drifting

I've been sitting on this one for awhile. Well, not sitting so much as forgetting to ply my reader(s) with stories. This was in the NYTimes about a month ago and is easily the coolest story I've read in the last year. Any number of hooks get me: adventure, awe at how far they flew, the technology and skill involved, the freedom of the sky, and the final compeition unfolding before our eyes. The idea that one last 'lift' will get you there seems surreal. Great, great story. The Times also has a bunch of photos and interactive features that I didn't have as I read the newsprint version on my couch that Sunday morning.

here and there

It’s been awhile since I’ve linked to an article in the NYTimes but this one is just my speed. This is the kind of stuff that gives me hope for engaging dialogue and ideas in the media. Of course, the comments section (I read the first page) is almost as good as the article. I’ve been scanning the news of late with an eye out for pieces that L. can use/review for her post-Cold War history class in school. Between the Times, the New Yorker, The Economist, and The Atlantic, I think we can cover the current world, as well as, its state of affairs over the last 20+ years.

I’m also giving you an entry from an interesting Vblogger, j. smooth, at illdoctrine.com (also moving and using nildoctrine.com); I just came upon him via another blog and I quite like his ideas. This one deals with an NFL player and a little bit of historical reference and clarification.


I’ll be at my last mid-term tonight and then I can settle in for the second half of the quarter and getting to the meats and whatnot.

Hey.

blind and naked

Both David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan are missing the boat on the Administration's plans (and hopes). You can find Sullivan's piece here and it will further link you to the Brooks op-ed in the Times. Both are suffering from the great red herring of the here-and-now. What triggers this realization for me are these two paragraphs from the op-ed:

"Obama aides talk about "game-changers." These include improving health information technology, expanding wellness programs, expanding preventive medicine, changing reimbursement policies so hospitals are penalized for poor outcomes and instituting comparative effectiveness measures.

Nearly everybody believes these are good ideas. The first problem is that most experts, with a notable exception of David Cutler of Harvard, donít believe they will produce much in the way of cost savings over the next 10 years. They are expensive to set up and even if they work, it would take a long time for cumulative efficiencies to have much effect. That means that from today until the time President Obama is, say, 60, the U.S. will get no fiscal relief."

I'll call this the "next Monday I stop smoking" plan. Both Sullivan and Brooks believe that having one marshmallow now is better than two marshmallows later. (I know, read this if you must know.) This mentality always put forth the idea that if some program won't happen in the next two years, the next month, or the next week, then it's not worth our effort: and that's the most dangerous of all ideas and it runs rampant through myriad politically-charged issues. If your grand plan doesn't involve where we will be in ten or fifteen years - especially based on our current morass - then you're the problem. The Obama plan is certainly premised on reducing healthcare costs across the board in order to not only fund some of the spending required to support the American economy, but to prevent the spiraling costs from, well, spiraling. The Sullivan commentary even reposts a poorly chosen chunk from Bruce Barlett in order to support something:

"To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax."

I love Sullivan but he's simply circled back on himself by using this example as support for why reducing health costs isn't the solution. If you remove the 1.3% tagged to Social Security, you're left with the larger 6.8% chunk. If those numbers are reduced, and significantly, not only can we avoid increased future outlays but we can start saving now - and by now I mean over the next few years. As usual, the yelling and screaming must have impeded the use of a calculator, something I'll get to in a minute. Where exactly does Sullivan and Brooks think the demand for Medicare dollars come from? I'll wait a second while they think about it. What? Those costs (and percentages) come from...healthcare. Huh? From healthcare needs for those that can't afford it and/or don't have any coverage, or preventive medicine, or good health, or helping those who eat Twinkies everyday. If we don't even consider the future savings - or the resulting spirals that can be avoided we can suddenly go to our calculator powered by silence and get some real numbers. The average GDP (the mysterious GDP from above) from 2006-2008, in 2008 dollars, is about $14 trillion. My handy-dandy calculator tells me that 1% of that number is $140 billion. If we can cut just 2% from the 6.8% of the GDP that accounts for those parts of Medicare then we've can save $280 billion over the course of one year. If we assume that the GDP will grow, maybe slowly for a few years but quickly in the later years, and I can project the current number over six years then I'm sitting at about $1.68 billion in savings by lowering the amount of money spent to unfuck people's health, and the system. That's a big chunk of the TARP, stimulus, and etc. that we've already spent to prop up our addled economy. When you consider future numbers beyond that: possible further percentage cuts, maintaining a lower cost level, and providing better healthcare to everyone, then I'm cool with looking beyond Obama's time. As I've said before, this cat looks and plans way beyond what we imagine: every time. How many times do you need to be fooled?

