I Watched It Today, Did You?

It was everything I hoped it would be. A formal ceremony in the round, complete with kind words, applause, hugs, and an outpouring of emotion directed at one man and his achievements. I'm referring, of course, to Senator Al Franken's swearing in at the U.S. Senate. Oh, you thought I was talking about something else?

Read more!

Michael Jackson Funeral: the Circus Comes to Los Angeles

Michael Jackson's memorial service will be held this Tuesday at the Staples Center sports arena in Los Angeles. Although I know some folks who will be covering this event, the Michael Jackson Memorial is now second on my list, after the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina, of Things I Never Want To See Inside A Sports Arena.

People are already camping out to get one of 11,000 free tickets to Jackson's memorial inside the 20,000 seat Staples Center. Vendors outside plan to hawk the same Michael Jackson t-shirts that were to be sold on Jackson's planned concert tour. The media mob inside and outside the Staples Center, and the area-wide traffic tie-up, will be legendary. I don't know how anyone will stop the news helicopters, which will probably number over a dozen, from crashing into each other. You think you've seen a lot of coverage of Jackson's death so far on the cable news networks? Just wait: the Michael Jackson Memorial will make Princess Diana's over-the-top funeral seem downright quaint in comparison.

Then again, I suppose this this combination of zoo and amusement park that will occur during the Michael Jackson memorial will be fitting for the former resident of a combination zoo and amusement park known as Neverland.

Read more!

It's a Great Day to Be a Cable Television News Anchor

Geraldo Rivera at Faux Noise: It's all about meeee! I was ready to shave off my mustache if Michael Jackson was convicted of child molestation. Let me tell you about my visits to the Neverland Ranch and the Playboy Mansion.

Larry King at CNN: It's all about meee! Here's a picture of me with Michael Jackson in 1971. Here's a radio interview I did with Michael Jackson in Miami in 1970. Here's me with Barbara Walters in 1957. Here's me with Joey Bishop before electricity was invented.

Keith Olbermann at MSNBC: It's all about meeee! Hear my deep, serious tone of voice as I fill 24 hours regarding the poignancy of Michael Jackson's death. Don't I sound like Edward R. Murrow or some serious journalist?

Read more!

Going Postal

Several days ago, I sent my parents an anniversary card with the wrong zip code on the envelope. Surprisingly, the card arrived at their home, all the way across the country, on time. This got me thinking about the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service is a favorite pinata for many people, who knock it for supposed inefficiency, lost mail, and workers who, every once in a while, "go postal" with an automatic weapon. But think about the millions of pieces of mail, many of which, like my card, are addressed with errors or at least bad handwriting, that the Postal Service accurately processes and delivers each day, for a measly 44 cents per letter. You can't buy a can of Coke for 44 cents. Nor a Snickers bar. Not even a day's worth of cable television or Internet service. And how many letters, postcards, and packages have you mailed in your lifetime? How many times has your mail gotten lost? I cannot even think of a single time that it has happened to me.

Some people claim that most everything in this world, including the Postal Service, should be "privatized." Imagine if the Postal Service was privatized. I cannot fathom that mail delivery would be any more efficient, or any cheaper. Just look at services like UPS and Federal Express. To me, they're quite expensive, and, despite their fancy online tracking capabilities, each of them has lost deliveries for me. The private Postal Service would also likely move its customer service call center to India, create an offshore tax haven in Bermuda, invest in risky derivatives, and then come to the U.S. Government -- meaning you and me, the taxpayers -- for a bailout.

So the next time the privatization crowd attacks the proposed public health insurance option (they'll do it again today), or other government agencies and functions, I'll be thinking about how our federal Postal Service workers delivered that anniversary card quickly and cheaply to its proper destination.

Read more!

GM, Charging Boldly into the Past

Last Friday, I spotted a new Chevrolet Camaro, very similar to the 2006 concept version pictured above. Although the new Camaro is great-looking, stirs the senses, and faithfully harks back to the original Camaros of the 1960s, the problem is just that -- the Camaro is, literally, a car of the past. On Saturday, I read this article in the Washington Post, which confirmed my fears about the Camaro, its bankrupt manufacturer, General Motors, and GM's 76 year-old Vice Chairman and former global product development chief, Bob Lutz. Incredibly, they just don't get it.

The Camaro comes with either a hefty 3.6 liter V6 engine with 304 horsepower, or a much heftier 6.2 liter V8 engine. The Camaro weighs from over 3,700 to over 3,800 pounds. Fuel "economy," if you can call it that, for the Camaro is rated at only 17 miles per gallon city/29 highway for the smaller engine, and an even worse 16/24 for the larger one. In other words, the Camaro is a "muscle car" that reflects little change from its forty year-old ancestors. This is at a time where President Obama has raised the U.S. fuel economy requirements to 42 mpg for cars by 2016.

So what does GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz have to say about this? Tellingly, he drives a Corvette, another GM gas-guzzling muscle car based on even older ancestors than the Camaro. But wait -- GM is developing and marketing the hell out of a true car of the future: the all-electric Chevrolet Volt. Isn't it? Well, not so much. As the Washington Post reports, Lutz says, "If you look at most of the mainstream media, you get the impression that 95 percent of Americans today want a vehicle like the Chevrolet Volt or a [hybrid such as the] Toyota Prius . . . . And that, by God, the reason General Motors is in trouble, is that we have not offered a vehicle like that. But when you look at the reality, at today's fuel prices, most Americans still want a conventional car." Then why is GM developing the Volt at all? Lutz says, "[b]ecause it is an important symbol. We need it. It has a chance to change our image."

