Deepening Winter Doldrums

In March... yeah, I know.

I'm sure that many other people have had these kinds of stretches, but I'm pretty much in the middle of the doldrums right now, mostly because I'm feelin' a lot like Charlie Brown looking at the football.

I won't go into a whole lot of details at present, but suffice it to say that lately, any news I've had has been bad. I've had a close relative pass recently, seen opportunities go without having any power to influence them positively, computer problems, and work has become a quagmire where I'm getting assigned a completely new process that's so unknown that I may or may not be legally liable for mistakes I (or OTHERS) may make, much less dealing with coworkers who seem to want nothing more than to throw me under the bus.

It's been depressing to say the least. The football is right there, but I haven't kicked it in the longest time and at some point, the question starts... is that damn football even kickable?

The worst part is that I have had time off of work recently. Ordinarily, that's a good thing, but it seems like all this time that I've been taking off has helped only minimally. And considering how days off are are a precious resource that is finite, it kind of makes me feel as if I've failed even that.

Failure, especially on a wide-ranging scale, sucks. It certainly humbles a person quite a bit. It's times like this that a vacation seems warranted, but without any money to do so and a winter that doesn't want to end, I can't imagine where the hell to go for it. Anyone got a closet to hide in for about seven days or so? Or some spare optimism to send?

Latest MSTing is still coming along, and work continues. Still no official timeline, but we certainly seem close enough that saying "by the end of March" wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination.

Political Musings for Mid-February:

This is a blog, thankfully, and therefore is a biased collection of opinions and rants from me as well as opinions from my cohort. As such, you get to listen to yet another one of my rants, in which I take an article and pretty much skewer it.

The full article is here


___

February 15, 2008
Obama's Gloomy Big-Government Vision
By Lawrence Kudlow

Senator Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he's aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing -- exactly what the nation and the stock market doesn't want to hear.

We don't? By all means, continue.

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

The middle class? I'd love to see the proof behind this, especially when other reputable authors (David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal, book, published 2005) tell me that the richest 1% of the country has seen their income rise by 558% since 1970 while the poorest 90% have received a NEGATIVE increase, or otherwise known as a DECREASE, of 0.1% since 1970.

For someone who is trying to decry class warfare here, it sounds an awful lot like you're playing the same game... proof?

This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Oh, no proof, got it. Just the same generalities you're already decrying Obama for.

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

You'd better believe it! Eight years of Reagan, four of Bush 1, eight of Clinton's pro-business regime, and eight more of Bush 2 have certainly shown the efficacy of free markets in regulating themselves and making sure that people are paid equitably for their work.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

Compared to the double-taxing of Social Security and income tax on my paltry check? Guess who's more likely to keep the money inside the nation, Einstein.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Based on WHAT? This is disingenuous at best. What number are we starting with? $10,000 yearly? $1,000,000 yearly? Big difference between those two numbers.

Besides, I'm fairly sure the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper marketed to high-echelon earners, will attempt to introduce bias into reporting policies that may be designed to cut into the discretionary income of such earners, which may impact their ability to continue to buy... the Wall Street Journal.

(Side note. Dammit, I will come out and tell you, I am biased. It's too bad that media outlets won't.)

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

'Cause you can't tax dreams, I'd assume.

Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?

Doesn't Obama understand that without money to pay CEOs more that the American worker can't possibly keep food on the table and buy more from other corporations to keep them in business? Wait up here...

As a serious side-note, why can't reputable economists understand that when the pyramid is too top-heavy, when there is not a base (of taxpayers to keep police and courts, of consumers to keep markets alive) that the earning will come to an end? If Wal*Mart can't sell another Chinese toy, who will get hurt ultimately? Wal*Mart's CEO. Of course, that will be because he and all other CEOs have driven the rest of the American people into subterranean catacombs where their only company is other poor people.

