Sunday, May 24, 2009
New rule for commercial websites
If you no longer have something in stock and it isn't going to be in stock again, don't list it on the only page that exists that lists things in stock, you frustrating teases. Set up a separate page showing what you've sold in the past, indicting the types of things you would be able to get in the future. Not a happy sunday.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sarah Palin's Clothes
So just to clarify, I couldn't care less how much the RNC spent on Sarah Palin and family's clothes. 150K, while obviously a big number, isn't necessarily that much when it comes to dressing a family in top-quality camera and crowd sparkling clothing. Particularly when you're running on a ticket with a man who can't remember how many houses he owns (the answer was ultimately determined to be 7, so that gives you a sense of what we're working with).
No, my issue was I wanted to know what exactly she bought. I understood she went to Saks and Neimans and Barneys, so put in context, I can see how you'd get to that number. But you'd hear this number thrown around, a lot of shock and awe, and then the handful of people like me were left silently asking, but wait, what did she spend it on?
I found at least one answer: 50k went to Escada. Now Escada just isn't for me. Too much a toned down version of the eighties power/socialite woman. It explained a lot, actually, because I kept looking at her clothes and wondering how she could have spent so much money and still look so blah.
Her glasses were $374 Kazuo Kawasakis (I never thought much of those and never understood the attraction - again, it seemed a really strong 80s throwback).
For her acceptance speech at the RNC convention she went with a $2500 Valentino jacket (see photo - cute jacket so not clear why they couldn't have given her a skirt that actually did something for the jacket).
A few tidbits. None that satisfying...
No, my issue was I wanted to know what exactly she bought. I understood she went to Saks and Neimans and Barneys, so put in context, I can see how you'd get to that number. But you'd hear this number thrown around, a lot of shock and awe, and then the handful of people like me were left silently asking, but wait, what did she spend it on?
I found at least one answer: 50k went to Escada. Now Escada just isn't for me. Too much a toned down version of the eighties power/socialite woman. It explained a lot, actually, because I kept looking at her clothes and wondering how she could have spent so much money and still look so blah.
Her glasses were $374 Kazuo Kawasakis (I never thought much of those and never understood the attraction - again, it seemed a really strong 80s throwback).
For her acceptance speech at the RNC convention she went with a $2500 Valentino jacket (see photo - cute jacket so not clear why they couldn't have given her a skirt that actually did something for the jacket).
A few tidbits. None that satisfying...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Cost of medicine
This is obviously a very hot topic lately, so I want to post an article I came across that caught my eye: "Burned Baby's Parents Charged, Mother: Didn't Want to Pay for Ambulance"
As is often the case in these situations, many things went wrong. An infant was left unattended in a sink, a toddler was left unattended, the extent of wounds was underestimated and balanced against the estimated cost.
A couple thoughts. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about whether or not people have a right to health care (and from what I read on message boards, many people do not believe there is a right to health care), when the lack of affordable health care leads to serious injury and potential death, you have a social program that destroys its citizens. The issue isn't that these parents made a mistake, but rather their thought process. They love their child, but can't afford the cost of an ambulance and couldn't get a ride to the hospital. The wounds didn't look serious, so when they could get there they didn't go, because they couldn't afford the cost of care. Now society wants to charge them for not giving the child care they couldn't afford.
I think it's a very difficult question. It seems not unlike debtor's jail - if you can't afford your child's medical treatment, you are a criminal. Yes, a child is a human life and as a result, anything done to hurt the child is an attack against a human. And my response here would be that by deciding to have a child, these people took on that responsibility until the child is at an age of majority.
The only problem is, you don't end up with a child the way you end up with a pair of shoes you don't need. Particularly when you're poor and grow up in circumstances that put different values on family and motherhood and validate a sense of identity for a girl growing up in what are highly unusual circumstances to the people in the judiciary/jury who would pass judgment on this case when she becomes a mother. She finally becomes someone. Moreover, children have a tendency to pop out, often regardless of whether precautions are taken.
Point merely being that, as with many of these situations, the issue is extremely complicated and is far from being a simple case of abuse. It actually doesn't sound like abuse at all to me. And furthermore, I think we undermine the importance of going after abuse when we call what are rational actions in certain people's minds, as a result of their circumstances, abuse. We owe the people who end up in these circumstances far more than to call them criminals and post their photos on the web. They need to be treated like human beings. They needed that a long time ago. And instead of doing anything about it, we chastise them years later when their actions are inconsistent with what we think is appropriate. Where were we when they needed to learn how to deal with these situations? What solutions are we providing?
As is often the case in these situations, many things went wrong. An infant was left unattended in a sink, a toddler was left unattended, the extent of wounds was underestimated and balanced against the estimated cost.
A couple thoughts. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about whether or not people have a right to health care (and from what I read on message boards, many people do not believe there is a right to health care), when the lack of affordable health care leads to serious injury and potential death, you have a social program that destroys its citizens. The issue isn't that these parents made a mistake, but rather their thought process. They love their child, but can't afford the cost of an ambulance and couldn't get a ride to the hospital. The wounds didn't look serious, so when they could get there they didn't go, because they couldn't afford the cost of care. Now society wants to charge them for not giving the child care they couldn't afford.
I think it's a very difficult question. It seems not unlike debtor's jail - if you can't afford your child's medical treatment, you are a criminal. Yes, a child is a human life and as a result, anything done to hurt the child is an attack against a human. And my response here would be that by deciding to have a child, these people took on that responsibility until the child is at an age of majority.
