest cost). Today I bragged about this to the coworker I need to supply a computer for. If I keep telling myself "I'm not a nerd, I'm not a nerd, I'm not a nerd" maybe my knowledge of the spreadsheet will magically disappear and I will do what any normal person does: Blow money unnecessarily for the fastest processor we can afford. -30- DISPATCHES FROM THE WORKING WORLD, PART ONE: I. HATE. SALESMEN. One area where I would actually like to see the government get more involved with is inside sales telemarketers. I have spent the last two hours dealing with what I believe is a scam and trying to convince them that no, I did not in fact order it. I do not have authorization to order it without the president's approval. Instead, the invoke a "verbal contract." I gave them our address so that they could send us some information, but they didn't tell me that constitutes an agreement to purchase the costly subscription. Obviously, this isn't legal. However, since it is a verbal contract there is nothing written down it will likely require more time and effort to cancel this order than the subscription costs. A few months back, I ordered try-before-you-buy printer toners. They did not mention on the phone, in our "verbal contract," that if you are dissatisfied with the product and ship it back, you pay a restocking fee of 25%. Well I learned my lesson on that, but it may not have even mattered if I had told them I didn't want it. They could have just sent it anyway and it would have cost more to deal with it than to buy it. In the age of the Internet, verbal contracts ought to be backed up with an email quote and response. That way if it's forged the salesmen would have hell to pay and people would not find themselves in the situation that I am in. Does anyone have any advice for dealing with this except hiding under my desk and refusing to answer the phone? I remember the phone companies used to do this. Does anyone know how the law dealt with that? -30- Sunday, August 25, 2002
THOSE CRAPPY MAILMEN But really, don't they already have enough to deal with without having to literally carry [excrement] in the mail? -30- SONG OF THE [UNIDENTIFIED TIME PERIOD] Sleep finally came but I woke up alone My head was next to the telephone I gave the sun a cussin' as I drew the shades One thing that seems always true When I'm hung over, the sky is blue A rough night for me will make a hell of a day I believe in ghosts and democracy and that each man should leave his legacy Be that man's burden great or be it small But I don't believe in everything like the designated hitter or the diamond ring and that we can make love last forever for one and all Cause if everyone should be together Why are so many left alone? Life's a lot of tradeoffs in the end Somewhere in the fields of heather the proud souls laugh and they love together somewhere between passion and losing friends. Jason Boland "Proud Souls" -30- Friday, August 23, 2002
WHAT PART OF 'FORMER' WAS MISCOMMUNICATED? At UH I took an Elections 2000 class. We had to do an analysis of a senate race. Since I was born in Virginia, I chose the competitive race out there which resulted in Chuck Robb's ouster. In the paper, I was cool and analytical, avoiding taking any sides or rooting for either Robb or his opponent, George Allen. Boy, if I'd know Robb would turn out like this, I don't know that I could have held on to my veneer of objectivity. -30- BREAKING NEWS: BLIND SQUIRREL FINDS NUT! Anna Quindlen is not my favorite writer, but she sure hit the nail on the head with this one. I am actually going to be writing on a similar topic in the future: But it does have something to do with a curious attitude that seems to have taken root among some modern parents. And that is that life with kids is just like life without kids, only with bunk beds. Amen. -30- LOOKING AND SOUNDING THE PART To those of you that aren't keeping up with your Drudge, there was recently a flap at the Connecticut Democratic convention where liberal activist Ned Coll, referring to Republican Governor John Rowland, said, "In fact, I know things about him that I don't choose to bring out in public today, that I have observed with my own eyes. He is a snake!" and then "Death to the prince of darkness!" 