As for Brooks, who finds savings of $100 million across agencies, or $17 billion in budget cuts to be comical, fuck off. I can look out beyond next Friday and say that if we have sorted out the massive issues we face today by the time Obama is 60, well done. You know, you have to start sometime, right? It's Monday, get onboard.

Why don't you guys just have your one marshmallow and go home.

Thanks.

t

gimme your lunch money!

As if I need this kind of aggro on a Monday morning. X forwarded me this NYTimes piece written by David Carr (Night of the Gun). It seems like less than a month since I bitched about some portion of the music industry; and now this? About 15 years ago Pearl Jam sued Ticketmaster (or maybe it was the venues under contract to Ticketmaster: same thing) along the lines of monopoly or antitrust issues. Talk to the lawyers in the family if you need actual legal jargon. The gist was that Ticketmaster and the contracted venues didn’t allow artists to set prices and / or service fee details. Basically, just about every venue of size in America was under Ticketmaster contract so if an artist wanted to play that venue they had to essentially agree to Ticketmaster rules. The options for any band back then, if not playing within the established contracted circuit, were limited to places like the Cheyenne RodeoPlex. Pearl Jam, in the final judgement, didn’t win its lawsuit. I remember how music fans reacted to the entire string of events: very supportive of the band at first, but not overly concerned that they lost; the band almost became a joke of sorts. Why? Well, Pearl Jam was then standing on top of the World – the biggest draw, the most sales, the king of kings. I think everyone figured that it cost the band nothing to step forward and complain because they’d just go home to Seattle when it was over and still be ridiculously wealthy. It seems quaint now, doesn’t it? But don’t we want the artists with the muscle to flex it on behalf of the fans and smaller artists? All Pearl Jam was trying to do was keep ticket prices below $20 and service fees under $1.80 per ticket. Now, I’m not going to wander off and find a calculator to sort out the inflation index and the difference between the $20/$1.80 situation of 1994 and what would no doubt now be a $125 ticket with a $20 service fee. I think Pearl Jam probably attacked the system from the wrong legal angle – and no doubt lost on those legal grounds – but they were so far ahead in seeing what was happening to the live music industry that it’s frightening. It’s doesn’t matter much to me that in 2009 most big-time artists make almost all their money from touring; that’s not an excuse for overcharging, service fees, and artist-sanctioned scaplers. I guess if I’m going to pay $100 for a Springsteen ticket then so be it; but, I’m not cool with paying an additional $20 for ‘service fees’. Even if I had walked down to the Verizon Center to buy my ticket I would still have been responsible for that extra $20 for Ticketmaster. And for what? My time? My money? Now we find out that Ticketmaster is pushing fans off to a ticket black marketer that they own and where they scalp tickets – are we really surprised? Nope. In fact, the idea that the ticket market for any big show is open to all is a joke. One of my hockey ticket connections – an agent of sorts – told me a few weeks back, before the Springsteen tickets went on sale, that she had here order in and would be picking them up Monday morning (I think the pick up was actually from the venue.) Needless to say, they were immediately resold for a 250% profit. And now onto Mr. Springsteen…