What? GM is half-heartedly putting out a car that its executives think Americans don't even want, merely for reasons of "image"? And Lutz thinks people want to buy Camaros instead, based on "today's fuel prices?" Has Lutz paid any attention to the rapid rise of oil and fuel prices at the pump in recent months? It's obvious to almost everyone, except Bob Lutz, apparently, that we are never going to see $ 2 or less per gallon gas again. It's also shockingly obvious to me that General Motors executives like Bob Lutz still don't get it. When it comes to looking backward when developing cars like the "new" Camaro," they have no trouble seeing back decades. But when it comes to looking forward, the limits of their vision seems to be a few months at most. Meanwhile, Toyota is coming out with the third generation of its wildly successful Prius Hybrid, which gets 50 miles per gallon and comes with such innovative features as solar-powered ventilation. Whose business plan do you think is better, GM's or Toyota's?

Now that I and the other American taxpayers own 60 percent of GM, I'd like to vote my shares. My first vote would be to replace dinosaurs like Bob Lutz, and to get some new executives with some fresh, forward, realistic thinking in there, quickly.

UPDATE: Hours after I wrote this post and just as I am publishing it, news comes today that Bob Lutz is leaving GM. That's a good first step.

Read more!

Slumdog is a Dog

I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire. Hated it. I had a feeling that Slumdog wouldn't be quite as good as it was hyped up to be, even though every person I know who saw it in the theater told me Slumdog was the best movie of last year. These people neglected to tell me that Slumdog uses just about every Hollywood movie cliche to create an emotional experience that is no different from that found in the most formulaic movies of all time, including Rocky, E.T., and Titanic.

The most manipulative trick in Slumdog is the exploitation and placing of children in peril. That is probably three-fourths of the content of the entire movie. To me it's the cheapest of stunts. The remainder of Slumdog is made up of ridiculous coincidences in which *spoiler alert* the answer to each question asked of the main character on a nationally televised game show just happens to be something that he experienced precisely during that aforementioned traumatic childhood.

What is most disappointing is that Slumdog's director is Danny Boyle, who rose to prominence by directing such innovative films as Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. Other than the thrilling soundtrack and bright color palette (which sounded and looked, respectively, truly awesome on Blu-Ray dvd), I could find not a trace of the old, brilliant Danny Boyle in Slumdog.

It's true that, like Rocky, E.T.,and Titanic, Slumdog Millionaire was immensely popular and won some of the top Academy Awards. But I hated those movies too. I have not yet seen all of the Oscar contenders from 2008, but I can name at least three thus far (The Reader, Milk, and The Wrestler) that were ten times better than Slumdog. Watch some of them back-to-back at home, as I did with The Reader and Slumdog, and I think you'll find that there is no comparison.

Read more!

Federal Trade Commission Goes After Bloggers

Business Week reports that the Federal Trade Commission plans to issue guidelines this summer requiring bloggers to disclose when they are being compensated by an advertiser to endorse a product. The guidelines are being enacted in the midst of what is being called a "blogola" scandal (an ungainly term that tries to conjure up the radio "payola" scandals of the 1960s, wherein record companies compensated some of the nation's premier disc jockeys to play certain records), in which advertisers are compensating bloggers with cash, laptops and other goodies in order to write positive reviews of their products. I have received several such offers and immediately felt dirty about even considering them.

However, I'm sure there are more than a few bloggers who fiercely value their free speech, for good reason, of course, and who will say that the FTC's planned rules will violate their First Amendment rights. As they teach in law school, however, fully "free speech" does not exist in the U.S. The classic example is that you are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house. As Woody Allen once wrote, however, you are presumably permitted to yell "movie!" in a crowded firehouse.

Advertising is one area where speech really isn't free. Federal law prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce," and the FTC is charged with enforcing this law. I for one don't mind this at all. For instance, I have no problem with the fact that it is illegal for a drug company to claim that a certain drug in their asthma inhaler helps kids breathe when they are having an asthma attack, when in fact the drug does no such thing, and a child then has an asthma attack, uses the company's inhaler, and dies.

If Business Week's report is correct, the FTC's proposed guidelines would not curtail bloggers' free speech in any event. The FTC would merely require bloggers who are being paid to endorse a product to disclose this fact. Once they do so, they are still free to spread their phony endorsements all over the Internet.

Law or no law, it seems to me that, if a company has to advertise its product in a secretive way, perhaps it should look into the quality of the product.

(h/t to The Huffington Post)

Read more!

Are You Panicked About the Swine Flu Yet?

I wouldn't blame you if you were. Once again, the media are fanning the flames of fear. Remember the killer bees from Africa? The Y2K computer meltdown? This time it's the swine flu outbreak from Mexico.

It's true that the U.S. Government has declared an "emergency" over the swine flu outbreak. "Emergency" sounds like a scary word that's not a big step from "panic," but really it's just an appropriate step for the government in order to release federal funds and the like. There have only been 20 confirmed cases of swine flu reported thus far in the U.S. That's hardly cause for panic, and is a tiny number compared to gun shootings, car accidents, mercury-filled coal plant emissions, high fructose corn syrup, and many other things that we really should be concerned about.

Unfortunately, the media tend to blow the latest thing out of proportion prematurely. And, coincidentally, they then run advertisements for pain relievers and other drug company products. I for one trust my body's defenses to fight off the swine flu, the killer bees, the Y2K virus, and most of the other germs that have caused the human body, through thousands of years of evolution, to become the powerful fighter that it is.

Read more!

