Author: MacPhoenix

Categories
Essays

It’s a Gas

It’s all about **Oil!** today at MacPhoenix. There are three illogical and pandering ideas floating out in the [memesphere][1] today. Let’s approach them one at a time.

First, we have the [scary Iranians who won’t take good old dollar bills][2] for their tainted oil anymore! There is a long-standing fear when some company or supermodel won’t take money in US Dollars anymore, [but it’s irrational][3]. Iran is certainly using it as propaganda, however. It sounds very scary.

The only thing it reflects is that, since the dollar is falling, anyone who sells something by contract will want to minimize loss between the time that they sell something and the time that they get paid. So *Oil Producer* sold 1 barrel of oil on Monday for $100, but didn’t get paid until Friday. If the dollar fell .1% by Friday, *Oil Producer* lost 10 cents because the $100 was now worth $99.90. When the dollar falls, it makes sense for any international company to try to get paid in a stable currency.

But it doesn’t affect the price of oil or whether or not our currency is falling. There are several reasons for that, the biggest being that [our trade deficit is too high][4], but not because companies want to get paid in another currency. If oil were priced in [Quatloos][9], and our dollar was falling, it would still be more expensive for us to buy oil.

America is not permitted to do business with Iran, in any case. Iran, as the **CNN** article notes well after the scary lede, has been divesting itself of dollars for years. This makes sense. When you can’t buy something from the merchant, why keep the scrip?

On the second meme, CNN provides more laughs with an [interview with the head of **Shell Oil**][5]. Bet you thought that the $7.8 *billion* profit was excessive. Well not according to John Hofmeister:

>Look at our revenues and our income for the last quarter. If we had made $7.8 million on $114 million of revenue, nobody would call that excessive, because that’s 7.5 percent. We made $7.8 billion profit on $114 billion revenue — same 7.5 percent. So to me that is not an excessive number when banks and pharmaceuticals and IT companies earn a whole lot more.

Okay. For no reason in particular, I want to write out the zeros in 7.8 billion. Please indulge me. $7,800,000,000. Only eight zeros! Damn that .8! But Mr. Hofmeister is correct. In 2004, [Shell Oil was only the *5th* most profitable][6] company in the world, while banks like **Citigroup** and **HSBC**, IT companies like **General Electric**, and that famous pharmaceutical, **ExxonMobil** earned a whole lot more.

Anyway, the main thing here in the CNN article is the idea that America must drill more oil in order to meet the supply, and by implication, help lower or stabilize the cost of gas at the pump. [This is false.][7] Oil is sold on market that is worldwide. If oil is extracted in America, it is still sold on this worldwide market. We have something on the order of 4% of the known oil underneath us. If we extracted ALL OF IT, IMMEDIATELY, it would raise the amount of oil on the market by 4%. Since we consume about half the world’s oil, one can figure that it would save us about 2% to purchase that oil.

Of course, all things aren’t equal and there is a cost to extracting, refining, and shipping that oil or gasoline. It also actually can’t be extracted immediately. It would take years. Additionally, there is no reason to expect that any other oil producing nation won’t adjust it’s output to keep oil the same price, since that would be in its best interest to keep the price stable and it can sit on their reserves as long as necessary. However, once we extract all our oil, it’s gone forever, leaving us in a weaker position than before we drilled the oil.

What does it do for us then, if we drill for more oil? It makes money for companies like Shell Oil who make profits on drilling, refining, and shipping oil and gasoline. It isn’t so strange then that the president of Shell would advocate drilling for more oil. It isn’t so strange that President Bush would continue his call to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, as he has done for 8 years now.

Finally, the last meme is the political pandering calling for a summer of tax-free gasoline. [This is another bad idea.][8] The way that John McCain wants to do it, it would amount to a tax break for oil companies. You know, the same companies that earn around $7.8 *billion* dollars *EVERY THREE MONTHS*, because the supply of gas is maxxed out. We’re paying as much as we can because it is high demand, but the supply can’t be raised. If the tax rate is dropped, it will *raise demand*, but there is no more gasoline to be had, which will cause the price to shoot up! Hey presto! More money for Mr. Hofmeister.