The only problem is, you don't end up with a child the way you end up with a pair of shoes you don't need. Particularly when you're poor and grow up in circumstances that put different values on family and motherhood and validate a sense of identity for a girl growing up in what are highly unusual circumstances to the people in the judiciary/jury who would pass judgment on this case when she becomes a mother. She finally becomes someone. Moreover, children have a tendency to pop out, often regardless of whether precautions are taken.
Point merely being that, as with many of these situations, the issue is extremely complicated and is far from being a simple case of abuse. It actually doesn't sound like abuse at all to me. And furthermore, I think we undermine the importance of going after abuse when we call what are rational actions in certain people's minds, as a result of their circumstances, abuse. We owe the people who end up in these circumstances far more than to call them criminals and post their photos on the web. They need to be treated like human beings. They needed that a long time ago. And instead of doing anything about it, we chastise them years later when their actions are inconsistent with what we think is appropriate. Where were we when they needed to learn how to deal with these situations? What solutions are we providing?
Why do CA and LA have the same license plate?
I recently found myself in the south of the United States and stumbled upon something that has deeply troubled me.
I first noticed it because I tend to unconsciously scan license plates as I walk past and I was struck by how many California license plates were in Louisiana. Of course, some, sure, that makes sense. But there were tons.
Until I looked closer.
I've spent a lot of time in California and so am intimately familiar with the standard California license plate. But it turns out that Louisiana's is basically the same. Red right-leaning script of the state's name on the top across a white background with the license plate number in block dark blue letters/numbers.
Apart from it being an odd coincidence, it really lacks creativity. And begs the question of what exactly, on a deeper level, California and Louisiana have in common.
I first noticed it because I tend to unconsciously scan license plates as I walk past and I was struck by how many California license plates were in Louisiana. Of course, some, sure, that makes sense. But there were tons.
Until I looked closer.
I've spent a lot of time in California and so am intimately familiar with the standard California license plate. But it turns out that Louisiana's is basically the same. Red right-leaning script of the state's name on the top across a white background with the license plate number in block dark blue letters/numbers.
Apart from it being an odd coincidence, it really lacks creativity. And begs the question of what exactly, on a deeper level, California and Louisiana have in common.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wow...
So someone else is evidently as amused with humanity as I am:
See, Craigslist Underground
I have also added this to my permanent list of sites.
See, Craigslist Underground
I have also added this to my permanent list of sites.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
More scam email...
I really like this one for some reason - it just seems absurdly improbable, so I can't imagine why anyone would sign up for this. Maybe the use of all caps is meant to entice a sense of security...oh, but no, it does the exact opposite...
This is actually a little tighter than some of the others - for example, a phone number is provided, the country code of which is actually the country the e-mail purports to come from, a street address is provided, although the address is of Afribank and not a part of the government. Sadly, as per usual, the horrific spelling errors give it away - the person writing the e-mail clearly did not even have an english word processing system built in to detect obvious orthographic missteps. Also, there's no indication of what 30th anniversary is going on and why in the world the WHO, U.N. and E.U. would randomly be giving money to people who haven't entered a contest and who were theoretically involuntarily and unknowingly entered into it, like it even makes sense that they would be joining together for something like this. But I digress because it is late. Enjoy.
______________________________________________________________
Saturday, 18 April, 2009 12:18 AM OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN PAYMENT(RESOLUTION PANEL
ON CONTRACT PAYMENT)IKOYI-LAGOS
NIGERIA14th FLOOR51/55BROAD STREET.
DEAR BENEFICIARY,
CONGRATULATIONS WE BRING TO YOUR NOTICE!!!
THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE HAS CHOSEN YOU BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEE AS ONE OF THE FINAL RECIPIENT OF THIS
NEW YEAR 2009 PROMOTION CASH GRANT/DONATION, TO
CELEBRATE THE 30th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATE, WE ARE GIVING OUT A YEARLY
DONATION OF THE ATM CARD VALUE IS USD($500,000.00) FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS TO 7 LUCK RECIPIENTS, AS NEW YEAR
PROMOTION FROM THE W.H.O,UN,AND THE EU in ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENABLING
ACT PARLIATED.THE ATM GRANT/AID ONLY COLLECT EMAIL ADDRESS OF FINAL
RECIPIENT FROM DEFFERENT COUNTRY: UNITED STATS, GREECE, SAUDI ARABIA,
EUROPE,ETC.AND WITH AN ELECTRONIC BALLOTING SYSTEM, WITHOUT THE
RECIPIENT APPLYING, YOU EMERGED ONE OF OUR LUCKY BENEFICIARY.
YOU ARE TO FILL OUT THE BELOW INFORMATION AND SEND IT BACK TO THE
PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE VIA EMAIL CONTACT ADDRESS.
WINNING BATCH No:(W-342-8876,U-500-32)
FULL NAME:________________________
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:______________
OCCUPATION:_______________________
NATIONALITY:______________________
PRESENT COUNTRY:__________________
AGE:_______________________________
SEX:_______________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER:________________
ONCE AGAIN CONGRATULATIONS.....
(PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE CONTACT)
Mr.Fred Usman
E-Mail:fred.usman@msn.com
Tele- +234-805-1860-375
This is actually a little tighter than some of the others - for example, a phone number is provided, the country code of which is actually the country the e-mail purports to come from, a street address is provided, although the address is of Afribank and not a part of the government. Sadly, as per usual, the horrific spelling errors give it away - the person writing the e-mail clearly did not even have an english word processing system built in to detect obvious orthographic missteps. Also, there's no indication of what 30th anniversary is going on and why in the world the WHO, U.N. and E.U. would randomly be giving money to people who haven't entered a contest and who were theoretically involuntarily and unknowingly entered into it, like it even makes sense that they would be joining together for something like this. But I digress because it is late. Enjoy.