Tom Braden and the Death of Cable Television News

You probably don't know the name Tom Braden. What if I mention CNN's "Crossfire" or the television program "Eight is Enough"? Tom Braden was an originator of both, and he died yesterday at age 92.

Braden joined the CIA, ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor of California in 1966, then became somewhat famous when he wrote the book "Eight is Enough," published in 1975, about his experiences as a dad raising eight children. The book was developed into a hit tv series of the same name, which featured dad "Tom Bradford" and his eight children, and launched the career of teen heartthrob-turned-pathetic reality show loser Willie Aames.

Braden, a liberal, then co-hosted a Washington, D.C. radio program called "Confrontation," which pitted him against conservative Pat Buchanan, tackling substantive issues of the day. The fledgling Cable News Network ("CNN") took on Braden and Buchanan and turned "Confrontation" into "Crossfire."

The fiery Buchanan and the equally feisty liberal lion Braden were perfect for the new 24-hour cable news medium. They would invite a guest to sit between them and get caught in the "Crossfire." I know -- I worked on "Crossfire" as a college student. Research and preparation for Buchanan and Braden was an easy job, because each of them was so knowledgeable and so well prepared that they didn't need my help. I remember one hilarious episode, recounted in this CNN article, where the guest was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Braden was especially contemptuous of this man, asking "should I call you Mister Wizard?" At one point the guest had to remind Braden that he, the Wizard, had been invited on the program after all. Here's a YouTube video of Braden's "Crossfire" program in 1986, where guest Frank Zappa defended free speech in music.

After several changes in personnel on "Crossfire," CNN canceled "Crossfire" in 2005. In doing so, CNN President Jonathan Klein specifically cited Jon Stewart's memorable appearance on the program, where, as this YouTube video shows, an angry Stewart chastised "Crossfire" commentators Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, as well as the cable television news networks generally, for "hurting America" by merely shouting opinions at each other instead of offering substantive information and holding politicians' feet to the fire. In canceling "Crossfire," CNN's Klein stated "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise."

Unfortunately, neither CNN nor the other cable television news networks followed Stewart's advice. Just like Willie Aames, cable news gets both more shrill and more inane every day. For example, during last week's G20 Summit, against the backdrop of the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, how many stories about iPods and queen hugs have the cable news networks aired? It's gotten so bad that even I, with my background in and love for this business, have had to tune out. Somehow, I don't think that's what Tom Braden had in mind.

Read more!

Netflix Giant Price Increase Causes Customer Relations Fiasco

My new name for Netflix is Netfux. If you are a Netflix customer who rents Blu-Ray DVDs, by now you have probably received an email from Netflix announcing a huge price increase for Blu-Ray DVD rentals. The increase is supposed to take effect on your next Netflix monthly statement, on or about April 27. This is the second time in six months that Netflix has added a Blu-Ray surcharge, and this time the increase is much greater. In my case (3 DVDs per month plan), after a $1 increase last October, Netflix wants to charge me an additional $3 per month. Based on my $17 per month rate ($16 before last October's surcharge), these surcharges amount to nearly 25%. That's not going to happen.

The large Netflix price hike makes no sense. Netflix states that the price for it buy Blu-Ray discs is higher than regular DVDs. But Blu-Ray is becoming the DVD standard. Additionally, as more customers buy Blu-Ray DVD players and opt for Blu-Ray discs, Netflix will purchase more and more Blu-Ray discs in relation to standard DVD discs. So, Netflix is trying to have its customers pay a lot more for its regular and replacement product.

Also, Netflix is a huge buyer of DVDs. It should negotiate better prices for Blu-Ray discs from its suppliers, instead of paying through the nose for Blu-Ray discs (if Netflix is to be believed) and simply passing on the costs to its customers. The planned Netflix price increase is also unjustified based on the paltry number of Blu-Ray titles (currently only about 1,300 out of some 250,000 DVDs, or .52%) that Netflix makes available. I'm not going to pay more than 20% extra per month for a product that I only receive one-half percent of the time.

Perhaps most importantly, we're in the depths of an economic recession, or even a depression. Many businesses, including airlines, restaurants, home builders, and stores, are lowering their prices in order to retain customers. It's insane from a business standpoint to raise prices by such a large amount in the middle of an economic crisis, and not expect to lose customers and revenue.

Finally, we know from the history of DVD prices that Blu-Ray prices will eventually come down as production increases. Note how Netflix makes no promise to lower its prices when the prices it pays to buy Blu-Ray discs declines.

The planned Netflix price hike is also abysmal from a customer relations standpoint. Just go to the Neflix blog and check out the more than seven hundred responses received in just 24 hours thus far to the price increase announcement from Netflix VP of Marketing Jessie Becker. Virtually all of the comments are from angry Netflix customers who say they are either downgrading their service, or leaving Netflix entirely. How does less revenue and an army of irate customers, including bad press on the blogs and elsewhere, grab you as a business plan?

If you don't want to pay the Netflix price increase, do what I did:

1. Write a comment on the Netflix official blog post. Tell VP Jessie Becker what a dumb and ill-timed idea the price increase is. Tell her that the amount of increase is way too high. Tell her that you plan to downgrade your service or leave Netflix altogether for a competitor (such as Blockbuster, RedBox, or DVD Express) if they try to push their full price increase through. I checked the prices at Blockbuster, and they are cheaper than Netflix's planned prices, with no Blu-Ray surcharge and the ability to rent from and return movies and video games to Blockbuster stores. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

2. Call Netflix at 1-888-923-0898 or 1-800-585-8131. Calmly tell the representative why their price increase is unacceptable. I called today and was told that Netflix is not negotiating price for "customer retention" purposes at this time. That, however, may change in the coming days or weeks. If Netflix does not offer to negotiate with you over the increase or wipe it out altogether, tell them you plan to downgrade to a lower level of service (or terminate your Netflix service altogether). Point out how it makes no sense for their price increase to result in less revenue to them as customers are downgrading or leaving altogether. Note that cancellation of your service takes effect immediately, so you can wait until just before your next billing date to do so.