Hillary Clinton’s plan sounds more palatable to your average socialist, since it would pay for the tax relief by increasing the tax on the oil companies. Except, hey! once again, remove the tax at the pump and increase demand which will drive up prices. It doesn’t help consumers one bit, and the increase in taxes that the oil companies pay would be offset by the huge run on the tax-free cost of gasoline.

So, OPEC may continue to accept dollars, we may open up protected parkland to oil drilling, and we may have a tax-free summer at our gas pumps, but not one bit of this will help consumers. The only thing that would seem to help our falling dollar and the price of gasoline is to reduce our demand for oil.

When is that meme going to start floating around our oil-slicked stream of consciousness?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memesphere
[2]: http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/04/30/iran.oil.ap/index.html
[3]: http://www.prospect.org/cs/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=oil_is_priced_in_dollars_it_do
[4]: http://www.prospect.org/cs/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=the_falling_dollar_is_a_sympto
[5]: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/shell.qa/index.html
[6]: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_30/b3893142.htm
[7]: http://www.prospect.org/cs/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=04&year=2006&base_name=arctic_oil_nonsense
[8]: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/
[9]: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Quatloo

Categories
Rant

Maverick

John McCain is a rich, old white man, [out of touch with US workers][1].

John McCain is a rich, old white man, [who believes women shouldn’t have equal pay][2]. (Ironic, since his second [wife, an heiress][7], is the one who financed his political rise.)

Straight-talkin’ John McCain embraces [the Confederate flag, Bush’s tax-cuts][3], and [agents of intolerance][4] when it becomes necessary to court the racist, rich Evangelicals that vote Republican.

John McCain [wants to keep us in perpetual war][8] with a [group of people he knows nothing about][5].
Anti-lobbyist maverick John “I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to” McCain’s campaign is run by a [cadre of lobbyists][6].

Straight-talkin’ John McCain [violated his own campaign finance][10] law, [gaming the system][9] so he could pay for his campaign using public funds if he lost the primary.

Man-of-the-people John McCain [missed almost 60% of the votes][11] in the Senate since January 2007. He’s still missing a majority of the votes after clinching his parties nomination. In second place is Senator Tim Johnson who suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006.

McCain is not populist. He is wealthier than either Democratic candidate; a true 1%er who is not concerned with working conditions or the trials of everyday life. His base is Washington media types, who share his wealth and aristocratic tastes.

McCain is not a maverick. He votes with his party over 88% of the time, slightly less than Republican stalwart Trent Lott, but more than Republican stalwart Orrin Hatch.

McCain is not a straight-talker. He has flip-flopped on issues ranging from abortion choice (was for it, now against it) to campaign finance (was for it, now against it) to tax-cuts (was against them, now for them). These are not the changing opinions of a man who has learned from past mistakes. These are the pandering of man who feels he is owed the presidency, and he will say or do anything to get it.

John McCain is George W. Bush’s choice for president. John McCain is status-quo, failed policies, out-of-touch, elitist. Why would any American vote for him? Why would any American vote for 4 more years of failure?

[1]: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191401.php
[2]: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-i-support-womens-rightsas-long.html
[3]: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=what_the_democrats_are_facing
[4]: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6988.html
[5]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19mccain.html
[6]: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_282.php
[7]: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/politics/main3991700.shtml
[8]: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187881.php
[9]: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics
[10]: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_281.php
[11]: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Categories
Essays

Wendy’s Fresher Catch

An update, since I get about 2 dozen hits a day from people looking up **Wendy’s** fish sandwich. The [last time I wrote][1] about it, in 2003, it wasn’t that good. But they re-introduced it for this Lenten season (so of course, I write about it 5 days before Easter), with a big advertising push. So I tried it again, because they indicated that they put in a nice solid piece of fish.

Well, it’s pretty good this time around. It easily beat **McDonald’s** *Filet o’Fish*. The fish is a single piece of whitefish, flaky and moist, with no fishy aftertaste. The batter is crispy and tasty. They put a variant of tarter sauce on it, obviously made with garlic powder. Keep this in mind if you’re looking for something mild–you’ll probably want to hold the sauce.