______________________________________________________________
BATCH No:(W-342-8876,U-500-32)
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN PAYMENT(RESOLUTION PANEL
ON CONTRACT PAYMENT)IKOYI-LAGOS
NIGERIA14th FLOOR51/55BROAD STREET.
DEAR BENEFICIARY,
CONGRATULATIONS WE BRING TO YOUR NOTICE!!!
THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE HAS CHOSEN YOU BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEE AS ONE OF THE FINAL RECIPIENT OF THIS
NEW YEAR 2009 PROMOTION CASH GRANT/DONATION, TO
CELEBRATE THE 30th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATE, WE ARE GIVING OUT A YEARLY
DONATION OF THE ATM CARD VALUE IS USD($500,000.00) FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS TO 7 LUCK RECIPIENTS, AS NEW YEAR
PROMOTION FROM THE W.H.O,UN,AND THE EU in ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENABLING
ACT PARLIATED.THE ATM GRANT/AID ONLY COLLECT EMAIL ADDRESS OF FINAL
RECIPIENT FROM DEFFERENT COUNTRY: UNITED STATS, GREECE, SAUDI ARABIA,
EUROPE,ETC.AND WITH AN ELECTRONIC BALLOTING SYSTEM, WITHOUT THE
RECIPIENT APPLYING, YOU EMERGED ONE OF OUR LUCKY BENEFICIARY.
YOU ARE TO FILL OUT THE BELOW INFORMATION AND SEND IT BACK TO THE
PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE VIA EMAIL CONTACT ADDRESS.
WINNING BATCH No:(W-342-8876,U-500-32)
FULL NAME:________________________
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:______________
OCCUPATION:_______________________
NATIONALITY:______________________
PRESENT COUNTRY:__________________
AGE:_______________________________
SEX:_______________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER:________________
ONCE AGAIN CONGRATULATIONS.....
(PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE CONTACT)
Mr.Fred Usman
E-Mail:fred.usman@msn.com
Tele- +234-805-1860-375
Friday, April 17, 2009
What is up with the U.S. Governors?
Now, governors, while generally thought of as statesmen, are of course primarily politicians. It isn't that they are primarily motivated by politics - the good ones aren't. It's that in order to productively effect change in American society as currently designed, politics, in one shape or form, is the best forum.
And to back up a second, "politics" isn't a bad word. There are two main classes of definitions for "politics"
- one referring specifically to the act of governing/managing a nation or other governmentally-defined body and another that deals more with the derogatory notion 
that people are engaged in behavior that is not substantive but rather more along the lines of "social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power." People tend to collapse the two into one since often to engage in the former brand of politics, one is required to engage in the latter. It's the nature of our electoral system. But in no way does that mean that the former is actually just the latter. Trust me. People are actually doing real things to help people and our society and it does absolutely nothing for them. You won't hear about it a lot, because it doesn't fall in that second category and given that we all want the instant gratification of sensationalism, it just doesn't get coverage. But it's very very real.Now given this, I've been deeply weirded out over the last few months or so by the bizarre behaviors of U.S. state governors. We'll start with Governor Rick Perry of Texas' recent suggestion tha
t Texas might, again, secede from the Union. He claims not to have specifically said it would, but rather ominously in the midst of standard tax day protests: "Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede from the union despite some talk about it on the Internet. But he said Americans are getting fed up with Washington and that it's unknown what that might lead to one day."While I understand and actually respect the sentiment and moreover the lack of reverence for authority, it doesn't work that well when you ARE authority. It's fine if some bizarre anarchist covered with tea bags makes this sort of vague threat to the Union and Washington but really not cool when a governor does it. I understand it's posturing and all politics is local, but really
, it's just hack work. Part of it is the impotence Perry must feel. And part of it has to do with the irresponsible behavior of the electorate. We really should not be electing these types of people to posts where they have massive power and influence. See, only a fifth of Texas voters would actually want to secede -and I can't imagine that's much higher than in other places. Again, it's posturing but the thing is, Washington doesn't need that much from the states. It doesn't really matter if Perry is upset or not. So it's really just a waste of the taxpayers' time.See, e.g., the decision, well not decision but posturing, about not accepting federal stimulus funds. The pro
blem here, again, is that if you're a radical with no one (or other radicals) to answer to, you can adhere to a strict belief system. In the real world, and particularly in the political world, and particularly in a diverse state, you are in the end beholden to your constituents. So Mark Sanford of South Carolina who went off about not taking stimulus funds, well, he's having to backtrack. Sanford's particular issue was that he wanted to use the stimulus funds not for education, but for paying off the state's debt. My guess is the people of South Carolina, on the whole, would like to see their schools fixed and some jobs immediately created in the process.I won't bother going through all the republican governors who played this absurd game because it isn't worth my time to pull up all the articles b.c., big picture, all the stories are the same.