Gov. Rowland I know practically next to nothing about Rowland other than the basics (governor, Republican, Connecticut, Bushie) and only remember his name from speculation about who he might appoint to the Senate in case Lieberman had become VP. Nonetheless, look at the picture of this guy. I mean really look at it. Imagine for a moment that you are in a comic-book like world where demons walked the Earth in human form. Isn't this the first guy you would expect to sprout horns, grow red skin and a black goatee and use his giant bat wings to fly off into the night with a pitchfork in hand. Maybe it's the smirk or the evil looking squint in his eyes. Maybe I'm more overworked than I had previously imagined. On a similar note... In 1998 and 2000, Congressman Ron Paul drew a challenger by the name of Loy Sneary. Loiy. Sneeeeeary. From what I remember about him, he seemed like a pretty decent guy and I wouldn't have minded too much if he had won. Nonetheless. Loy. Sneary. Isn't that name of the character Christopher Walken played in Batman Returns? If not, it should have been. The name just screams out "corrupt" of "powermongering." I actually looked around on the net for a picture of the mild-looking man, only to discover that the only picture I could find he is holding a dangerous weapon! Geeze Louise, politicians need to learn not to look like and have names of demonic characters. And I, quite apparently, have been working too much and need to go home and take a nap. Catch y'all later. UPDATE: Yet another one! 
Edmund Stoiber Is that Edmund Stoiber, candidate for German Chancellor, or Edmund Stoiber, Anime supervillain?? [Thanks to Warliberal for this one] -30- "BUT IF THEY HEARD HIM SAY 'UH' THREE MORE TIMES THEY WOULD KNOW HE'S A MORON!!!" I was knockin' around Get Donkey earlier when I came across this post: UggaBugga's Quiddity Quack describes how ABC News doctored some footage of a fumbling Bush to make him sound better. Very Interesting, but unfortunately not surprising. So I headed over to Quack's place to see what the fuss is about: What actually happened was shown on CBS: Okay, if Bush had said "... and we will consider - uh... nuking the hell out of everyone with all the technologices available to us and diplomacy and intelligence" and the part in italics was cut out, that would be trying to polish Bush's image. Taking out superfluous "uh"s does not qualify. I'm sorry. The idea that the press is trying to "cover up" Bush's inarticulateness is just plain goofy. It's well documented. People have come to expect it and knew about it during the election. To detractors of the president, it's proof that he's an idiot. To the rest of us, it's merely proof that he is not articulate. Many of us aren't. Because I don't get a kick out of watching Bush squirm (and most don't), I have no need or care to see every "uh" and fumble. So, am I just saying that because I am a Bush supporter? Actually, no. I am not a very big fan of Houston Mayor Lee Brown. During Tropical Storm Alison, he was on television a lot. For those of you who are not familiar with Brown, he is not a very articulate person. He doesn't unload Bushisms, but he does say "uh" a lot. I remember watching him on the news at the Firehouse in the middle of the storm as he stumbled his way through explaining that he was asking for federal assistence. After the umpteenth uh, I noticed that it wasn't a live broadcast and wondered why they felt obligated to leave the footage unedited and waste our time. (I was a bit short-tempered about it; we were in the middle of a tropical storm, after all) Of course, Brown stumbled for what have been fifteen seconds. Bush's edit was only four seconds. That's the point, though. Four seconds. Not exactly Kurtz-worthy material. -30- MORE NEWS OF THE DUH A new study is out, declaring: 1. People don't like their jobs.So why do we do it? Why do we toil away for hours on end far and above what is permissable in many countries? Cause we like stuff more than we hate work. (link found via Off The Kuff via Sneaking Suspicions) -30- I KNOW I'VE BEEN BLOGGING TOO MUCH WHEN... Bloggers are starting to make guest-appearences in my dreams. A couple months ago it was James Lileks. Last week Jay Zilber paid me a visit and last night Jane Galt stopped by. -30- Thursday, August 22, 2002