3. If you have nothing left to say to Netflix by phone and have made your decision to downgrade or cancel your service, you can also do so at the Netflix website. I haven't done it that way, but hopefully there is a "Comments" section where you can explain why you are taking this action. If not, hopefully there is the ability to do so in the "Contact Us" section of the Netflix site.

4. If you're a zealous letter writer, send letters to Netflix's CEO and top officers. Their names are listed here. Netflix's corporate address, according to Hoover's Online, is:

100 Winchester Cir.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Phone: 408-540-3700
Fax: 408-540-3737

5. Publicize your views about the Netflix price increase, and the steps you have taken to counter it, on your blog and in other media to which you have access. It's hard to overestimate the power of negative publicity.

Perhaps when enough people take these steps, Netflix will realize the tremendous error they made, and either change their plans, or, if customers downgrade and leave en masse, ask us to return at our previous level of service at or near the old rate. If not, Blockbuster will do just fine.

Read more!

"The Cougar" -- it's all about Women's Empowerment, Right?

I just saw a promotion for a new television program called "The Cougar." On the program, which premieres on April 15 on the TV Land network, twentysomething men will vie for the romantic attentions of a fortysomething woman. The "cougar" will eliminate the guys one by one, presumably for not being boy toyish enough.

I find it a bit odd that older women who lust after younger men are now so widely referred to in terms of a deadly cat that pounces on its prey. Even "Saturday Night Live" has jumped on this trend, with a recurring skit featuring a talk show called "The Cougar Den," where desperate, hair-teased women with considerable mileage on them pounce, sometimes literally, on their younger male guests. It is not a flattering portrayal.

What would television executives call a program where women competed to be the most successful corporate executive -- "The Bitch"?

(Photo of cougar from Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)

Read more!

How to Blog Like Frank Rich

If you want to be taken seriously as a blogger, do what New York Times columnist Frank Rich does in his columns posted on the New York Times website. Check out this latest example, regarding the shrinking influence of the "culture warriors" in the face of economic crisis. First, Rich packs a novel's worth of information into one column. His writing is about as tight as it gets. Second, Rich generously links his sources, his facts, and his quotes. I counted thirty links in this column alone. Unfortunately, too few bloggers do that, even so-called "journalists" who should know better. Simply arguing and name-calling, without providing the evidence, may provoke people who don't already agree with you, but it won't convince them.

You may or may not agree with Frank Rich's rather strong point of view, but it's hard to argue with the skill and thoroughness with which he presents it. That's a good model for any blogger to follow.

Read more!

I'm Blogging Less; Are You?

My blogging frequency is steadily decreasing. Interestingly, so is the blogging frequency of several of my blogger cohorts, the one impressive exception being Barbara at Looking2Live. As for the others, I won't single you out. You know who you are.

Why am I blogging less? For one thing, most of my earliest blog posts were about political or policy issues. That quickly got boring, especially given the number of blowhard bloggers who bloviate about politics. Also, moving outside the Beltway and to California has refreshingly changed my perspective on politics. "Inside the Beltway" is a genuine mindset.

Since I rarely write about politics anymore, and I don't write about my sex life, celebrities, or the television shows "Lost" or "24," what the hell am I gonna blog about? I've gotten very choosy about blogging subjects. I will only write and publish a blog post if (1) the subject is really on my mind, or near and dear to my heart; and (2) I think it will have wide appeal to readers.

Speaking of reader appeal, the other change in my blogging thinking involves the target audience. I no longer blog from the "inside out," to try to attract a following of readers/commenters. I don't bug my busy friends to read my blog. If they read the blog, fine, if not, that's fine too. On the other hand, the number of site visits I get from the "outside in," i.e., searchers on Google and other search engines, has steadily increased over time. My months-old blog posts on certain random subjects (layered t-shirts, Grouply, Sambo's restaurant, and euphemisms) consistently get hits every day. Perhaps some of those searchers are converted into regular readers.

I am also cheating on my blog with another group blog where I am a contributing writer. That blog is occupying an increasing amount of my blogging energy.

Ironically, however, the less frequently I blog here at Media Concepts, the more site visits, links and citations it receives, and the more popular it gets, according to the rankings. Is this a case of something being more attractive when it's more scarce? I don't know, but, given these results, what is my incentive to blog here more often?

I would be interested to know, however, if other bloggers besides the ones I have in mind are blogging on their personal blogs less frequently, and, if so, why? Did they get bored? Did the novelty wear off? Are they committing blog adultery with another blog? Or are their blogs, like mine, counterintuitively becoming more popular the less frequently they write?

This almost sounds like one of those government subsidies where farmers are paid not to grow crops. Oops, that's political, forget it.

Read more!

Don't Worry Bombay-bee

Whenever I am on the phone with a company's technical support department in India, the representative repeats the phrase "don't worry." Actually, it's more like "don't vorry." I find this phrase really patronizing and really annoying.

It happens every time I call Dell technical support. The other day, it also happened when I called Time Warner Cable's technical support. Apparently, there's a master call center or two in India (located, I believe, in Bangalore) where the training supervisors, among other things, teach the representatives to say "don't worry."