First, he contracted to sell his new album only through Wal-Mart. For that, he gets a big piss off from me. He’s tried to back off now and admit that it was a mistake – but primarily because someone pointed out that their labor practices are for junk – and he, as spokesman for the people, shouldn’t support Wal-Mart; true enough. But more importantly, he shouldn’t be cutting out local records shops and dealers. Lord knows, his success has never been based on local fans and businesses. Now he’s caught up in this Ticketmaster scam because he – and other big names – didn’t step up way back in 1994 and take a stand against the behemoth. He can try to backtrack now and say that he had no idea such nefarious activities were occurring, but who’d believe it? He is just as responsible for creating and releasing the monster as anyone, and feigning shock and surprise is embarrassing. As if Ticketmaster isn’t a drain on music fans’ lives; merging with the equally monopolistic Live Nation would truly be disastrous. Live Nation has almost completely taken over ownership of most live venues and combining that with the mega ticket distribution specialist will only increase fees. It’s hard for me to be critical of artists charging a free market price for their wares; it’s not hard to complain about fees that are nothing more than free money to a third party. Apparently, free money that is then used to pawn off overcharged tickets from the same vender and ‘surprised’ artist. And, if I might say, charging people $125 for a ticket takes entertainment spending dollars out of the pockets of folks who might actually use some of that money to see a show at Iota, Jammin’ Java, or the Black Cat; venues that are the lifeblood struggling musicians.

I rest.

p.s. If you must know, my first concert ticket (Kiss/Uriah Heep, 1976) cost $5.50. We were shocked - SHOCKED - when prices skyrocketed to $6.50 for my next show (Steve Miller Ban, 1977).

see june, see bill

The other day while I was cleaning up the kitchen after some creation, X looks over the counter at me and says, “Where does the June Cleaver in you come from?” If she’s wondering about my wipe down, tidy up, and try to keep the kitchen in order, then it’s probably my mother. I found the above picture, The June Cleaver dress from Instant Vintage, as my sexy update on the style. What a look.

The Cubs and be infuriating. They’re hanging around the best record in baseball and then go into Pittsburgh and lose the last two games of the series in the same manner: giving up a run in the bottom of the ninth and then losing in extras. They beat the Dodgers at Wrigley today.

I’ve read a lot of Bill Kristol’s op-eds since he joined the NYTimes and I’ve watched him often as a talking head. The problem I have with him is that he’s of the debate theory that if I open with the “all due respect” pre-debate then all’s well. I read his piece today and it’s a prime example of exactly what some people skate right over.

(Warning: bad language, pissy politics, and heinous opinions are coming from me. Consider the above the funny and joke-like part of today’s entry.)

Feel free to call me on taking it out of context because I’m giving you the three consecutive paragraphs I’ve chosen from his entire op-ed. If you want to read the whole thing, here you go.

“This doesn’t mean Americans are indifferent to the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. In fact, I suspect that many of us feel so much in debt to our servicemen and women, and so much in awe of the ultimate sacrifice some of them have made and all of them are willing to make, that we worry any effort to honor them wouldn’t be commensurate with their deeds.”

“One retired general I know urges civilians to go out of their way to say thank you to servicemen and women they happen to encounter. At first I thought such a gesture might be intrusive, or awkward, or unwelcome. I was wrong. When civilians walk over to express appreciation to men and women in uniform, in airports or restaurants or the like, the recipients seem a little embarrassed — but grateful. So perhaps we all should be less shy about thanking our troops for their service.”

“The men and women in the military know their fellow citizens are grateful to them. Many of them say, though, that they’re not confident their countrymen are aware of what they’re accomplishing.”

That first paragraph is bullshit. We are totally indifferent to those sacrifices; I’m indifferent, either by choice or by shear misery – I’m not sure which. I was in the military and I have some background. Believe me, if I’m indifferent than anyone who doesn’t have a loved one or very close friend involved is way beyond indifferent. I’m as guilty as the next. The faded, junky, hollow yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car counts for shit. The idea that “we worry any effort to honor them wouldn’t be commensurate with their deeds” makes me steam. This coming from one of the greatest supporters of this Administration; a President that refuses to either show, attend, or recognize a single returning dead military member. Not one. He hasn’t showed those that make that sacrifice any more respect than he shown any tree on his Crawford ranch. There is not an ounce of honor in either Kristol or Bush’s recognition of the dead.