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

Because this country IS in trouble! Can't you see this? Get out of New York, where the wealth of a nation accumulates, and check out the freaking countryside. There's a good fricking reason that they call the Midwest "The Rust Belt", because people decided to STOP INVESTING IN IT. And when GM buys out another 74,000 workers, these people can't buy the fricking Wall Street Journal anymore either. (Though I'm sure Richard Wagoner still buys his WSJ, and the $8.5 base salary he enjoys is certainly based on the number of cars he personally manufactures...)

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Until of course they utilize government-backed unemployment insurance... which will show them that they need to get back to work. But because companies are too busy trying to outsource and offshore their labor pools, said worker will probably have to go into business for himself. Maybe by taking out a loan from the Small Business Administration, backed by the federal government. And go into business for himself, and prove that it can happen in the U.S. Just a scenario, I'm sure.

And again, note language. The people victimized are "small family-owned businesses" -- like, oh, the Hilton hotels or, maybe, Wal*Mart -- entrepreneurs, and investors. "Investors", by the way, also includes people like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Donald Trump... the poor people who will get "hurt" by Obama's policies. Won't you buy The Donald a cheeseburger when he comes to clean your windshield after Obama's elected? It's only the nice thing to do.

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony.

Hey, moron... should I show you a chart of the growth of the Euro currency compared to the U.S. dollar? These economies are just fine, and they do a far better job of making sure that everyone benefits from the work that is done, rather than just a select few.

By the way, using the government to regulate the free market is a damn good idea. I hope that it happens again in my lifetime.

While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital -- and reaping the economic rewards -- Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

And flat-tax plans are REGRESSIVE. Especially with the way that the loopholes are developed in this nation. Some rich guy can claim depreciation at the same time as claiming income, and the resulting amount he has to pay on is zero because he can afford a lawyer, while the IRS keeps a damn good eye on me because I can't fudge my wage earnings report, especially with my employer reporting this information to them.

There's a reason that tax plans should be progressive. If someone makes $1M a year and gets taxed 50%, that means that they still take home $500,000, which is a livable wage. If I make $30,000 yearly and get taxed 50%, I get $15,000 after tax, barely even enough to make a house payment.

Besides, said millionaire is probably using more services than I am anyway. I'm sure that the millionaire is using the court system to make any challenges others have to his/her weatlh moot, utilizing airport and airplanes far more, (ship-)port facilities and the international waters... the highway system, the police, and generally leaving a far larger imprint on society that requires money to keep going.

Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy.

I'd LOVE to imitate the "failures" of any one of those nations right now.

I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects he is a breath of fresh air. He's an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it -- such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton's five-year rate-freeze on mortgages.

But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road.

Because the road we've been driving down, where companies are allowed to merge and screw their workers (too numerous to count), allowed to misreport numbers and screw their workers (Enron, Tyco, etc), allowed to trade freely with other countries to export jobs from this country and utilize sweatshop labor and screw workers (Nike, Wal*Mart), write nasty open-ended contracts which allow only themselves to set rates at the detriment to all other people (credit-card issuers like Bank of America, Chase, and Discover/Novus), and sell bad loans which threaten people's houses (Countrywide et al), should all be celebrated under the grand and bold heading "the freedom of the market". It's got "Freedom" in it! Celebrate it!!

Dammit, if there was ever an economy which needed to be brought into regulation and conformity, it's ours. It's amazing that big business can try to streamline as much as they want to, which may end up making workers irrevelant as they attempt to squeeze every last ounce of productivity out of the money they invest, but if the people of a country try to streamline their markets as well as the controls and methods that companies use, this is immediately "immoral" and "Communist". That's odd, because the money that I send to the U.S. government is often used on such things as "corporate welfare", which lets companies like Exxon post *billion* dollar profits. Can't I have a say about the productivity of Exxon on my economy and government? I'm investing in it, dammit!

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

What a bleeding surprise... he has a reason to be completely biased too, because if rich people don't get to keep their absurdly low 15% capital gains tax, which they routinely GET AROUND ANYWAY, they won't have the time or patience to read a blog from an advisor to what's become a failed economic system.