It's not up to these representatives to judge whether the customer is worried or not, or to suggest what state of mind we should maintain. That is very insulting. Rather, it's their job to try and solve our problem (the success rate for which, in my case, by the way, is far from 100%).

Speaking of state of mind, however, instead of staying annoyed when this happens, I now turn it into a joke. When I spoke to the Time Warner representative the other day and she said "don't vorry" for the first time, I politely asked her not to say this to me. When she said it for the second time, I started counting and said "that's twice." By the time she said "don't vorry" for the fourth time, we were both laughing.

Which, incidentally, is the best way to stop worrying.

Read more!

In Your Face Pie

I had never heard of a "Marion berry" when I purchased a "marionberry pie" at Trader Joe's yesterday. However, I am familiar with Washington, DC "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry, having lived in the DC area during an especially embarrassing period of Barry's rule (otherwise known as any point in Barry's adult life). I was in DC for Jay Stephens, the crack pipe drug bust, and "the bitch set me up!"

It still astounds me that DC voters keep electing Marion Barry to office. Not only did DC's Ward 8 residents elect Barry to the City Council after he served time in prison, voters then re-elected Barry as DC's Mayor! Now there are news reports that Barry is, surprise surprise, in legal trouble once again, this time for failing to pay his taxes. No matter, I'm sure that won't negatively affect Barry's popularity or electability one whit.

I am hoping that my digestive reaction to my Trader Joe's marionberry pie will be better than my digestive reaction to Marion Barry.

Read more!

Boycott Rupert Murdoch!

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post published a despicable racist smear against President Barack Obama that masqueraded as a cartoon. The Post's cartoon depicted two white police officers shooting Travis the chimpanzee (known from Coke and Old Navy television commercials), and one of them saying "[t]hey'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

After Reverend Al Sharpton and many others expressed outrage about the cartoon, and the New York Times quoted a newsroom employee at the New York Post as saying that the Post's City Desk telephone was ringing off the hook with complaints from readers, the Post and its defenders denied that the cartoon had anything to do with President Obama. The Post issued a statement that read: "[t]he cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

I don't buy the Post's explanation. First, the Post ignores the long history of racist comparisons of black people with monkeys and apes. Worse, this association was explicitly and repeatedly made regarding Barack Obama while Obama was running for President. Second, there is a street sign in the Post's cartoon that reads "Beware of Dogs." White police? Dogs? Black people? There's quite a historical connection there. That sign didn't get into the cartoon by accident. Third, in blog comments and elsewhere, right wingers say that the Post's cartoon did not refer to Obama because Obama didn't "write" the stimulus bill. But of course Obama is the author of the bill. It was Obama's idea, and he gave the Congress the elements that he wanted in the bill. Tax cuts. Check. Infrastructure spending. Check. Renewable energy spending. Check. Education and other long-term job creation spending. Check. Home mortgage assistance. Unemployment assistance. Check. The House and Senate then ironed out the exact details and mix of these elements. It's normal for a President whose party controls the House and/or the Senate to "author," "write," "germinate," "pass down," or otherwise cause to have his party leaders draft up what is essentially "his" bill. Indeed, the Post said that the cartoon addressed "Washington's efforts," not "Congress' efforts," "to revive the economy," and obviously, President Obama is a principal part, if not the primary mover, behind those Washington "efforts."

The New York Post has the First Amendment right to publish this garbage. But there's a difference between what the Post has the right to do, and what's right to do. Even if the Post's flimsy explanation is to be believed and the dead chimp in its cartoon represented Congress, or "Washington," and not President Obama, it was still wildly negligent of the Post to publish a cartoon that raised so many ugly connections to our country's racist past, some of which were on full display against Barack Obama only a few months ago. Also, the best that can be said against the Post's cartoon is that it approved of deadly violence against people at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue or the other.

We have rights ourselves, including the right to speak out against the Post's cartoon, and to vote against such irresponsible corporate behavior with our wallets. I think the appropriate response to the Post's cartoon is to demand a full and unambiguous apology from the Post, and not the half-assed kind that merely expresses regret for "readers who may have misinterpreted the cartoon." If the Post refuses to issue such an apology, we should call for a boycott, and termination of subscriptions, to all of Rupert Murdoch's media properties, including the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Fox television channels and networks, and the movies produced by 20th Century Fox's film studios.

Read more!

My Recipe for Tequila Banana Pancakes

Step 1: Throw a party. Serve Margaritas. Use measuring cup.

Step 2: (*Crucial: Do this before having coffee*) Make banana pancakes the next day, using same measuring cup. Don't wash measuring cup beforehand.

Delicious!

Read more!

Is Christian Bale's Rant for Real? (Warning: NSFW Language)

This audio recording is supposedly the voice of actor Christian Bale on the set of the film "Terminator Salvation." Apparently, the Director of Photography, Shane Hurlbut, walked into a scene Bale was shooting, after which Bale went berserk, at one point threatening to hurl Hurlbut's butt off the set and off the picture entirely.

I don't know if the audiotape is a genuine recording of Bale, or whether it is a prank. It has shown up all over the news media as accurate. If the tape is real, it confirms some of the worst stereotypes about spoiled, abusive, infantile famous actors. Remember when Alec Baldwin was recorded in a similar telephone rant ("what a rotten little pig you really are") against his own young daughter?

Even though I live among some of these people, this sure doesn't make me want to go out of my way to get to know them.

(Photo from Amazon.com)

Read more!