RANDOM THOUGHT Jane Galt has an impressive rebuttal to those in the blogosphere and out of it that are overreacting to the recent New York Times Magazine article suggesting that fat isn't nearly as harmful as carbohydrates. Jane has stood admirably firm on the matter, having done considerable independent research for an article she wrote for Salon. I am more or less in agreement with her. The problem isn't fat, per se. It's not sugar, either. It's both of them combined and consumed in unheard of quantities. Anyhow, read what she has to say because she says it a lot better than I do. In her comments section, Fred Boness writes: I have tried a number of diets over the years. The best strategy I have found is to pick two diets and follow them both simultaneously. I have found it is too hard to get enough food on just one diet. It reminds me of an old joke that I used to have when I was a chubby kid whenever anyone told me to go on a diet. I don't know if I came up with it or I swipped it from the likes of Abbot and Costello, but it goes "I am on a diet. I'm on two, actually. One says I can have 1,200 calories and the other says 1,500. So I eat 2,700." Badda-beeeesh! -30- BLOGGING WOULD BE EASIER IF I WAS UNEMPLOYED I had a big long post theorizing on the K-Mart raid planned for the last few days. Every time I get around to it new news breaks that changes everything. I hardily suggest reading Ginger, Charles, and The Comedian for regular updates. -30- Wednesday, August 21, 2002
JOHN SHARP: THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB Things look like they're starting to turn around in the Texas Lieutenant Governor race between stellar Democratic former Comptroller John Sharp and morally bankrupt Republican Land Commissioner David Dewhurst (can you tell who I am rooting for yet?). Dewhurst had led or was tied in all the polls I'd seen until the most recent set. The newest poll gives Sharp a slight edge. In addition to the recent uptick in the polls, he has now picked up the endorsement of a Republican State Senator: "I am a dedicated Republican who whole-heartedly supports the Republican ticket. However in the Lt. Governor's race I believe John Sharp is the better choice. I have seen him in action and trust him to be a conservative problem solver." -State Senator John Carona (R-Dallas) Sharp was the Democratic nominee in 1998 and lost a squeaker to now-Governor Rick Perry. Despite having nearly every worthwhile endorsement (including that of the conservative Texas Farm Bureau, which practically built Perry's career) fell just short of being the only Democrat elected that year due to poor Democratic turnout. I was worried that he would have a hard time getting the momentum that he had and lost in 1998, but that appears not to be the case. I was having lunch with a couple Republican activists during the '98 elections and they more or less agreed that Sharp was by far the better candidate, but Republicans couldn't risk a Democratic Lt. Governor hurting Bush's chances at the presidency. Helping them in their decision was the fact that Rick Perry himself was a solid candidate. Dewhurst was running for Land Commissioner that year and the agreement there was that he was not. Two of the three of us crossed party lines to vote for the other guy. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican choice, folks. This is the choice between one of the most qualified candidates ever for the post and a man that would be the least qualified in nearly two decades. The worst Republican officials can find on Sharp is that he didn't actually save the state $8.5 billion during his eight years as Comptroller as his ads say, it was more like $5 billion. His budget fell during his tenure despite the fact that in the middle of it the state treasurer post was abolished and his department took responsibility for all its functions. Dewhurst, on the other hand, has got to be the only Land Commissioner in the history of the office to be a runner-up in Texas Monthly's annual Bum Steer contest, which holds a write-in vote on the worst Texas has to offer. The Land Commissioner is not exactly a high-profile position. Garry Mauro used the post to garner less than 30% of the statewide vote against George W. Bush in 1998 (considerably worse than Gore did in the state in 2000). Yet Dewhurst came in second place only to the infamous Kenneth Lay for the honor. He managed to get the Republican nomination for Lt. Gov. by chasing everyone else out of the race. Acting Lt. Governor Ratliff (the only person as qualified as Sharp for the post) was run right back into the Senate, Greg Abbott had to jump ship to the Attorney General race at the first opportunity. It would be one thing if he chased them out with his competency or qualifications, but it was simply his war chest. It's tempting for Republicans to like the idea of a candidate funding his own campaign so that he doesn't owe anything to anybody, but money doesn't help when the more people know about you, the less they like you. He may squeak by in the 2002 Lt. Governor's race due to the competitive gubernatorial and senate races, but the sooner Dewhurst is laid to rest the better off Republicans, and all Texans, will be. Dewhurst has made no bones about his ambitions and had to be convinced by Rick Perry not to enter a divisive primary battle with John Cornyn for Phil Gramm's senate seat. It's a good thing that he did or Texas would surely fall