There's a reason that the 90s did so great. The market hummed along terrifically because money was getting reinvested all over the place. It was, technically, wealth redistribution, with all the Internet startups, and the wealth redistribution allowed American workers to earn more money. Not coincidentally, when the American workers have more money to work with, our country is far better off because happy and productive workers produce more. (What a concept.)

Now? We have wealth concentrating into so few hands that the rest of the country is absolutely hurting.

Hey, Corporate America! The citizens of the US are kind of like stocks... if you INVEST in them, they can give you a BETTER RETURN on your investment! Try it out someday!

Yeah, I'm pissy. This may become a regular feature given time and more outlandish statements from known idiots.

As is, vote Obama. Please. Let's *relearn* the lesson we needed in the 1930s, that when the government lets the markets run free that they usually end up hurting everyone involved.

Corporate Control versus Job Satisfaction.

Today's post examines the overriding need that people have to control and dominate others, just because they can. Of course, this is going to be a pretty minimal issue to most people in the world, but the whole reason I am bringing it up is because it should be a non-issue. Yet, this issue is not, and is one more way that society in America stinks.

I work for nine hours a day (not receiving an "official" lunch period, nor breaktimes) and am salaried. While I do not have a wide swing of hours and usually do not stay late, my schedule and traffic demands that I have to leave at 6:30 and usually do not return until about 18:30, which means I am devoting half of every weekday to either getting to work or working.

To expedite my time at work, I have a small appliance which I use regularly to warm food. This apparatus gets warm, but has safety features which include automatic shutoff and the fact that it does not get above 120 degrees Celsius (not even warm enough to burn paper). I can warm my food while at the same time working, and once the food is warmed I can eat and keep working.

Until today. Today is the day that I find out that I cannot keep appliances at my desk. My manager was so gleeful about this issue, that he sent a message essentially singling me out and included extremely snide statements. I am an adult, and do not need snide statements. I do not need to be singled out. And most of all, it would be nice to think that my company trusts me enough to do what I think is right.

And most of all, it seems almost senseless. Why? Why do you even care what consenting adults are doing in their cubicles? There was no reason in the email, of course. I would not be surprised in the least if management is doing this just because they can. This same manager has shown unacceptance of my preferred arrangement before, which leads me to believe that he is the one who not only reported it to others but has attempted to show that I shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Part of the reason that I bring food to prepare at my cubicle is because I'm not well-off; typically, I can make a lunch for myself for roughly $0.15 per day, especially if I get to keep my appliance. My pay scale, and the payments that others demand from me daily (credit cards and their cheating ways?) pretty much mandate that I either go hungry or find a way to eat super-cheap.

Now, I have to waste time at home, when I spend about three hours awake (not even counting out time preparing for work) compared to the fact that I could be doing the same thing at work.

Not to mention, this is a company that does not even care about the big stuff. We have two tools that we use on a rather consistent basis, both computer network tools. One is an online tracking program in Internet Explorer, and another is a terminal service which connects to many diverse databases. Both work intermittently at best. If there was an issue here at this company, it would be that these programs are costing far more time than worrying about small appliances ever would.

The difference? It costs money. No mention of the fact of how much time is wasted (times the amount that these people get paid), but fixing real problems around here, which is what these guys are paid for, costs more money. Besides, that way you can argue that the workers don't actually do a lot of work and therefore aren't entitled to a raise which even comes close to the cost of inflation -- BigConGlomCoInc. made $3,000,000,000 of profit in 2007, but my raise, a whopping 1.3 percent, didn't even break into the first freaking comma of that rather huge number.

This is petulant whining. You're exactly right. This situation is also symptomatic of what is happening in corporate America, where new ideas are bad, adults are treated as children, and rights are taken away from workers just because management wants to flex their muscles, and workers are pretty much told, "You'd better get on your hands and knees and thank us you have a job."