Of course, this is the primary pool from which we pull presidents. And I worry about these
behaviors because it appears to show that they don't know when to knock it off with the second definition of politics and get back to the first one. I will grant that there are numerous arguments against the use of stimulus funds in specific circumstances but none of them hold water when you consider that economies go beyond an individual state. So if a neighboring state is getting this money and yours isn't, that isn't going to help you, regardless of how laudable your long-term financial and economic view was.Saying the government shouldn't give out money by not personally accepting it isn't going to stop the government from giving out money. That's just not how it works.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Somalia
Someone misunderstood, entirely in fact, what I was saying the other day and thought I was expressing sympathy for Somali pirates. Apart from being an alarmingly stupid interpretation of anything I would say, it bothered me more generally because I fear that extremist left-wing individuals without much information are thinking that really, these "rich" Western nations are in the wrong and these "pirates" (it offends me that the term is used as their activities do not at all rise to level of impressive piracy) are behaving appropriately given the circumstances. It should be noted that this is a variation on the belief that Western nations are responsible for poverty in Middle Eastern nations (actually the fault of the ruling oligarchies) and so on and so forth and as a result, human beings are allowed to randomly attack other human beings without consequence.
Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with the world order but certainly anarchy is no solution. No one wins under that scenario.
Somalia has been vaguely painted in the press as a horribly poor country just fighting for survival through these acts. That's not what's going on. This is just another form of the young men without a sense of propriety, discipline, or law enforcement to control their impulsiveness deciding to harass other people so they can engage in whatever marks tacky nouveau riche behavior in their society. There, here's what it is:
"With their black scarves covering their faces and submachine guns slung over their arms, Somalia’s pirates are the real Jack Sparrows of the twenty-first century, minus the eyeliner. One young woman who lives near Boosaaso bragged about going to a pirate wedding that lasted two days. A band was flown in from neighboring Djibouti. There was nonstop dancing and an endless supply of goat meat. “They drive the best cars, they throw the best parties,” she gushed. “We all want to marry them.” She claimed that her own pirate boyfriend had just given her a small gift—$350,000 in cash. For young Somali men, pirate life is becoming too much to resist. Fishermen all along the coast have traded in their ragged fishing nets for rocket-propelled grenades."
Sounds a lot like the Colombian drug lords back in the day, no? And the current Mexican drug lords? And like a lot of people in....well, I've decided against insulting people for a while (but think, hotbed for the nouveau riche).
The twist on this actually also follows the traditional route for justification of this behavior - someone has done something upsetting to the environment and so, drastic behavior that has nothing to do with the original issue is appropriate. In this case, a couple decades ago the country's government fell apart and then things were found floating in what I will assume were national waters for the Somali pirates' benefit in this argument and there was overfishing and so, there was a right to attack international vessels, hold people aboard hostage and extract huge amounts of ransom money. Um okay. Let's say they'd done this and used the money to fix the water, block international vessels from fishing within their waters, etc. Then, maybe, maybe, there would be an argument. It wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable, given that it was unlikely the fisherman could actually reach out to those corporations and demand restitution. Of course, that isn't what they did with the money. Instead, it's now a business, with investors, inventory, ROI estimates etc. without any connection to improving the nation. It is, however, dedicated to a redistribution of wealth from "wealthy" countries to violent people in developing countries.
Just a point - there's no need for violent people in developing countries to have more money. Ergo, there's no reason to support the actions of the pirates. And people who do can turn their money over to the pirates voluntarily. Go ahead.
Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with the world order but certainly anarchy is no solution. No one wins under that scenario.
Somalia has been vaguely painted in the press as a horribly poor country just fighting for survival through these acts. That's not what's going on. This is just another form of the young men without a sense of propriety, discipline, or law enforcement to control their impulsiveness deciding to harass other people so they can engage in whatever marks tacky nouveau riche behavior in their society. There, here's what it is:
"With their black scarves covering their faces and submachine guns slung over their arms, Somalia’s pirates are the real Jack Sparrows of the twenty-first century, minus the eyeliner. One young woman who lives near Boosaaso bragged about going to a pirate wedding that lasted two days. A band was flown in from neighboring Djibouti. There was nonstop dancing and an endless supply of goat meat. “They drive the best cars, they throw the best parties,” she gushed. “We all want to marry them.” She claimed that her own pirate boyfriend had just given her a small gift—$350,000 in cash. For young Somali men, pirate life is becoming too much to resist. Fishermen all along the coast have traded in their ragged fishing nets for rocket-propelled grenades."
Sounds a lot like the Colombian drug lords back in the day, no? And the current Mexican drug lords? And like a lot of people in....well, I've decided against insulting people for a while (but think, hotbed for the nouveau riche).
The twist on this actually also follows the traditional route for justification of this behavior - someone has done something upsetting to the environment and so, drastic behavior that has nothing to do with the original issue is appropriate. In this case, a couple decades ago the country's government fell apart and then things were found floating in what I will assume were national waters for the Somali pirates' benefit in this argument and there was overfishing and so, there was a right to attack international vessels, hold people aboard hostage and extract huge amounts of ransom money. Um okay. Let's say they'd done this and used the money to fix the water, block international vessels from fishing within their waters, etc. Then, maybe, maybe, there would be an argument. It wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable, given that it was unlikely the fisherman could actually reach out to those corporations and demand restitution. Of course, that isn't what they did with the money. Instead, it's now a business, with investors, inventory, ROI estimates etc. without any connection to improving the nation. It is, however, dedicated to a redistribution of wealth from "wealthy" countries to violent people in developing countries.
Just a point - there's no need for violent people in developing countries to have more money. Ergo, there's no reason to support the actions of the pirates. And people who do can turn their money over to the pirates voluntarily. Go ahead.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Is CNN getting its news from gvmt propaganda?