into the Democratic column, which would be a monumental embarassment for President Bush and hurt Republican hopes for taking back the senate. Dewhurst's ego will not let him languish in the lt. governors spot for long. If Hutchison retires in 2006 (and I believe she might), expect him to have just enough money to hurt his Republican rivals for the nomination and lose or come out with the nomination broke, bruised, battered, and as obnoxious as ever. It will be a sad day for Texas and the Texas GOP if he wins in November. I think I'm going to print my Republicans for Sharp bumper sticker now. -30- LIBERTARIANISM WITH BORDERS I'm not exactly a libertarian, but I am probably closer to being one than any other label (I'm not exactly neoconservative or Religious Right either), so I can't answer Chris Bertram's charge to Stephen Den Beste and other libertarians, but I will tackle it from a quasi-libertarian standpoint. Chris says (achiving buggy, search for "transnat" if you need to): I'm willing to bet that Den Beste believes that members of some groups should have some rights that others just don't have. Citizens of the US, for example, typically find there are fewer legal obstacles to becoming resident in New York City than citizens of, say, Syria do. Of course, if Den Beste really thinks it outrageous that "You don't get to choose your group" and "Someone else will categorize you into your group" then, presumably he will support the right of Syrians just to renounce their Syrian citizenship and adopt, at will, US citizenship. I take it that he doesn't support such an unrestricted right, and that he supports the right of the US government - "someone else" - to assign those individuals to a group (the group of those who are not US citizens). First of all, Bertram's view of the libertarians views are not entirely accurate. I don't know that there is a consensus at all on the matter. However, the Libertarian Party (which to be sure does not speak for all libertarians) platform states: We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons. So I'm willing to bet that Bertram might be surprised at many libertarians view on the matter. As it turns out, I part company with both the Libertarian Party's platform and Bertram's suppositions on how libertarians would view immigration. In the case of Chris's Syrian, I actually would support his right to come to the United States and become a citizen. I oppose arbitrary limits on immigration. However, when in Rome they ought to be expected to do as the Romans do to some extent. Therefore, I would support an open immigration policy with the following limitations: (1) They must be able to speak English fluently. I don't support making English our national language, but I firmly believe that if a significant portion of the country is unable to speak it, the productivity that makes us so strong will diminish. This is particularly true if they don't know our primary (English) or secondary (Spanish) languages. However, I also believe that the government ought to take the initiative and offer English classes to anyone who wishes to take them free of cost. Libertarians won't like this idea too much because it means more government, but this is definitely a case where it would be well-applied. Liberals might object because they don't feel that English ought to be a requirement, but they might like government-spending aspect of it. At some point before naturalization, they would have to take a test demonstrating basic understanding of the language. (2) Current naturalization requirements be left in tact. They need to know about our history and culture. They don't need to adopt it all (in fact, I would hope they wouldn't), but they do at least need to know why we believe what we do and where we are coming from. (3) They must accept the principles on which this country was founded. In other words, if they want to come here and turn the United States into a religious or communist state, then they don't really want to be Americans, do they? While we can't read there minds, they ought to take an allegiance of some sort or sign some document pledging allegiance to the concept of individual liberty. (4) I believe that we ought to have some sort of visa or green-card system but that it ought to be applied to those seeking citizenship or those that plan to go back after a specified amount of time. They should not last any more than a couple of years during which they ought to have the time to do what they need to in order to become citizens or make the money they need to in order to go home. I'm writing this on the fly, so there may be something I'm missing, but there ya go. Bertram may still argue that this is arbitrary since people born in this country need not meet all these requirements in order to be citizens, but I believe that anyone that supports the notion of an American Muslim or