Pet Safety Alert

Today I saw a dog running down the right lane of a very busy four-lane road. As I made a right turn, I covered my eyes so as not to see the likely outcome. A few minutes later, in a shopping center that backs onto the road, I saw a few people wandering around the parking lot, searching, and one was whistling. I spoke to them, and, sure enough, they were looking for their dog. I told them where I had seen the dog, and they took off to find it.

Then, moments later, I saw a woman tie a beautiful golden lab to a concrete post, and then go into Ralph's supermarket. I can't imagine that's it's very safe to tie a dog outside a busy store, where someone could easily steal the dog. Moreover, it must be a bit scary for a dog to be tied up where, as was the case here, it is then constantly approached by a stream of strangers.

Pets are not people, and I don't know whether the first dog got loose due to the negligence of its owners, but I think that, when it comes to safety, people should treat their pets as they would their children.

Read more!

Three Things that Struck Me During Barack Obama's Inauguration

1. I counted at least two screw-ups by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in administering the Presidential Oath of Office. First, Roberts left out the word "faithfully." Then Roberts recited the phrase "office of the President to the United States." Of course, it should be "President of the United States." Obama, a former Constitutional law professor, then stopped to give Roberts a "do-over."

It appeared to me that Obama did this not only to preserve the history of the day, but also to prevent the wingnuts from spending four or eight years claiming that Obama isn't the legitimate President because (if he had repeated Roberts' original words) he didn't state the Oath correctly. Think that's far-fetched? Shortly after the Oath was administered, Fox News' Chris Wallace wondered out loud "whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States." Then Wallace hilariously claimed that "[i]t's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts."

2. Dick Cheney being wheeled away in a wheelchair. To me, that just sums up the Bush Administration, limping out of town with a whimper.

3. The unanimously cheering crowds gathered at Obama's swearing-in and along the inaugural parade route. Contrast that with George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001, which was met by thousands of angry protesters, some of whom wielded "Hail to the Thief" signs and some who threw eggs at Bush in his Presidential limousine. While Obama took a slow ride and a couple of strolls down Pennsylvania Avenue while the crowds erupted in cheers, Bush was met with such hostility that he had to hide inside his car, which then rushed off at high speed along Pennsylvania Avenue towards the White House.

Yes, it's a new day.

Read more!

Television Ratings Miracle on the Hudson

Last Wednesday, along with other viewers, I was glued to my television set, following the "Breaking News." It was dramatic. It concerned life-or-death issues. It was of importance to all Americans. I'm referring, of course, to the hearing for Attorney General nominee Eric Holder. Oh, you thought I was talking about the "Miracle on the Hudson"? Yeah, not so much.

Once again, the television news networks are flogging a non-news story for all it's worth. Unfortunately, the so-called "Miracle on the Hudson" was a perfect storm for the television news networks: a "dramatic" rescue incident, with a human interest angle, unusual television pictures captured on videotape (Look! An airplane! In the water!"), and which took place just blocks from their studios. Since the plane went down, we have been subjected to endless coverage, including interviews with family members and numerous "aviation experts." I have no doubt that made-for-television movies and book deals are in the works, from the pilot and passengers. You have to love American capitalism.

Once again, however, someone needs to explain how this is "news" deserving such lopsided coverage, let alone national (and indeed, worldwide) "news" warranting so much coverage by nationwide television news networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fixed Noise. A prominent blogger and journalist I know recently defined "news" as when "someone tells me something I didn't know before." Even under that low standard, the "Miracle on the Hudson" isn't "news." We all knew before that airplanes sometimes crash. We knew that, in particular, planes sometimes hit flocks of birds and then crash or have to ditch. We knew that planes sometimes ditch in the water. We knew that, when planes ditch in the water, they can float for a while, and, if rescuers arrive soon enough, the people can be rescued.

By next Tuesday, the television news networks presumably will have moved away from the "Miracle on the Hudson" and onto the Obama inauguration. But until then, it's more airplane airtime. At least when the Runaway Bride ran away, or when Chandra Levy went missing, or when Caylee Anthony's body was found, or when O.J. Simpson was arrested for kidnapping and armed robbery, that was something I didn't already know.

Read more!

Facebook 30-Day Review

It's been just over a month since I joined Facebook. Here are my 5 thoughts about it:

1. Facebook is a virtual high school reunion. I did not list my high school on my profile, but, as I added a couple of old high school friends, other classmates from their networks have contacted me. Some of these are people who I did not know well or was not friends with. I'm not sure I feel the need to connect with them now.

2. People's Facebook profiles cover the entire range in tone and subject matter. Some of my Facebook friends have very dry, very safe, corporate-oriented profiles akin to a LinkedIn or Plaxo page. Some of my more creative, non-conformist friends, however, have gone to the other extreme, even to the point of posting photos of themselves in fetish gear. I'm trying to strike a balance in between, and believe me, the area in between is vast.

3. Some of my Facebook friends send personal messages to each other's walls, often to make plans. I'm not sure why they don't just text or email each other when they're making plans to attend a yoga class or talking about other people, and it's clearly not a network-wide announcement. It's also an example of people seeming less concerned about their privacy as they use the Internet more.

4. A month ago, I was concerned that Facebook could be a giant time suck. I was right. Some Facebook folks seem to spend an inordinate amount of time virtually throwing snowballs, sending bottles of champagne, "gossiping," playing "word twist," etc. But as with everything else, Facebook only becomes a time suck if you let it. I have been able to limit my time spent on Facebook, and have had little interest in sending or receiving virtual goodies or playing games.