This struck me as a really odd coincidence. Today, CNN is reporting a "news" story that is not really news and that I saw a week ago or so on the award-winning Pentagon Channel. (no idea if the Pentagon Channel has won awards and I certainly hope not as it is essentially military 
propaganda, mixed in with weird stuff like my favorite, "Fit for Duty," an 
exercise/aerobics show with three people in what must be military work-out gear, generally using steps)
The reason the show caught my attention the first time is that it wasn't really news. Basically, the military is paying for enlisted men to get financial advice. The show I saw focused on forces stationed in Europe. It was sandwiched in between a bunch of other feel-good stories like a fellow in Germany getting a new car from Pizza Hut. So there was really no reason for anyone else to pick up on it.
So when I just saw this on CNN I had to wonder, why exactly is CNN reporting on this? It really made me wonder about what other CNN-origin "news" I saw was actually a product of government propaganda. Can we even trust the validity of things reported as news on CNN?
propaganda, mixed in with weird stuff like my favorite, "Fit for Duty," an 
exercise/aerobics show with three people in what must be military work-out gear, generally using steps)The reason the show caught my attention the first time is that it wasn't really news. Basically, the military is paying for enlisted men to get financial advice. The show I saw focused on forces stationed in Europe. It was sandwiched in between a bunch of other feel-good stories like a fellow in Germany getting a new car from Pizza Hut. So there was really no reason for anyone else to pick up on it.
So when I just saw this on CNN I had to wonder, why exactly is CNN reporting on this? It really made me wonder about what other CNN-origin "news" I saw was actually a product of government propaganda. Can we even trust the validity of things reported as news on CNN?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Signs we may actually be at war...
***You go to the movies and prior to the feature presentation are subject to propaganda videos, designed for our times.***
Please see, "G
uardian," courtesy of Kid Rock in conjunction with, yes, the NATIONAL GUARD.
The U.S., while in a horrible recession (I prefer saying depression but people give me a look of death), looking to raise taxes, cutting the professionals in the Navy claiming mass redundancies, while all this is going on, they choose to spend money on REALLY expensive commercials, including a rock video.
So yesterday I went to the movies, and the entire run of previews was sponsored by the National Guard and branches of the armed services. This was a little creepy and I be
came nervous. However, once the ode to the armed services became a rock video, I was genuinely troubled.
I alluded to the cost above, just because the production values were extremely high and seriously, the commercials I saw must have cost a fortune. But more importantly, and because the things that come out of my mouth when unguarded are more insightful, I turned to my boyfriend and said, if this isn't like putting cartoon characters on cigarette boxes I don't know what is. He, appropriately, gave me the, I can't believe you just said that as it is totally inappropriate as this is the government and involves patriotic values etc. Of course, the question is, does it.
The problem with military recruitment is the way in which it skews towards those with greater financial needs through its incentive programs and the opportunity to get a job without the
connections that are typically otherwise necessary since we don't actually live in a meritocracy (see random Army recruitment video). There are always exceptions to this, but I want to talk about the bigger issue. Making the whole thing exciting and glamorous and having there be a rock video in which soldiers are these perfect heroes obviously exacerbates these issues. It panders, again, to those who have not been fully educated as to what the military really does and the impact it has on other nations. My biggest issue is probably that it panders to the image of members of the armed forces as precisely what they should not be - that is, violent, irreverent, blind balls of frenetic energy that can ru
n off in any direction.
Most of all, the videos were obviously propaganda films, a la, WWII and various other wars. For those who aren't aware, previews in the cinema were a regular forum for these videos and the videos were often weird.
(as examples of weird I offer a couple of Walt Disney examples --> Donald Duck
anti-Nazi film and a truly troubling example of a cartoon-style documentary, the style of which will be familiar to anyone who grew up watching these)
They're amusing to watch now, given that we won and all, but you have to remember that the Germans and the Japanese had them too. Everyone thinks they're right. And the distortion of popular culture for political/military ends seems a lot more like something an evil corporation would do for personal gain than something a benign but powerful capitalist democracy should be doing. It just troubles me. And I'm offended that I'm paying taxes for this.
Please see, "G
uardian," courtesy of Kid Rock in conjunction with, yes, the NATIONAL GUARD.The U.S., while in a horrible recession (I prefer saying depression but people give me a look of death), looking to raise taxes, cutting the professionals in the Navy claiming mass redundancies, while all this is going on, they choose to spend money on REALLY expensive commercials, including a rock video.
So yesterday I went to the movies, and the entire run of previews was sponsored by the National Guard and branches of the armed services. This was a little creepy and I be
came nervous. However, once the ode to the armed services became a rock video, I was genuinely troubled.I alluded to the cost above, just because the production values were extremely high and seriously, the commercials I saw must have cost a fortune. But more importantly, and because the things that come out of my mouth when unguarded are more insightful, I turned to my boyfriend and said, if this isn't like putting cartoon characters on cigarette boxes I don't know what is. He, appropriately, gave me the, I can't believe you just said that as it is totally inappropriate as this is the government and involves patriotic values etc. Of course, the question is, does it.
The problem with military recruitment is the way in which it skews towards those with greater financial needs through its incentive programs and the opportunity to get a job without the
connections that are typically otherwise necessary since we don't actually live in a meritocracy (see random Army recruitment video). There are always exceptions to this, but I want to talk about the bigger issue. Making the whole thing exciting and glamorous and having there be a rock video in which soldiers are these perfect heroes obviously exacerbates these issues. It panders, again, to those who have not been fully educated as to what the military really does and the impact it has on other nations. My biggest issue is probably that it panders to the image of members of the armed forces as precisely what they should not be - that is, violent, irreverent, blind balls of frenetic energy that can ru
n off in any direction.Most of all, the videos were obviously propaganda films, a la, WWII and various other wars. For those who aren't aware, previews in the cinema were a regular forum for these videos and the videos were often weird.