I didn’t have mine with cheese. It really doesn’t need it. I don’t know if they just slap a cold slice of cheese on the top like they do with their burgers. That would be a shame, because it would take away from it.
And Wendy’s is still using those buns which are a step down from their old potato-flour buns. They got rid of them shortly after my first review. I know. Four years is a long time to hold onto a fast-food ghost. But I really stopped going to Wendy’s after they got rid of the potato buns.

I don’t know if it’ll be around after Easter. But it was pretty good, and if they keep it on the menu, I won’t be so reluctant to eat there in the future.

[1]: http://www.macphoenix.com/creative/blog/archives/2003/03/wendys_fresh_ca.html

Categories
TMX

The Glorious Return of TMX: Music Is Math v. Starship Trooper

The Glorious Return of TMX: Music Is Math v. Starship Trooper
In our last episode of [TMX][1], I had sent Rich “Starship Troopers,” by **Yes**, and he sent me “Ready Lets Go/Music Is Math,” by **Boards of Canada**. Here is my response to “Ready Lets Go/Music Is Math”:

Excerpt from “Music Is Math,” by Boards of Canada.

>I tell you Rich, the initials B-O-C will always represent **Blue Oyster Cult**, which is more of an effect of my age than it is of personal preference. I like Boards of Canada, certainly much more than Blue Oyster Cult.
>
>But to the tracks at hand. “Ready Lets Go” is a short little bit, at just under a minute. I like the film-strip sound quality to it, and the three repeating tones make me think of an old radio network’s call tone. “Ready Lets Go” was more evocative to me than “Music Is Math.”
>
>I wanted to really enjoy “Music Is Math,” since whenever I hear that title, I say, usually aloud, “Music *IS* math!” The first three minutes were building up to something. It was slow and leisurely, which surprised me, since you’re so into music that you can dance to. But I understand when you get into a groove, so I was anticipating something really big.
>
>And then we hit the 3:30 mark, and the song failed. Sorry. It just failed. I really didn’t like the last part of it. The mood shifted from open and expansive to claustrophobic. I don’t know if that last minute or so is a bridge to the next song or a theme used later in the album, but it was just didn’t belong there.
>
>Still I like Boards of Canada. I like trance-y music. But “Music Is Math” just didn’t do it for me.

Well, bummer. Let’s see what Rich thought of “Starship Trooper”:

Excerpt from “Starship Trooper,” by Yes.

>Now I’ve got a pretty random musical past. The first record I ever bought was **Doug E. Fresh** & **Slick Rick**’s “The Show.” The first cassette album I owned was **Run DMC**’s “King of Rock.” My second cassette was “Big Generator” by **Yes**, and I loved it. (Cassettes number 3 and 4 were **Bon Jovi**, “Slippery When Wet,” and **Belinda Carlisle** “Heaven on Earth”–but that’s not really something I’m proud of.) Ahhh, “Big Generator.” The bass lines were so groovy, the drums punchy and tight, the production was so big and 80s. It had super-catchy hooks and great harmonies. Add to that the almost beat-box intro to “Big Generator,” the track, and I was right at home.
>
>Now I know Yes gets a lot of flack for being too prog-rock and **Jon Anderson**’s higher register vocals grate on some, not unlike how some people either love or hate **Geddy Lee**’s voice, and how **Rick Wakeman**’s synth solos can sound a bit like he’s practicing scales. I remember reading in an interview a great diss that went something like, “Rick Wakeman is excellent at playing scales. Do you know who else is good at playing scales? My twelve year old daughter.” Classic. Oh yeah–others balk at the length of the songs. Nine minutes and twenty three seconds? No problem. I’ve got 173 songs in my **iTunes** library that clock in at 9 minutes or better, so it’s right at home.
>
>In spite of what detractors say, I really can vibe on the Yes sound–they are tight musicians, and even though their songs are sometimes sonic mazes riddled with odd time signatures and more sections than your average pop song, it doesn’t land them in the same category as **Rush** or **Dream Theater**. The songs tell some great stories and the music builds some fantastic soundscapes while not being too indulgent with groove-breaking fills and solos.
>
>I was definitely digging on “Starship Trooper.” While it’s far from the first time I’ve heard the song, it was cool to revisit it with some critical listening.