5. Speaking of "gossiping," I do see that certain applications on Facebook, such as the "gossip" function, appear to be spam/phishing attempts in disguise. When I received a notice that someone has "gossiped" about me and clicked the link, I received a notice that, to read the "gossip," I would have to hand over my Facebook personal information. I have no doubt that doing so would place me on some companies' marketing lists. Watch out for this stuff!

All in all, I find Facebook instantly fun for social purposes, and potentially useful for business purposes. But, as with everything else on the Internet, Facebook should be used with care.

Read more!

I'm Dreaming of a Wired Christmas

This holiday season, I've got social networking on the mind. Over the past few weeks, I've blogged about both Facebook and Twitter, having joined Facebook and thus far rejected Twitter as less than useful. For many of us who are not the earliest adopters, I suspect that 2008 was a watershed year for social networking.

The 2008 election no doubt provided a huge boost for social networking. Barack Obama's use of Internet technology, especially social networking, to help win the Presidential election will be the subject of textbooks and case studies for decades to come. Now that the election season has turned into the holiday season, I am finding social networking to be an invaluable tool in other ways. In just the past few days, I:

-- used Facebook to find the email addresses of some new "friends" and send them an article regarding something we talked about over Thanksgiving dinner;

-- added someone I met at a recent trade show to my LinkedIn network; and

-- took a look at some fun photos of a recent writers' holiday party that one of the attendees put up on our Yahoo! group.

Who knows what other social connections, business associations, and synergistic combinations of the two will result from the use of these and other social networking tools?

Read more!

Deadliest Popcorn Bag on the Planet?

I was shocked to unfold the above-pictured microwave popcorn package and read Step 2: "Stay By Microwave & Listen," accompanied by a drawing of a woman seemingly standing with her ear up to the door of her microwave oven. Is this the last company left on the planet that receives no advice from lawyers or insurance companies? I think they left out the steps which state: "Hold cell phone up to other ear to maximize risk of brain cancer" and: "While eating popcorn, sit as close to television as possible."

Read more!

Headline of the Day: Bush Versus the Brazilians

The headline at Salon.com today says it all: "Bush is Back!" But they aren't talking about the president kind of bush. According to the article, "a cheeky Inauguration Day event called 'Shave the Date'" is scheduled to take place, for which women are being called upon to "Show your love for your country" by "leav[ing] no bush behind" and "rid[ding] the world of bush once and for all." However, according to Salon, Shave the Date is bumping up against the reality of the economic crisis. More and more women are being forced to trim back their personal spending. As a result, according to Salon, the Brazilian is going the way of the leisure suit and, instead, "when it comes to our most private places, bush is back."

This article is sure to cause a raging brush fire of a debate, or at least a deep split of opinion. Is bush really back? Is the Brazilian really dead? Is this the "Change we've been waiting for"? Even in a recession, will women really stop spending money on grooming and beauty treatments? Or will women "leave no bush behind" on Inauguration Day to show their patriotism? Will this become a badge of honor, the new lapel flag pin for women? How will men's opinions and preferences figure in the mix?

America wants to know.

(Flag of Brazil from enchantedlearning.com)

Read more!

Facebook's Siren Song

I just joined Facebook after having received a bunch of invitations in recent months. However, the jury is still out on whether I'll remain an active Facebook member, or a member at all.

On the plus side, Facebook is a fun way to have old friends find and contact you. Likewise, Facebook is another avenue to keep up and communicate with your current friends and loved ones. Through Facebook, I have learned some interesting things about my friends, such as the fact that a number of them have adopted the middle name "Hussein."

However, Facebook has a couple of significant minuses. First, Facebook involves a loss of privacy. Depending on how you adjust your settings and what information you list, your Facebook profile may include your full name, your photo, your email address, your mailing address, your place of employment, your interests and activities, etc. This is not necessarily information that you would want to place into the public domain, especially consolidated on a page or two. Everyone from stalkers to marketers could then use Facebook to follow your life and make unwanted contact with you. To avoid this intrusion, you might have to be vigilant in tweaking your Facebook settings to maximize your privacy, but, in doing so, you might defeat the reason for joining Facebook in the first place, i.e., making yourself accessible for others to find you.

The other downside is that, like Twitter, Facebook can be a giant time-suck. The "What are you doing right now?" box at the top of your Facebook home page is almost identical to Twitter. I'm surprised at how many people are using this device to update their Facebook pages during the day, and at how many people are then responding to these messages. My Facebook "wall" is now covered with this graffiti. Similarly, I have received a number of comments on my posted photos. While this attention is amusing and flattering, who can afford to be lured away from work and other activities by yet another attractive, time-consuming technology? Who has the discipline not to get inhaled into this giant and ever-growing vortex of Internet inanity? Besides, I'm already too busy cat bowling and reading hopelessly corny email jokes.

While it has been enjoyable to have old and current friends get in touch with me via Facebook, somehow I don't think I'm going to be a very good Facebooker.

(Charlie Chaplin "Modern Times" photo from Teachwithmovies.org)

Read more!

Should I Twitter?

As an active blogger, I'm not averse to new technological and social networking tools. But any tool is only useful if it's useful. I'm still trying to figure out how Twitter is useful.

I've spoken to friends about Twitter, and have followed discussions about Twitter on some group bulletin boards. Many people say that they're addicted to Twitter, and that they use it every day. They say that Twitter is a quick way to update people on what they're doing. But how important is it to know what people are doing all day? Aren't people's daily routines fairly hum-drum? If following their daily details was so important, I would already be on the phone or emailing with them numerous times during the day. Do I need to know via Twitter that Jay is "in a boring meeting" or that Julie is "making meatloaf"? At the expense of doing my work?