I sincerely wish that people would just grow up sometimes. This is silly, asinine, and stupid. I freely admit it, and apologize for even taking your time too. My biggest issue here is that there is absolutely no give-and-take, there's just take. I'm really tired of it, especially at BigConGlomCoInc. As written on this blog before, I'm still searching for a job. While things have at least started turning a bit better for me recently, even if I am looking for jobs in the most-repressed place in the United States, I still haven't found the magic combination to get me the hell out.

I know for a fact that this current job will not even be long-term anymore. I am still having the internal debate with myself... do I air the dirty laundry when I leave, or do I try to stay on good terms? Issues like this test my patience to the extreme -- not because they are major issues, but because this is yet another box on the back of the mule. I've never left a job on bad terms before and don't want to start now. On top of that, in other circumstances I would probably be good friends with my manager. But since I'm being treated like this, repeatedly, I really feel that he should know the exact effect all these things has.

Day 158 has passed in the current search-for-a-new-job. I pray on a daily basis that things get better. I don't feel like being around when we have to pay for our own water too.


tl;dr: Corporate America sucks, controls people for the fun of it, and it's because they are run by people who feel the need and the absolute right to control your very lives instead of actually being useful. Coincidentally, put-upon people get tired of it and rant about it on lightly-read blogs.

Eff you, Corporate America.

A new feature for this blog....

which will probably open me up to non-interest, bickering, non-agreeance, and the possible alienation of many (any) fans...

It's time for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election!

Today's installment is actually three miniature rants designed to get a few things off my chest. Nothing more, nothing less... please feel free to contribute to the (lack of) noise if you agree or disagree.

1) Media involvement in elections.

This is really troubling, for many reasons. There have been many debates already presented in this election cycle for the candidates, but I have a couple comments about debates which have already happened.

Firstly, the Nevada debates... why was Dennis Kucinich disinvited? According to NBC, he hadn't received enough support. Well, it seems more and more clear to me that a candidate's visibility *in the press* is what dictates whether or not people will support them. Kucinich was actually invited to this debate to begin with, but NBC pulled the invite at the eleventh hour.

The one fascinating thing I find about our political process is that the support that a candidate could get can certainly influence the remaining candidates into accepting planks of their platform. Unfortunately, the way that the media is now increasingly shutting out other voices and only broadcasting one or two. I cannot quite tell if this is a cost-cutting decision, a matter of laziness, or if these mass-media outlets are deliberately trying to control the message, but it is reprehensible in all three cases considering the public is supposed to be served by these companies.

John Edwards is now running into the same issue. The Democrats do seem to have similar messages, and if Edwards had a different message that was head-and-shoulders above the other candidates, he may have a better chance to get more media time. On the other hand, it seems rather apparent that the media is following Obama and the Clintons and shutting Edwards out, despite the simliarity of all of their messages. It's a mighty shame... clearly, this man is still garnering some support, and he should still be able to broadcast his message. But because the media has decided he is not the story anymore, they've refused to cover him as extensively.

I can hear the conservatives now... "No, their job is to make money!" You're entitled to that opinion, but the FCC has also charged the media with informing the public as well... this is why they are allowed to use the public airwaves. Maybe additional, and better, coverage would be in the media's best interests too, as only through multiple voices can this country be governed best?

And don't worry, Republicans, I didn't forget you too. I remember reading in the Detroit Free Press that the editorial staff has endorsed a candidate... John McCain. That's fine, I suppose, but I wonder... does anyone else see this as a rather egregious conflict of interest? I understand that the editorial page is supposed to be separate from the news page and that the editorial page is the only place where opinions can be printed. On the other hand, if the editors are specifically backing one candidate, does that mean that the rest of the paper skews in that direction too? Would it not be better to say, "Editor Smith, from Times Tribune, endorses John McCain" so as to not encompass the whole paper with an opinion?

An unbiased and diligent media is desperately needed in this country, especially after eight years of Bush (and I could even make the argument to add eight years of Clinton plus another four of Bush I.) Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one. Check out this link to read in Kucinich's own words about his exclusion from the Nevada debates. You may scoff at some of his ideas and think that he's talking of conspiracies, but I at least feel that there is some conflict of interest going on.

Which brings us to the next point.