Communist state, or has no inclination whatsoever to learn English ought to move to a country which is more closely aligned with their beliefs or customs. I'm not saying "love it or leave it," but I am saying "if you want the United States to be like Europe or Lebanon, you ought to live in Europe or Lebanon." (Bertram's article found via What She Really Thinks) -30- TRUCKSTOP DIARY: TRAILER PARK TOUR I am rarely hungry around lunch time so I generally spend my lunches either writing for the blog or at a truck stop down the street. Today I was tired of sitting in front of the computer so I stopped by the 'stop. Right as I was about to leave, a frequenter of the 'stop named Larry was bumming around for a ride. I didn't offer up because I don't know Larry all that well, but I like the guy if for no other reason that he embodies the modern concept of a rugged cowboy. I am working on an ad campaign for a fictional cigarette company that needs a cowboy and if I had my druthers he would be cast for it. Everything from his cowboy had to his full moustache amid a sea of stubble. Perfect. Until he opens his mouth with a squeaky voice that even the slur of his perpetual drunkenness cannot compensate for. In fact, it only amplifies it and lately he's been amplified a lot. Everyone else there either had walked or driven a bigrig that they obviously wouldn't want to take just a couple miles down the road, so I agreed to go ahead and take him. The combination of the smells of alcohol, burping gas, and dirt never smell so putrid as when they are in your car. It was only a couple blocks to the trailer park where he "works" (he's been unemployed for over a month now). I took him to the end of the park and dropped him off right by the colorful plastic swingset by the "office next door." In the meantime, I was regaled of how he was living with his ex-wife a couple months ago and how they *shudder* "made love" every night. Actually, all he said was "I used to live with my ex-wife. We made love every night" with periodic repetitions of "every night" and "made love" thrown in at periodic intervals, just in case the smell alone wasn't making me feel sick. I make my way back to the truck stop and Stan is still hanging around. "Did he take you to his trailer?" he asks me. I tell him that I did. He then asked, "Did you see the blue trailer across the road? That one's mine. Biggest in the lot. Painted it myself!" To which I replied with a hardy congratulations. Several months back I was telling my former roommate about one of my adventures at the 'stop when an angry wife threatened to drive-by shoot us all. He asked why in the world I keep going down there. "You meet the most interesting people there," I replied. So does anyone out there have any idea how to fumigate a car? -30- Tuesday, August 20, 2002
LAST BUT DEFINITELY NOT LEAST My brother David popped the question to his girlfriend Melissa last night and she accepted. No date yet and they're not in a rush, but I am nonetheless incredibly happy for both of them. -30- THE NEWS OF THE DUH A study has proven that women are more attractive to men when they are drunk. I've actually be running a study of my own for the past four or five years that has produced similarly astonishing results. I reached these five conclusions 1) Alcohol induces me to dance more 2) There is a bell-curve on my quality of dancing during the alcohol consumption cycle. After a couple beers, I recieve higher marks on my dancing capabilities. After a couple more, my scores fall eventually to the point of being below the pre-beer level. So I guess it's not exactly a bell-curve, but it appears more scientific if I stick the term in there. 3) There is a linear relationship between alcohol consumed and my inquisitive nature about the slur in my voice or lack thereof. 4) There is also a linear relationship between alcohol consumed and my feeling the need to tell everyone what their name is and, if I do not know their name, I will assign them one.. This will generally be followed by the proclamation: "I told you I'm not drunk." 5) #4 is often followed by #3. Now, I shared with you the results of the experiment thus far, but I would like to experiment further. Unfortunately, I need sponsorship. Anyone interested in subsidizing future analysis, please email me. Until then, check out the UMass study on binge drinking in The Onion. -30- IN PRAISE OF REAL WOMEN IN BIKINIS I meant to write this shortly after getting back from Florida, but it escaped my attention due to more pressing matters. One of the niceties of the Pensacola beach is the view, and I'm not talking about the view of the water. Women in bathing suits everywhere. For whatever reason, I've always prefered one-piece bathing suits on women. I did notice, however, a number of attractive women in two-piecers, though. I'm not talking about modelesque twenty year old