Next week, I send Rich “Rock and Roll,” by **The Velvet Underground**. Will Rich be able to handle a five-minute track with basically one stanza repeated three times as sung by **Lou Reed**?

[1]: http://www.macphoenix.com/creative/blog/archives/2007/04/tmx_music_is_math_v_starship_trooper.html “Tuesday Music Exchange”

Categories
Essays

I have seen the future, and it is…

I’ve always been interested in how issues are framed. Many political issues are framed in specific ways by their proponents, and eventually it becomes difficult to see the issue in anyway but how it’s been framed for so long. In the long-running abortion debate, abortion foes used “[partial birth][1]” as a way to frame the debate around the emotionally and mentally repugnant method of late period abortion. It is very difficult to argue with the image of a viable baby being killed by a doctor, just so a woman doesn’t have to have a child. It frames abortion-choice advocates as cold baby-killing monsters. It’s a very effective framing device that totally misses the core of the abortion issue, which is a patriarchal society that prevents women from making informed choices about sex and its myriad repercussions.

Framing, I thought, focused on a particularly narrow, and often anomalous, aspect of a larger issue, in order for its partisans or detractors to influence those who are not quite as informed or vested. But I’ve begun to change my view of framing. In very devious hands, framing can narrow a point of view in order to let thieves and scoundrels have their way with everything else that we’re no longer focusing on.

We have this in the “waterboarding” debate. It seems like a perfectly framed issue. Its defenders even coined “waterboarding,” since that sounds less like torture than, oh, let’s say, “water torture.” (As a less-PC child, I remember we called it “Chinese water torture.” Maybe kids in China are now calling it “American waterboarding” when they spray hoses and water guns at their friends during the summer.) People who are, rightfully, aghast at the thought of torture, argue that waterboarding should be banned, while defenders say it is barely a form of torture at all.

Meanwhile, we’ve lost sight of the greater issue, which is how America is conducting itself in matters of law and justice, both at home and abroad. This invariably happens when an issue is framed. Framing is not always a bad thing, because it helps people who are not totally vested to make some sense of a very large and complex issue. However, my argument here is that the defenders of waterboarding are not defending waterboarding at all; they are distracting and misdirecting us all specifically by framing the debate around waterboarding.

It’s simply this: Take an offensive, but not unthinkable, method of torture and put it into the public’s collective head. Sure, it simulates drowning, but no one actually drowns. We even subject our own military to it to train them against this effective interrogation technique. If it saves us from another terrorist attack like 9-11, it will be totally worth it.

But if America has actually waterboarded a dozen men, I would be surprised. Wait. Let me rephrase that. If America has actually waterboarded a dozen men *to gather intelligence during an interrogation*, I would be surprised. It is a non-issue to our government. However, by focusing on this, we continue to ignore the systematic destruction of laws that protect us from our own government. If the defenders of waterboarding succeed in convincing us as a nation that waterboarding is not torture and/or it is necessary for the security of our country, they have won a small victory, but the larger victory will be that the small, framed issue will be settled and obscured the real problem.

The active act in framing security and freedom in the time of terrorism into a debate on waterboarding was done solely to distract the public from the loss of *habeas corpus* and fourth-amendment rights, and the government hiring mercenary armies not subject to American or international law.

And thinking about this, I began to understand that framing isn’t specifically issue-centric. Because framing hyper-accentuates a point, it leaves everything else around it in shadow. Masters of framing can frame places and groups and people. They use framing as a test-bed to launch larger campaigns. And sometimes framing entails framing in another sense.

Tonight, CBS is “bravely” telling the story of disgraced Alabama governor, Don Siegelman. (Bravely, in quotes, because they are putting this story up against **The Oscars**, which means no one will see it until it repeats. If it repeats.) Siegelman was convicted of seven counts of public corruption in a trial that prompted [Scott Horton][3] to [write in Harper’s][2]:

>… I have spent over a month looking at this case. I have spoken with a number of journalists who covered the trial, pulled out and read the transcripts, talked to figures involved in the case. And I have received tips and messages from Alabamians who are trying feverishly to spin the case one way or the other. My conclusion: I have no idea whether in the end of the day, Mr. Siegelman is guilty or innocent of corruption. But that the prosecution was corruptly conceived and pursued and that the court proceedings were corrupted, almost from the outset: that is already extremely clear. This is not a prosecution of a political figure for corruption. It is a political vendetta, conceived, developed and pursued for a corrupt purpose.