(as examples of weird I offer a couple of Walt Disney examples --> Donald Duck
anti-Nazi film and a truly troubling example of a cartoon-style documentary, the style of which will be familiar to anyone who grew up watching these)They're amusing to watch now, given that we won and all, but you have to remember that the Germans and the Japanese had them too. Everyone thinks they're right. And the distortion of popular culture for political/military ends seems a lot more like something an evil corporation would do for personal gain than something a benign but powerful capitalist democracy should be doing. It just troubles me. And I'm offended that I'm paying taxes for this.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Ponzi Schemes!
People are rather riled up about ponzi schemes right now, because discussion of Bernie Madoff's
business dealings was evidently some people's first exposure to the concept of ponzi schemes. I find this very hard to believe, but have no other explanation for the sudden intense upswing in scrutiny of ponzi schemes.
Background: What are "P
onzi schemes" and why are they called that?
Ponzi was an Italian immigrant to the United States who first learned of the concept, at least in a business context, from working at a Canadian bank that employed this plan to entice people to deposit their money there - those depositing money were offered double the going market interest rate, this drawing in so many new depositors (the bank relied primarily on Italian immigrants), that it was able to keep up these interest payments despite bad loans, which in any case, probably wouldn't have been sufficient to make the interest payments and sustain a profitable bank. When the bank failed, the owner fled with a substantial portion of the money to Mexico.
Ponzi ended up slipping into a former customer's office and writing himself a check to facilitate his escape to America, but was caught by police and spent 3 years in prison.
He then got involved in a scheme to smuggle immigrants across the border and ended up spending a couple more years in an American prison when he met and studied the fashionings of a Wall Street scam artist, Charles Morse.
Ponzi's Scheme, Part 1: International Reply Coupons
IRCs are this rather fabulous device that allows people who are in one country and want to allow people in another country to send them things pre-paid to do so by translating a coupon bought in say, Italy, into postage in the United States. Basically like those pre-paid return envelop
es you get from catalog companies. But the trick was that arbitrage was a valuable option due to the disparity in currency/postage values between the great wars. You paid for the cost of postage in the country of origin and then got to exchange that for the equivalent cost of postage in the country of receipt. In this case, Italy was a low-cost postage country, the United States a relatively high-cost country and as a result, money sent from the U.S. to Italy to buy IRCs which were then returned to the U.S. could then be turned into U.S. postage of a greater value than the amount sent. Pretty impressive, really. Evidently the profit was something like 400%, although it did have the complication of having to sell U.S. postage as a private citizen.
This is still a possibility, if you're on top of the fluctuations in cost of living between different countries. It was a solid plan, theoretically, but difficult to implement (potentially so difficult that the costs would have been prohibitive for a profitable company) and ultimately, Ponzi was lazy and a result he ended up paying off old investors with the investments of new investors.
In a dying interview, he expressed what sounds, uncomfortably like many financiers today: "Even if they
never got anything for it, it was cheap at that price. Without malice aforethought I had given them the best show that was ever staged in their territory since the landing of the Pilgrims! It was easily worth fifteen million bucks to watch me put the thing over."
Many, many other Ponzi schemes:
If you are interested, there are plenty more examples, all following the same basic premise. Among the more interesting are a Scientology scam by Reed Slatkin, a "minister" of the "religion." Weirdly, at some point this involved a Grateful Dead roadie: "Federal prosecutors announced tax-evasion charges Tuesday against former Grateful Dead road manager Ronald L. Rakow and his girlfriend in connection with a scheme to conceal Rakow’s income, much of which he earned working for convicted Ponzi scheme operator Reed Slatkin."
Other things that for average people are scams and thus categorized as pyramid schemes as some sort and about which a bunch of difficult people who don't mind average people being scammed whine that they're not really pyramid schemes:
Avon cosmetics, Mary Kay etc.: These really don't work nowadays because if you have a legitimate product, you don't want to rely on random "representatives" to sell the bulk of your product. You want to sell it online. In your online store.
So then what could possibly be the benefit of becoming an Avon representative?
Evidently, the solution is that you are meant to bring in other people underneath you, who are selling for you, thereby allowing you to sit around and do nothing. Basically a pyramid scheme for anyone not at the top of a pyramid within the pyramid.
The thing that's really unreasonable about this, and other "work at home" plans that are just out-and-out scams, is that they prey on the most defenseless individuals - those who are least likely to be informed, most likely to be desperate, and least likely to be able to take action against those who scammed them. I mean, at some point, it has to be a legitimate claim that the "company" you dealt with misrepresented your opportunities, understated the risk, and deliberately tried to convince you that this was just an easy at home way to make money.
Video Professor Fellow: You always have to be careful when you are given "free offers." Particularly when the underlying product makes no sense, like a dvd that teaches you how to sell things on ebay. I mean, ebay tells you that. There's not a lot to it. At all. So I was not at all surprised to discover a plethora of horror stories about inappropriate charges following a "trial" with video professor.
There are many other infomercial type scams listed here. There are many more than these, but you get the idea.