2) Money in Politics.

There's way too much of it. It seems that the only way that candidates get on the air is to buy time, costing a lot of money, or by accepting money from media companies and thereby becoming compromised with regards to their future actions (such as to the FCC). I know that this has been said before, but I sincerely believe that the presidential campaign (and for that matter, many other federal campaigns down to representative) should be run on a public money trust basis.

The FCC has chartered networks and broadcast television as well as radio, and is a ready governor to provide equal time to candidates. The candidates themselves should have an equal opportunity to speak their message, instead of having thousands of dollars drown out others' voices. There are extremely smart people in this world who don't have the money or access to have their words broadcast. While the Internet certainly has changed communications (for the better), this is still an old-fashioned process with regards to media and it will be for a long time to come.

Abuses with money lead me to point 3.

3) Falsehoods and Intentional Misleading.

Dammit, it's "LYING". I hate politicians for bringing the above two words into our lexicon. I rant on one specific cause, but every last candidate seems to be guilty of this.

A radio ad was released in South Carolina prior to the Democratic primary. In this ad, Barack Obama had a quote taken completely out of context and spun to say the absolute opposite of his meaning. I do not subscribe to the thought that all people are morons who readily believe the first thing that they hear, but spreading disinformation is also difficult to overcome.

A personal story; recently, while at a company function, I was taking the last donut from the box and searching for a plate to put it on. Immediately, I was jumped on by a coworker who accused me of being the person who kept leaving empty boxes around the lunchroom. It was as far from the truth as possible; I do try to keep public areas clean, especially in that situation. But because the conclusion was jumped to and the initial falsehood spread, and since it was the first message that other coworkers heard, I was labeled unfairly and had no opportunity to defend myself.

Of course, there is an opposite effect of having blatantly untrue allegations be a detriment... if people saw me as I cleaned the lunchroom, they wouldn't believe what my coworker said and would have thought (rightly so) that she was jumping to conclusions. In this day and age though, when no politician seems to be held accountable for all the campaign statements produced from their headquarters, there is very little risk to having untrue allegations boomerang back to you, and the attack ad still runs strong due to this idiocy. And unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, it is often either the loudest or the first voice which is believed rather than the true voice.

The greater point is this: the American people have been living on a steady diet of lies and falsehoods from the Bush administration. Can we please have a press which challenges our public figures to explain themselves and holds them accountable when this stuff happens instead of just blowing it off? I don't really care if a President decides that they have been looking at the wrong side of an issue one day; people grow and change, and the world at large changes too. But if they cannot have the integrity to make sure that the things they say are true, then I feel very badly for our political process.

I really don't know why I expect anything to change, but on the other hand I don't believe any ever has changed unless someone takes action or at least says something. Cynicism has its place... the front page of this blog's hosting, for instance.... but it took one voice to point out that the emperor had no clothes too.

In other news, Megane and I are in process of working on another MSTing. Hope you guys liked the last one and that you'll like the next!

Slaps in the Face.

Hoo, boy.

Thanksgiving's over, and it seems as if things are going nuts on me lately. I'm fighting a mutant cold virus that spawned both a head and a chest cold. I was told by the city I live in to clean up my yard and given a time limit which led to me spending three hours in the sleet and rain trying to comply before fined. Then, my basement flooded.

Fast-forward to the very next day, in which I'd been given a message by (one of) my credit card(s). For the privilege of keeping a *closed* balance and paying on time, I'm rewarded with an increase in my interest... instead of paying $112 and getting $10 off my balance monthly, I get to pay $154 for the same right to knock $10 from my bill monthly.

Good gracious. Even calling them didn't help. When I called I found out a few things.

#1: I'm a good payer... so good that they can't find one missed payment. This doesn't mean that I get any kind of discount though; they'd have to OPEN the account, reassess, then close it again. But they can't do it, since it's been closed for more than 90 days and the computer refuses to analyze my account unless it's open. What a shock.