The second paragraph? Nice, Kristol. I’m glad to see that you’re too goddamn shallow to think that any military member would be embarrassed to get any props from you. I smile every time anyone says thanks when I’m passing through the airport and they look at my retired AF ID card. Kristol’s thought process about the war – that it’s over there, that I’ll finally write something on Memorial Day, that maybe a little thanks and honor through my backhanded effort could be worthwhile is a questionable joke.

The third paragraph is the ultimate example of how the military is twisted into a tool for this political mission. The military doesn’t wonder “…how the public views their accomplishments” – what they aren’t sure of is if the public could even understand what they’re going through while doing the yeoman’s work in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I’ve said before; completing that mission, whether they agree with the political premise, is what they do: Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm done.

general thoughts

Generals are strange birds. The single-page interview in this week’s Sunday New York Times Magazine is with Wesley Clark. I always assume that military men, through and through, are most likely to be deeply embedded and in favor of the current armed operation – that image has change drastically over the last three years as various retired honchos speak up. One of Clark’s questions dealt with the Global War on Terrorism and its impact on the World. He points out that when we try to amass the threat of terrorism against the behemoth of the Cold War (with the implications of each confrontation) we are conflating the religious intensity and horrors involved in terrorism in a desire to grant the confrontation a greater import. (Okay, I added a bit to what I think is his thought process…he only got one line answers to each question published in article...I’ve got endless space.) His idea seems to come from the math that 200 million Russians, and a government with a capability to destroy the globe, was a far greater threat to this country than 50,000 hardcore religious extremists and their current methods of attack. As of today, even though the threat is real and the results of terrorism frightening, we seem to live as if the experience comes from the same cache of fears we carried post-WWII through the late 80s – a belief that our way of life was constantly under attack, we needed to stay vigilant, or be at the ready to dive under the school desk. Maybe it’s time we take a long look at the world situation and decide exactly how threatened we are; how much of our daily lives have changed in the last six years due to terrorism? I put forth that it’s a change of miniscule proportion. There’s certainly not representative of a fear of hemispheres being blasted into oblivion and cities melting away. Maybe the focus of the lens can be drawn in on the threats that can be reached, contained, and disarmed. Is it really a global war? Enough of that; I’ll ponder it.

T.

law and order

The dire consequences of a rookie driver on the #401; I spied the northbound bus coming into the Dunn Loring station metro zone, moved to the boarding area as per usual, and then watched the bus fly right by the assembled crowd and stop at the southbound(!) shelter. No worries for me as I just stepped down to that shelter, knowing full well it was the northbound bus, and awaited the doors. The rest of my comrades were less willing to look silly by possibly moving to what is clearly the wrong shelter; those who were already at the southbound shelter, two Chinese men, jumped right on followed closely by yours truly. I immediately recognized the driver as a young guy who was on this route with a trainer a few weeks ago; just a small mistake in remembering which shelter is which. Once I disappeared up the steps the rest my business casual minions scooted down and boarded the bus in a more random fashion than normal…some of the riders in seats they don’t normally choose. All of them looking about and trying to sort if I were still a quality leader but not actually wanted to look right at me. I don’t believe they had faith until we ended up in the left turn lane at station’s exit. Much exhaling and relief; I was already mindlessly dancing to my music. I took care of them. Of course, the two Chinese riders were shocked when the bus turned north out of parking, they glanced at each other, scanned the scenery, and immediately yanked the buzzer to get off the crazy bus.