Conclusion: Use some common sense, PLEASE
I've posted absurd letters from people claiming to be some variation on the son of a deposed African prince, including response letters I've sent explaining how their letters were preposterous. I think the rule is, if you're going to be scammed, it should be a good scam. Legitimate people should be confused. It should be scammish enough to send the individuals responsible to jail. If it seems too good to be true, figure out if it really is. Don't give in to the impulse to believe that wonderful unbelievable things can happen and magically fix one's life.
business dealings was evidently some people's first exposure to the concept of ponzi schemes. I find this very hard to believe, but have no other explanation for the sudden intense upswing in scrutiny of ponzi schemes.Background: What are "P
onzi schemes" and why are they called that?Ponzi was an Italian immigrant to the United States who first learned of the concept, at least in a business context, from working at a Canadian bank that employed this plan to entice people to deposit their money there - those depositing money were offered double the going market interest rate, this drawing in so many new depositors (the bank relied primarily on Italian immigrants), that it was able to keep up these interest payments despite bad loans, which in any case, probably wouldn't have been sufficient to make the interest payments and sustain a profitable bank. When the bank failed, the owner fled with a substantial portion of the money to Mexico.
Ponzi ended up slipping into a former customer's office and writing himself a check to facilitate his escape to America, but was caught by police and spent 3 years in prison.
He then got involved in a scheme to smuggle immigrants across the border and ended up spending a couple more years in an American prison when he met and studied the fashionings of a Wall Street scam artist, Charles Morse.
Ponzi's Scheme, Part 1: International Reply Coupons
IRCs are this rather fabulous device that allows people who are in one country and want to allow people in another country to send them things pre-paid to do so by translating a coupon bought in say, Italy, into postage in the United States. Basically like those pre-paid return envelop
es you get from catalog companies. But the trick was that arbitrage was a valuable option due to the disparity in currency/postage values between the great wars. You paid for the cost of postage in the country of origin and then got to exchange that for the equivalent cost of postage in the country of receipt. In this case, Italy was a low-cost postage country, the United States a relatively high-cost country and as a result, money sent from the U.S. to Italy to buy IRCs which were then returned to the U.S. could then be turned into U.S. postage of a greater value than the amount sent. Pretty impressive, really. Evidently the profit was something like 400%, although it did have the complication of having to sell U.S. postage as a private citizen.This is still a possibility, if you're on top of the fluctuations in cost of living between different countries. It was a solid plan, theoretically, but difficult to implement (potentially so difficult that the costs would have been prohibitive for a profitable company) and ultimately, Ponzi was lazy and a result he ended up paying off old investors with the investments of new investors.
In a dying interview, he expressed what sounds, uncomfortably like many financiers today: "Even if they
never got anything for it, it was cheap at that price. Without malice aforethought I had given them the best show that was ever staged in their territory since the landing of the Pilgrims! It was easily worth fifteen million bucks to watch me put the thing over."Many, many other Ponzi schemes:
If you are interested, there are plenty more examples, all following the same basic premise. Among the more interesting are a Scientology scam by Reed Slatkin, a "minister" of the "religion." Weirdly, at some point this involved a Grateful Dead roadie: "Federal prosecutors announced tax-evasion charges Tuesday against former Grateful Dead road manager Ronald L. Rakow and his girlfriend in connection with a scheme to conceal Rakow’s income, much of which he earned working for convicted Ponzi scheme operator Reed Slatkin."
Other things that for average people are scams and thus categorized as pyramid schemes as some sort and about which a bunch of difficult people who don't mind average people being scammed whine that they're not really pyramid schemes:
Avon cosmetics, Mary Kay etc.: These really don't work nowadays because if you have a legitimate product, you don't want to rely on random "representatives" to sell the bulk of your product. You want to sell it online. In your online store.
So then what could possibly be the benefit of becoming an Avon representative?
Evidently, the solution is that you are meant to bring in other people underneath you, who are selling for you, thereby allowing you to sit around and do nothing. Basically a pyramid scheme for anyone not at the top of a pyramid within the pyramid.
The thing that's really unreasonable about this, and other "work at home" plans that are just out-and-out scams, is that they prey on the most defenseless individuals - those who are least likely to be informed, most likely to be desperate, and least likely to be able to take action against those who scammed them. I mean, at some point, it has to be a legitimate claim that the "company" you dealt with misrepresented your opportunities, understated the risk, and deliberately tried to convince you that this was just an easy at home way to make money.
Video Professor Fellow: You always have to be careful when you are given "free offers." Particularly when the underlying product makes no sense, like a dvd that teaches you how to sell things on ebay. I mean, ebay tells you that. There's not a lot to it. At all. So I was not at all surprised to discover a plethora of horror stories about inappropriate charges following a "trial" with video professor.
There are many other infomercial type scams listed here. There are many more than these, but you get the idea.
Conclusion: Use some common sense, PLEASE
I've posted absurd letters from people claiming to be some variation on the son of a deposed African prince, including response letters I've sent explaining how their letters were preposterous. I think the rule is, if you're going to be scammed, it should be a good scam. Legitimate people should be confused. It should be scammish enough to send the individuals responsible to jail. If it seems too good to be true, figure out if it really is. Don't give in to the impulse to believe that wonderful unbelievable things can happen and magically fix one's life.
Free TV, on demand
Just to make the point, www.hulu.com actually does work. There are both tv shows and movies - with tv shows, if they are on air, you can see up to 5 full episodes and usually a ton of random clips and web exclusives. Yes, there are random ads slipped in, but it's pretty much where you would see them if you actually watched the show on tv and occasionally, they offer for you to see a longer commercial at the beginning and not see commercials in the middle (a great innovation for the viewer, although from an ad perspective, I find it significantly less effective).