#2: However, THEY have the right to raise the rates whenever they choose, even when the account is closed. I hadn't used the card for thirty-six months when they sent a letter informing me that they intended to raise my rates. Diplomatically, they offered me the chance to opt out by telling them no. How nice of them. Take a wild guess which option I chose.

Three years' payments of $4000 has netted me a decrease of $1000 in balance. What a terrific deal.

If there's two things to learn from this, it's the following.

Don't EVER dare become unemployed. If you do, it'll take you decades before you're able to pay off that extra loaf of bread.
You can ignore the cries of hungry children by putting your fingers in your ears.

(Yeah, I'm mad)

If there is one thing that any loyal readers (?) from the U.S. could do, it's to tell your Senator to support the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act. It's currently in committee, but it may be the best chance for these credit card companies to be reined in. I have written a letter to my own Senator, who happens to have introduced the bill, and while I know that it would take at least a year for anything to happen, having it come up in the election cycle may be helpful for passage too.

Check it out at this link

I hope that others can clearly see the benefit that this would have; after all, what other business is allowed to have such open-ended contracts that allow terms to float so freely on only one side?

Hope your Thanksgiving is going better...

Ever since MST3k was cancelled....

I know that more than a few people were rather disappointed to hear the news in mid-2000 that MST3k would be stopping production. As for myself, that was the one and only show that I cared to sit down and watch on a regular basis. When MST3k left the air, I did give some time to a couple other shows to see if they were still worth watching.

While "South Park" was a decent satire and had some intelligence to its writing, Parker and Stone were also content to fill it with all sorts of rather unintelligent vulgarness. I don't really mind vulgar to some extent, but I do mind the spirit with which it was presented... as pure humor. That's not humor to me, it's just laziness. I left "South Park" in 1999, and have never looked back.

The next show which seemed to offer some promise was "The Daily Show". The first ten minutes, "Headlines", delivered on a pretty regular basis. Unfortunately, "The Daily Show" could not keep my attention for even half an hour... almost every interview ranged from mildly boring to completely excruciating, and many of the comedians they booked to be commentators were rather unworthy of even being called comedians.

It took a couple of years, but I have found at least a bit of relief on the television. Ever since 2005, I have become a fan of "House" on FOX. Some people could certainly draw apt comparisons between "House" and "South Park", but I feel that "House" is just more interesting. I haven't seen too many episodes of "House" where the humor becomes scatological just because it can, for instance.

It also has a high level of snark in the form of the main character, and while some of the medical cases get stretched so thin that I can even see the light between the plotholes, the writing is pretty darned decent... jokes fly at a well-rhythmed clip, the mystery of the week is presented and resolved, and the characters have becomed nuanced and interesting.

My recommendation, if possible, would be to see Season 2... S2 hooked my attention to the show because of the overall quality. While current episodes of "House" haven't quite reached that level since then, it's still worth checking out.

Of course, I also have a recent entry in this list too. I don't know why my wife and I sat down to watch it, but a few weeks ago we caught the second episode of the new "Kitchen Nightmares" series on Fox. It also has some elements of MST3k in it, where one expert (rather than three) checks out a substandard restaurant (rather than movie) and makes comments on what he sees.

Of course, the "humor" contained in "Kitchen Nightmares" is of a far guiltier cast... this IS a reality show, and of course when truth is introduced, especially with the bluntness of the main star Gordon Ramsay, feelings will get bent. On the other hand, two facts are immensely apparent. Ramsay's bluntness is just who he is, it's really not an 'act'... and that he seems geniunely involved in trying to bring
restaurants into a better shape. Seeing the inner workings of a restaurant also brings a very close appreciation for people who run restaurants... and may also give you (possibly reasonable?) pause to make sure any restaurant you're going to is serving good food.

I will be the first to admit that most shows I avoid are because I don't give them a try... I'm not the type that just goes up to the television and flicks it on. I would be far more apt to either turn on a video game or read a book. It was actually surprising that I found the two shows above, in all honesty. On top of that, late-night television (such as "Adult Swim" on Cartoon Network) has always been out for me, due to me graduating from college in the same year that my
daughter was born (2002). And as a young professional on one income, I've had cable television for a total of perhaps 40% of the time since 2002.