During an episode of “searching for playground” jurisprudence this weekend, X had to sort out the following snippets of testimony:

G: Mommy. I asked H for some hangers (they were putting away laundry) and he threw them at me and hit me in my head.
X: H, come here.
H: Coming [in a nice lilt. He arrives]. Yes Mommy?
X: Did you throw hangers and hit Gabe in his head?
H: What? No. He asked for some hangers, I held them out with my hand [showing arm extended fully], and he did this with his head [some imitation of G. doing a snake dance thingy and throwing his head into the hangers held out innocently in H.’s hand]. I didn’t throw them! He hit his head on them!
G: I did not! [always helpful testimony]

I think the final verdict was that is was highly unlikely (and a bit unusual) that anyone would throw their head into elevated hangers. It didn’t help the defense when his friend testified to this effect, “H. threw the hangers and hit G. in the head. G. is telling the truth, H. isn’t.” There you have it…friends can turn so quickly.

We almost didn't find a Sunday NYTimes yesterday. The search didn't commence until late in the afternoon after I'd done some cleaning and X has attempted some hostile takeover of Everbank and United Airlines via the internet. I think she succeeded. Having said that, I don't think she showed nearly enough worry about intial search efforts.

It's humid.

T.

with this ring II

Another long meeting story in Sunday’s NYTimes wedding announcements

The couple met in 2004 at a Halloween party at a pub on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Mr. Donohue was one of a half-dozen men who dressed as characters from Roger Hargreaves’s "Mr. Men and Little Miss" children’s book series. Mr. Donohue wore an orange suit, the signature color of his character, Mr. Tickle. He had stapled extra long sleeves to the suit so that he would have Mr. Tickle’s tentaclelike arms.

Ms. Cody knew one of the men in the group, Christopher Ahern, who was wearing a yellow suit, the signature color of Mr. Skinny. She asked him who had come up with the idea for the costumes, and he replied that it was his longtime friend Mr. Donahue.

“I thought the idea was extremely creative,” said Ms. Cody, who had improvised a doctor’s costume with the last-minute purchase of a lab coat, and scrubs and a stethoscope borrowed from her roommate, a nurse.

Ms. Cody struck up a conversation with Mr. Donahue and found the man in the orange suit to be “creative, confident in his skin, unpretentious.”

“She came right up and started talking,” Mr. Donohue remembered. “She was funny, honest.”

They spoke until the wee hours, when the party ended.

As I was typing the entry I thought I should have been calling him Mr. Tickle rather than Mr. Donohue; try it on your keyboard, it’s much easier to type. Not only would the finger stretches be easier, but if I know he’s Mr. Tickle based on the long-winded announcement, shouldn’t I just call him Mr. Tickle? Wasn’t that the point? Shouldn’t I call them Mr. and Mrs. Tickle? Or at least Mr. and Mrs. Cody-Tickle. And it's cool to work 'tentacle' into a wedding announcement...odds? I thought the 'when the party ended' was a bit much...as they do.

Mr. Redd, 45, is the founder and chief executive of the Project Management Resource Group, an engineering management consulting firm in New York. He is also a baritone whose appearances have included “Porgy and Bess” with the New York City Opera.

The thing that caught my eye was the baritone. I’m completely void of talent, and anyone who performs with the New York City Opera is amazing to me, but do I need to know this? “Hey X, we got an invitation to the wedding of that baritone guy from the ‘Porgy and Bess’ show. Are we going?” I imagine a response from across rooms declaring that unless it was the alto or harmony guy (I have NO musical terminology skills), we aren’t going. It strikes me that my wedding announcement should include the fact that I CAN’T sing. “Married today at the church, can’t carry a tune in a bucket…”

About half the announcements have photos of the happy couple, and I do wish them all the luck. Lord knows my marriage skills are questionable. But I can’t figure out the photo of just the bride. I’m thinking I should turn the page to see the “wasn’t present for school picture day” laid across the silhouette of some guy.

This week was the first announcements I’d seen that had same-sex marriages (I said it) of both sexes. Wait. Girls and boys. Wait. You know what I mean. I’ve noticed that the announcements with same-sex gals always seem to say “Ms. Debbie Jones (above left)”, but the same-sex guys don’t give the “above left” mapping. I tried to sort out who was who but came up empty.

And I love that Mr. William Mason’s father is “the national accounts manager at Tootsie Roll Industries of Chicago…” That is what life’s about, working at Tootsie Roll. Sweet.

T.