Siegelman is a Democrat and was literally framed by Karl Rove. Framed, in the sense that Siegelman faced up to 30 years in jail for [one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice][4]. (His sentence was 7+.) Framed, also, in the sense that Rove used this as an audacious test to see if his machinations were nimble enough to escape public scrutiny. It is, after all, just Alabama. Who would notice? It was a successful test of his power to eliminate political foes by any means. It was framed to seem innocuous. (What, another public official accused of bribery? Yawn.) But the larger issue was shaded underneath: Don’t mess with the Republicans.

Remember this when Democrats take the presidency in 2008. The machinery of Republican domination, started after Nixon, has been in place for a long time, and Clinton’s impeachment (another framed device–they knew they were going to lose, but it positioned [many][5] [operatives][6]) was just a test run, which succeeded in taking off impeachment for an extraordinarily corrupt administration.

[1]: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-golden-mean-position-on-abortion.html
[2]: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000351
[3]: http://www.harpers.org/subjects/ScottHorton
[4]: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/June/06_crm_409.html
[5]: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/running-out-of-choices-by-digby-is-this.html
[6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucianne_Goldberg

Categories
Rant

Hippies for Obama

[Machinists Union President Tom Buffenbarger][1], about Obama supporters:

>Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter. *(via [TPM][3])*

I wasn’t really an Obama supporter, but I did think he’d have a better chance against McCain than Clinton. But it’s this type of talk that makes me really, really despise Clinton and her campaign.

Okay, I drink the occasional latte, and, boy! would I love to own a [Prius][2], but ’the hell about Birkenstocks? I mean, if you’re gonna make fun of my generation correctly, you should at least use something that we wore, like [Doc Martens][4]. I mean, maybe there are hippy-dippy kids wearing Birkenstocks, but they’re far more likely to vote for Kucinich or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Obama is my generation and younger, not hippies from the 60s, which is apparently what ol’ Tom there is fighting.

And trust funds? OMG. I’d like to take a look at the average salary of Clinton’s supporters versus Obama’s. Ever hear the thing about [Bill Gates walking into a bar][5]?

[1]: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius
[3]: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179304.php
[4]: http://images.google.com/images?q=doc+martens&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8
[5]: http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/HannityandColmes101703.html

Categories
Essays

Suckers

I’m an elitist populist. I believe democracy is the best form of government, but it’s insanely important to have checks in that government to protect (and even foster) minority opinions. This is because we are incredibly and eternally stupid, stupid people. We believe all sorts of very dumb things, no matter how smart and reasonable we are. I, for instance, believe that democracy is the best form of government despite it needing well-reasoned and intelligent people to make it work.

After a couple of hundred years, our leaders are doing their best to end our terrible experiment with democracy. The Senate passed an unnecessary bill granting the federal government ability to spy on us with no oversight. This bill also give telecom companies, like **AT&T**, immunity from prosecution for helping the federal government spy on us without oversight, while it was illegal. Kings are not ideal leaders for representative democracies, but a large portion of idiots in this country want one anyway. Currently, [the House of Representatives is holding back][4] the passage of this bill into law, but I’m sure it is just a matter of days until the King gets his bill passed and his 5 or 6 business buddies all sigh with relief.