Our readership at this blog, I assume, enjoyed Mystery Science Theater 3000 or its offshoots such as MST fanfiction. Therefore, my question to anyone reading is this: What shows on television do you see which continue the Mystery Science Theater 3000 spirit?


Postscript 1 / Strike 2

Most recent possible job fell through. Rather surprisingly too, I thought that I received indications that it was actually moving along successfully. While I know that intellectually, disappointments will happen, that doesn't mean that I *welcome* them. Especially since this was a job that I was really looking forward too, one that could have provided me with a lifetime of fringe benefits. Which leads me to:


Postscript 2 / Effing viral marketeers

Not the ones that try to stir up a word-of-mouth buzz, but the ones that hide little chunks of code into seemingly-legitimate computer programs that end up completely destroying someone else's property... namely, my computer. Last night, I attempted to reload WinXP on my computer. Now I'm working on about four hours' sleep plus having to move back a step (from XP to 98) due to a scratched WinXP CD which now won't install correctly. Today's really starting to become a massive pain in the butt, and I'm more than ready to just take a four-day weekend. Thank heaven it's already set up to be a three-day weekend.


Postscript THREE / Blogger!

I wrote this entry in Notepad, which theoretically has no formatting whatsoever... it's text! Yet I have to spend time formatting this darn thing 'cause I love you readers so. Darn you, Blogger, for your crufty interface and text breaks!


(Note to world. Please don't make me get to Postscript Four. Please?)

Don Imus, Duke University, and the Art of Media Persecution:

Since this is a blog, this provides a forum pretty much world-wide in its scope. These opinions are purely mine, though I would be more than happy to enter debate on this matter as well.

Today's subject though may seem recycled to many. I hope that is the case, because I have also reached my saturation point on two issues as well. These two issues, Don Imus and the Duke University lacrosse team, are inextricably linked in my mind. This is because the court of "Public Opinion" has tried and convicted both, and doesn't seem to see any sorts of lesson to learn from one matter to apply to the other.

Firstly, the parable of the Duke University lacrosse team. If many may remember, the Duke University lacrosse team threw a party, and also had some women at this party. One of the women who attended this party leveled allegations against members of this team which resulted in criminal charges to these members. And then the media got involved. Because of shield laws, all the information could not be published, which is and should be absolutely fine. BUT, the same mass media published incomplete accounts. Due to the media's description, everyone became outraged and reacted rather than to take a step back to say, "Wait. These men are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around."

Now, the last of the charges have been dropped against these men. Now, here's a key distinction: because my information is still incomplete, for all I know they could still be guilty, and the prosecutor may just not have the evidence. I honestly don't know. What I *do* know is that a much more exhaustive investigation than the initial publishing of the charges has happened, and as a result of that investigation charges have been dropped. And in the court's eyes, this does mean that these men are innocent. Following this announcement, the last point of the matter is that the media was completely irresponsible in broadcasting "news" to inform people, they merely attempted to inflame people in order to hopefully justify more coverage and therefore more viewers, so that their profit margins could be satisfied.

Congratulations, mass media. You did it again.

The latest controversy is Don Imus and the comments he made in regards to the Rutger's women's basketball team. I took the time to at least obtain the transcript for his comments. His exact words were "nappy-haired ho's". While this is not exactly respectful and the word choice is poor, the resulting media blitz of blame for Don Imus is morally bankrupt. I'm sure that we as humans have all been in unfortunate situations, and that we do make mistakes. Don Imus has taken many pains to apologize, and whether or not you may believe it is your choice.

People were offended. So be it. However, this is not a crisis. This should not even be a tempest in a teapot. The mass media has constructed yet another crisis out of something that is terrifically and horribly minor. Additionally, how is anyone helping the situation by dwelling on what has happened instead of moving on? He was wrong, and I will repeat that as many times as needed. But this does not justify all of what is STILL going on. I have seen this same topic on NBC's flagship morning program, "The Today Show", at least three days in a row. ESPN was more than happy to discuss it too. This topic has been kept in the public view for days now, and in a number of different ways. And like it or not, this situation is being exploited.