Other people say that they use Twitter to "promote their blogs." I'm not sure exactly how that works, but constant pimping of one's blog is extremely off-putting, and would be no less so over Twitter.

On the other hand, I'm no Luddite. So somebody, please convince me why I should Twitter. If you can do so in a 140-character Twitter message, even better.

(Photo from Telegraph-office.com)

Read more!

Ka-Boom!

Today I discovered another cool thing about living on the Southern California coast: Space Shuttle sonic booms!

Space Shuttle Endeavour was due to land at its usual location at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida this morning, but, due to bad weather, the Shuttle was re-routed to its backup landing area at Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California's Mojave Desert.

With little notice, I tuned into CNN to see Endeavour descending from the sky. Then, at 1:20 p.m. local time, I heard a loud double boom! At that moment, the official NASA announcer being broadcast on CNN stated “two sonic booms signaling a landing at the California coast.” Apparently, Endeavour flew in from the Pacific Ocean, and created the sonic booms as it decelerated through the sound barrier at about the time it crossed over land, somewhere above my home.

I was very excited to witness this meeting of natural science and human technology in action today, and I know I'm not the only one.

(photo from NASA.gov)

Read more!

The Boob That Won't Die

America arguably faces its greatest collection of challenges since World War II -- an economy sliding past recession and into depression, two wars, and a climate crisis, for starters. You would think that George W. Bush and his administration would be spending their final weeks working hard to avert disaster at home and abroad. But instead, the Bush administration is focused on boobs on the boob tube. Five months after a federal appeals court overturned the Federal Communications Commission's $550,000 fine against CBS for airing the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" boob incident during the 2004 Super Bowl, Bush has ordered the FCC to appeal the court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I predicted this Supreme Court appeal five months ago, but that was before the economic meltdown that began in mid-September. It's pathetic that, with just weeks remaining in his presidency, Bush is instead focused on boobs, and throwing away America's legacy and resources to kowtow to the right wing and big business instead of trying to help this country avoid catastrophe. Unfortunately, such misplaced focus is no longer shocking to me, or, I suspect, to the rest of America.

Given the recent election results, I can only say to Republicans, how's that working for you? Perhaps the best answer came from the Republicans' own Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "Our members, in one way, are kind of relieved by the departure of an administration that became unpopular and made it very difficult for us to compete."

The word "boob" seems appropriate to describe the situation, in more ways than one.

Read more!

Ground Zero in California's Cultural War

Today the news from California is all about The Fires! The Fires!, but there's something much larger, akin to a major earthquake, a massive fire, and a giant gathering snowball all put together, taking place here. Many Californians are taking to the streets and organizing boycotts to protest the recent passage of Proposition (Prop) 8, a statewide ballot initiative which changed California's Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry. The scope of the fight over Prop 8 could well approach that of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and could dwarf anything most bloggers have seen in their lifetimes.

I want to focus on what I consider Ground Zero in the Prop 8 war, a historic restaurant in Los Angeles called the El Coyote Mexican Cafe. One of the El Coyote's managers and part owners, Marjorie Christoffersen, is a Mormon. Her Mormon Church was massively involved in the campaign to pass Prop 8, providing millions of dollars to the Yes on Prop 8 folks and asking the members of its congregation to do the same. So Marjorie answered her church's call and donated $100 to the anti-gay marriage cause.

When word got out about Marjorie's contribution, all hell broke loose. Protesters have been picketing and boycotting El Coyote. They even went to the Yelp restaurant review site and have been giving El Coyote the lowest rating of one star. Local blogs are on fire. It got so bad that Marjorie had to host an open breakfast with the community, where she tearfully, yet unsuccessfully, tried to explain herself. Then Marjorie caved and made an offsetting contribution to the anti-Prop 8 effort. Apparently, Marjorie has left town and is having a breakdown somewhere. But it may be too late for the El Coyote. Unless people flock to the El Coyote in support of Marjorie or Prop 8, the El Coyote could suffer permanent damage to its business.

My thoughts about California's Prop 8 cultural war are the following:

1. As a history major, I learned that "revolutions of rising expectations," which occur when the government takes away a right that people already have, can be much more powerful than when the fight is over whether to grant a new right in the first place. That's part of what is fueling the battle over Prop 8 in California.

2. How pathetic is it that churchgoers like Marjorie lose their minds when their church asks or tells them to do something? How awful is it that churches are pressuring their congregations to give money for political causes, especially when some members are then caught between their conscience and their church? For that matter, why are churches involving themselves so heavily in political matters? What happened to America's separation of church and state? Hasn't the Mormon Church just disqualified itself for tax-exempt status?

3. While protests and boycotts can be very effective tools, and while I'd be plenty upset if I found out that the money I spent at a business establishment was used in a campaign to take away my rights, it's important to pick one's battles and choose one's targets wisely. I don't get the protesters' obsession with El Coyote, given Marjorie's modest $100 contribution involved there. Other individuals and businesses donated hundreds and thousands of times this amount to Yes on Prop 8.

4. Would state-sanctioned civil unions for same-sex couples, with the same rights as a marriage (inherit money, jointly own property, hospital visitation, insurance benefits, etc.), but without the label "marriage," be a compromise that everyone could live with? I suppose that, if I wanted to marry someone and was told that I could not do so for whatever reason, I'd be incensed, and might find the offer of civil unions to be half a loaf. I might just fight for it all.

Read more!