It’s the cynic in me that sees commercials for products like the [Kinoki][1] footpad or the [Riddex][2] pest control system, and says, “we’re all doomed.” **Kinoki** is a pad soaked in vinegar that claims to rid the body of poisons and toxins. This makes sense as evolution has left the human body without a liver. **Riddex** keeps pests away through the miracle of *digital-pulse* technology. You plug it in, and it sends some sort of electric signal through your home’s electrical system. Apparently, bugs and rats are fine with 50-60 Hz, but send a *digital* pulse at some unknown frequency, and they go packing. It is all so reasonable. I’ve read reviews that said that the ultrasonic version of Riddex was crap, but the electric modulation one (that’s the less sci-fi term for digital-pulse) really works. Well, I’m convinced. Let me buy two, because, according to the ad, the pulses only work for about 2,000 sq ft, so each floor of your home should have one. How those digital-pulses can leap from circuit to circuit, but cannot go floor to floor, I can’t explain. Luckily, both Riddex and Kinoki will send me a second batch of their products ABSOLUTELY FREE. All I have to do is pay shipping and handling. Sounds like a deal.

But the parent company of Riddex made some [$2 million][3] last quarter selling their bunk. I’m sure Kinoki is experiencing similar success. It takes me a second or two to see the flaws in these ripoffs, but many people are taken in by them. Instead, I’m a sucker for sob-stories and emotional appeals. Luckily, all I have to do is shut off my compassion, and I won’t fall for scams based on them. That seems like a fair trade. I won’t care about my fellow men, so I don’t get taken, and my fellow men can continue to get suckered and feed my cynicism. It’s a great way to maintain the *status quo*, and eventually decay into ruin.

[1]: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Kinoki_detox_foot_pads_work
[2]: http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/01/15/riddex-plus-gets-rid-of-pests-the-easy-way-with-motorolla-tech/
[3]: http://www.pr-inside.com/dynamic-response-group-s-riddex-tops-r286791.htm
[4]: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_277.php

Categories
As seen in media

MSNBC can’t report financial news very accurately

Two headlines on the very same **MSNBC** page at the same time (as of 10:45 AM).
This one is at the top:

>**Wall Street seesaws in early trading**

>Stocks slump at opening bell amid continuing investor uneasiness before *bouncing back.*

*Emphasis mine.* This one is further down, but reflects the current trend:

>**Wall Street tumbles for a second day**

>Wall Street tumbled again Wednesday, with investors uneasy about the health of the economy and earnings after disappointing reports from big names like Apple and Motorola.

I’d also like to point out that **Apple** had *its [best financial quarter][1] ever*. **Ever**. I’m not sure how that’s disappointing. I guess if you’re a news organization aligned with **Microsoft**, the best financial news ever from its competitor would be disappointing.

But going back to the way MSNBC reports on financial news, specifically on the stock market, I’ll check in a couple times a day, and if stocks are going down at one point, the headline will read something like, “Investors shaky on Fed meeting.” If the stocks move back up, the headline will read “Investors show confidence on Fed meeting.” And the article itself will stay the same. It’s totally ridiculous.

Meanwhile, my investment advice: Run for cover! The whole dang thing is gonna crumble on down!

[1]: http://daringfireball.net/2008/01/aapl_q1_2008

Categories
Rant

Reality TV

[Tom Tomorrow crystalizes][1] my vague thoughts on television:

>Basically, the networks are training me not to watch their programs until after they’ve been cancelled and released on DVD. I’m no MBA, but it seems like a short-sighted business strategy to me. I mean, consider the case of Firefly. The Fox network was sitting on what, in retrospect, could clearly have been the next major sci-fi franchise, with years of syndication and spinoffs and action figures and all the rest. But someone thought it was a better idea to kill the show in its infancy, and what we’re left with is a DVD set of some of the finest episodic television ever produced, a cliche-ridden, so-so movie, and a lingering sense of promise unfulfilled.

I really don’t like teevee anymore. Even shows which I enjoy, I don’t like to watch first-run, because I’m anti-authoritarian and don’t like networks determining when I should watch something. Case in point, **Monk** on USA. I enjoy the show, but I do not appreciate in order to see a new episode, I have to carve out an hour on Friday night.