To begin, the mainstream media gives time to people who would normally not warrant national media exposure but who are happy to receive such attention in situations like these Examples include Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both "Reverends", who seem not to have heard of the creed of forgiving others as God would forgive. Can anyone name the last time that Al Sharpton appeared for two days in a row on the Today show on NBC? These people are more than happy to continue this idiocy, due to the recognition and national scope they are provided. In other words, they have a *VESTED* interest in keeping this mess rolling, and they are doing an admirable job. Of course, this dovetails nicely into the media's wishes to keep this issue at the forefront of national news, as analyzed below.

Secondly, the media members themselves (namely the anchors) as well as the network (MSNBC, where Imus's show used to be simulcast on television) get to show the viewers how very indignant they are, and therefore superior, fair, and steady mouthpieces who are far more inclusive and sensitive than Imus is. Special mention goes to MSNBC, who first decided to suspend Imus for two weeks, and now has completely pulled his show less than 48 hours after deciding its initial punishment. I would like to mention that it is a good thing that the corporate supervisors at MSNBC are not in charge of our court systems, as I would hate to be the convict who received sentencing, and further sentencing, and further sentencing.

Third, further special note goes to the fact that MSNBC removed Imus from simulcast. Your message to your viewers is so mixed, I can't even decipher it. You knew that Imus was not the most politically correct person to host a radio show, or at least I can only presume that MSNBC has some sort of screening process for the people who appear on MSNBC's airwaves. But when the man says something the slightest bit controversial, not even something that is up to libel standards, you fire him. So, what is your choice? You want controversy, but now you don't? You purport to give your viewers facts and information, but you were broadcasting the OPINIONS of a radio host, and then let him go when his opinions become unpopular. Are you afraid that people can't think for themselves if they hear unpopular opinions? You don't think your viewers are capable of saying, "You know what, he may be wrong about this issue"?

While I believe the above is true to some extent, I believe that the truth lies elsewhere. MSNBC, you have reinforced a valuable lesson to every last one of your viewers. Imus's sponsors pulled their ads due to what he said. What if he had said something extremely unpopular but true? If sponsors pulled their ads due to what he may have said, would he still have been let go? If Snoop Dogg was a guest of Imus and had said the exact same words about the exact same people, would the statement still have been completely false?

Now as a result of all this attention, we have an issue that is at everyone's lips. This is for all the wrong reasons and it is because the media conflated it into a major issue. Congratulations, NBC, and other major networks. I do not know if you feel that this is *gaining* you viewers, but you have just guaranteed to your sponsors that I will NOT be watching the commercials which you have based your business decisions on. Enjoy your pursuit of "news" without me.

The epilogue of this matter is that gross profiteering, especially in organizations that are supposed to be "fair" and "unbiased", is just as shameful as any of the comments that Don Imus uttered.

I am sure that I will be labeled as a conservative purely due to the side that I am taking on this matter, which presupposes that this is not an important matter. I am sure that some people feel that this is an important matter. So be it, I will not argue that point at present. But I do not feel that this matter should have been blown up to these proportions. I am currently arguing for a rational point of view. These comments were uttered on 5 April 2007, and it is now 12 April 2007 and this is still a major news story.

To all who disagree with my stance above, please explain why this is still a major news story. The man has been punished, twice, so when does the story end? Is there nothing else going on that needs the media's attention, such as Iraq or any current legislation that is being passed in Congress? In this situation, I really have to question the motives behind how this issue has been reported by the media, and who really stands to gain the most from what has happened.

Many apologies to the people who live outside the United States who were subjected to the above rant. I hope that your medias aren't as exploitative as ours.

I do not have a lot of time to surf the Internet, so therefore I do not know if this rant is written elsewhere. However I can assure you that these are my words, and any debate they engender would be welcome.