anorexics, but rather mothers with children or even older women whose children probably moved out. There were some younger ladies there, some of which were quite thin and attractive and others not quite as thin and even more attractive. On the long drive home I thought about, among other things, why I appreciated all the women that were wearing two-piece bathing suits when I usually don't. I finally figured out it was because they look like real women. When I was a teenager, I liked them thin and modelesque and I still do, but a few years ago a strange new phrase entered my vocabulary: "Too thin." Of course, there are some people that are naturally thin and there are others who starve themselves to look it. As women get older, there become proportionally less of the former and more of the latter. While some will never have to worry about weight, most women were not born to look like Julia Roberts when they're 35 or Calista Flockhart when they're... well... ever. Of course, most aren't built to look like Rosie O'Donnell either. Looks matter, but they've never been the most important thing to me. The biggest problem with heavier girls I might otherwise be interested in is not their appearence, but rather that heavy girls by-and-large some are more lethargic and constantly sick and others self-demeaning and sometimes downright self-loathing about their condition. I am generally attracted to health and self-esteem. On the other end of the scale, many thin girls are never quite thin enough for their own tastes. Many of their self-esteems are in worse shape than the heavier lot. Not always, but generally speaking. Several years ago a movie came out called Beautiful Girls in which women moan and groan about how men have unrealistic expectations of women. It's a constant complaint to the point that anorexia is quite oftenly blamed on men. However, take a look the average women's magazine such as Cosmopolitan and then, if you wish, look at a men's porn magazine such as Playboy. You'll notice that the magazines targetted at men have considerably larger builds. The cost of larger breasts is generally a larger stomach and men often fit that into their ideal. In Cosmopolitan and similar magazines, you're much more likely to find Kate Maas and Gweneth Paltrow. There is indeed enormous pressure on women to be skinny, but it's not primarily coming from men. While I won't speak for all men, the attractive size for a woman is a healthy one. If it isn't for all men, it should be. Society may train us to prefer wiry builds, but the vogue society is controlled by women and at a time when it wasn't, Marilyn Monroe (no anorexic) was the ideal. When it comes to women, guys are generally easy going and, in the end, the available will always carry more weight than the unavailable. The problem, with Beautiful Girls illustrated quite nicely, is that we are bombarded with images and told they are ideal and eventually want one for ourselves. This leaves average, healthy girls in the lurch and feeling like there is something wrong with them until they can shed that extra ten pounds. It becomes a giant game of adjusting and readjusting expectations and images of beauty that are quite pointless to begin with. So back to the moms in bikinis on the beach. They aren't heavy, but they're no longer as thing as they probably once were. They are what real women look like and, biologically speaking, are inherently attractive to men. Women who put on those swimsuits remind us of that, which is why we need more of them. It's a reality check from the distortions presented on television, where everyone everwhere is thin and "attractive." The female body, even when not airbrushed or placed on a candy corn diet, is intrinsically sexy to the male. Men and women both need to be reminded of that often. -30- 
|
BLOGROLLODEXICAL BLOGCRITICS!!! From The Right Stuart Buck Susanna Cornett Owen Courreges Martin Devon Jane Galt Orrin Judd John Hawkins Andrea Harris Mike Hendrix Frank J. John LeBoutillier LILEKS!! Kevin McGehee Lee Ann Morawsky Michael Morgan Polywhatever Andrew Sullivan Doctor Weevil Kevin Whited Anne Wilson From the Left Ted Barlow William Burton Da Coop Gary Farber Get Donkey Daniel Goldberg Charles Kuffner Kris Lofgren Frank Martin Rittenhouse Mac Thomason Wilde Greg Wythe From 1776 Asparagirl The Cheeseman John Cole The Comedian Colby Cosh Happy Fun Guys InstaProf Andrew Olmstead Bill Quick Ravenwood VodkaLush Team Volokh From the Front Lines American Kaiser NZ Bear Charles Johnson Kathy Kinsley Hawkgirl Dr. Manhattan Mike Trossman From Hell Amish Tech Support From Houston From the Heart The Vole Heidi Rogers Miss Singleton James Durbin From the Mind The Texas Mercury Arts & Letters Daily From the Funnybone Something Positive The Onion Ironic Times Scrappleface Girls Are Pretty From the NoneOfTheAbove Last Page TPB, Esquire |
||||||||||||||||||||||||