Yeah, yeah. **TiVo**. Whatever. Another monthly fee; another $300 to get the damned thing in the first place.
All I know is it’s over for television networks in the same way it was over for record store chains in the late 90s. At some point before MP3, there was no compelling reason to buy CDs from record stores. They charged too much. There was nothing compelling about the physical space or the snotty teens they hired at minimum wage to *help* you. **Amazon** and **CDNow** charged a couple of bucks less and had a huge catalog. Most people didn’t know it, but stores that, uh, *towered* over the suburban landscape were dinosaurs waiting for the dust to settle. Television feels like that now. Networks broadcast a tremendous amount of filler and crap, and it’s work to seek out the 1% that’s actually watchable. I go online and find what I want almost instantly.

Instead of working for the viewer, they’re working for the shareholder, and so we get a writers’ strike that was never necessary. The networks and producers are so worried about saving a few cents per product, they let their shows rot on the vine.

Honestly, good riddance. In five years, we’ll see what replaces the network. I don’t think its out there yet. **YouTube**, **iTunes**, **OnDemand**. All close, but the way these things make money, or don’t make money, seems like outdated-thinking. What ever it is, if it destroys the way we get our news and entertainment, I’ll be all for it.

[1]: http://thismodernworld.com/4166

Categories
Short Subjects

Apple Computers

It’s no secret that I’m an [Apple][1] fanatic. I’ve used Macintosh computers since 1986. I’ve taken apart the [Mac 128K][2] to see the developers’ signatures inside the case. There has never been a point where I thought I would have to abandon my favorite platform. During the dark-days of the late 90s, I still knew that using a Mac beat using a Windows machine, no matter the gigahertz difference. Even though Apple’s switch to Intel processors seemed like a slight to us partisans, it was more like the fall of a wall between two former enemies. The time was right.

Back in the 90s, the tech press all but [wrote off Apple][3]. Well, actually, a lot was writen about Apple, but it all entailed how Apple should sell off their properties and close shop. When the iMac came out, starting the annoying and inexplicably continuing trend to name everything “iWhatever,” the press began to turn, ever so slightly in Apple’s favor. But old habits die hard, and now that Apple is really on top of their game, the [old tech-heads][4] can’t admit defeat. They’re still warning Apple to sell off the hardware business, to merge with Google (nee Sony), to license their software. It’s crazy.

Mostly, they do this for the hits. Apple partisans are a vocal group. We learned how to use the internet shortly after the [DEC users][5], but long before everyone else was on it exchanging Windows viruses via email. We read articles about Apple voraciously, positive or negative, so anything that discusses Apple is going to get a magnitude more hits than not. The best way to get hits is to call Apple users “fanboys.” Also, call anyone who points out [illogic arguments and mistakes][6] in your article an “irrational fanboy.”

But bad press or no, Apple is doing pretty well for itself. Before the iPhone came out (grrr… **i**Phone), the tech press was insistent that Apple better produce one or the company would go down in flames. Now that the iPhone is out, and [successful][7], the tech press is thrilled to warn Apple of its impending doom.

When the rumors about the iPhone surfaced (three years before the actual release date), I wasn’t confident in Apple’s ability to pull it off. In fairness, I am never sure that whatever Apple does is the right thing. I second-guess that company more than the tech press. “iPod?” I said in 2001. “The world really needs another MP3 player?” Anyway, when Apple released the details of the iPhone (6 months before the introduction), I thought that maybe it would be a decent phone. Surfing the web on it, though? Why bother?

Finally, the iPhone was released, and I’m apathetic about it. I’ll wait for the first revision, I said. But when my Nokia died, I rushed out to get one, because I am an Apple fanatic. The experience of the phone is far better than I could have imagined. I’ve used this phone more in two months than I’ve used any other phone. Mostly, that’s because I don’t like to talk to people on the phone, but the iPhone has a camera and web access. Huh. Guess putting a browser on it was a good idea after all.

Anyway, here’s a photo of a place I drove by in Brookhaven town, taken, of course, with my iPhone.

Phoenix Gallery, Brookhaven, NY

[1]: http://www.apple.com/
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K
[3]: http://9rules.com/apple/notes/8244/
[4]: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/07/29/10-fas-7-apples-hardware-and-dvoraks-microsoft-branded-pc/
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
[6]: http://daringfireball.net/2007/12/fastcompany
[7]: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/14/canalys-symbian-apple-iphone-already-leads-windows-mobile-in-us-market-share-q3-2007/