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Why exactly is there a requirement to switch to digital television??
Most Likely Reason - Greed
I've been wondering about this from some time. I assume there is logic (probably mostly lobbyists' money going into the hands of Congressmen, but also some logic) behind this. But the weird thing is, while you see all these television commercials telling you it's happening and how you have to get a converter bo
x (which for some reason that is completely beyond me is being subsidized by other taxpayers who aren't idiotic enough to still be watching television off an antenna), they never tell you why. There's never any rational exp
lanation for the move. I can think of some, but I'm pretty highly educated and read a lot, so I don't think it's fair to assume that other people can draw rational conclusions. The idea that the image is better is a completely ABSURD reason for such a radical action. I believe the Consumer Electronics Association is at the helm of this (see their annoying video explaining the switch).
Here is another explanation, that implicates both the government and industry, while doin
g nothing for consumers, so it sounds spot on and is indirectly via Consumer Reports: "The channels being returned to the government by broadcasters in February 2009 are located between Channel 51 and Channel 69 on the television dial, along one of the most highly coveted portions of the broadcast spectrum technically known as the 700 MHz band. Signals in this band travel farther and are able to easily penetrate buildings and other forms of interference.
The main concern is that there is a camera inside the converter boxes - "Matarina" from youtube posted a video trying to debunk this theory. I have to agree with those commenting that it was extremely poorly done and totally uncompelling. But 41K have watched it. Yes, a lot of people are concerned about this.
Possibility 1: Conspiracy on the part of the government to spy on Americans
The main reason I don't buy this is alluded to above - I don't know exactly how many people
have old televisions AND aren't using cable, but I just can't imagine that's the target group for a mass government spy operation. Unless you can explain how cable currently allows for this, in which case, this would close a loophole in the government spy program. There is a suggestion somewhere in this madness that specifically televisions made after 1995 are spy ready and thus do not need this addition. Here are some thoughts from random people.
2 weeks ago, user "Bookkid900" posted a video on CNN's ireport (a bizarre concept that deserves its own analysis vis-a-vis the dumbing down of "news") - in his own words "I have a friend who is kind of a conspiracy theorist. He was trying to convince me that the many of the digital TV convert boxes that our coming out have microphones and cameras built into them. Knowing a bit about electronics I bought one of these devices opened it up fully intending on proving him wrong. To my surprise was right. This device has both a miniature camera lens and what looks like a microphone. I was so shocked I took pictures and video Please send this out to every one you know who is using one of these devices." Here is his video.
Intriguingly
, after nearly 700 views, there is only one comment, suggesting that the government wouldn't be capable of transmitting this information anywhere. Which, "Southerner01," is wildly faulty, given that information is somehow going through the box. Why would it make sense that it can come in, go out into the television, but can't be broadcast elsewhere? You should really do a little research into how sophisticated spying mechanisms have become before making idiotic comments. Especially with the "southerner" moniker. I mean, really. You already have a strike against you in terms of stereotyped intelligence.
Remarkably, a crazy man broadcasting on youtube has made this point, by referencing an even crazier website.
Possibility 2: Goal of tricking Americans into beliving things have happened that haven't actually happened
The idea here is that digital is so capable of manipulation that the government would broadcast things that didn't happen to convince us they did, for unknkown purposes. The fellow who makes this compelling argument on youtube, against his best interest, goes on at length about the concern that local governments will use the information to enforce obscure sex laws. I'm not sure this creepy guy with a twin bed and child molester-style glasses should be terribly concerned about intimacy with his girlfriend being taped, but whatever. Over 21K people have watched that video.
Sure, that's possible. But who really cares? We don't have any way of knowing what's real and what's not as it is, and we never did. The government has lied to us about international af
fairs from the beginning of its existence. All governments do. So you need to accept that and move on.
Possibility 3: To harrass old people
No, not a serious concern. But an extremely funny video.
I've been wondering about this from some time. I assume there is logic (probably mostly lobbyists' money going into the hands of Congressmen, but also some logic) behind this. But the weird thing is, while you see all these television commercials telling you it's happening and how you have to get a converter bo
x (which for some reason that is completely beyond me is being subsidized by other taxpayers who aren't idiotic enough to still be watching television off an antenna), they never tell you why. There's never any rational exp
lanation for the move. I can think of some, but I'm pretty highly educated and read a lot, so I don't think it's fair to assume that other people can draw rational conclusions. The idea that the image is better is a completely ABSURD reason for such a radical action. I believe the Consumer Electronics Association is at the helm of this (see their annoying video explaining the switch).Here is another explanation, that implicates both the government and industry, while doin
g nothing for consumers, so it sounds spot on and is indirectly via Consumer Reports: "The channels being returned to the government by broadcasters in February 2009 are located between Channel 51 and Channel 69 on the television dial, along one of the most highly coveted portions of the broadcast spectrum technically known as the 700 MHz band. Signals in this band travel farther and are able to easily penetrate buildings and other forms of interference. Congress has directed the Federal Communications Commission to reserve about a third of the returned spectrum for public safety agencies and auction off the rest. The auction of those airwaves began in January 2008 and is expected to raise billions of dollars.
One of the most often mentioned uses for the returned spectrum has been wireless broadband, which could potentially provide a potent new competitor for existing high speed Internet providers, such as cable and phone companies. A host of other wireless applications are also being touted."
As things are pretty much fine for wireless applications right now, this is clearly an unnecessary step. I also wonder, honestly, why the government has a sudden need for more public safety channels that no normal people can access anymore. How would these be public safety channels? What would they do? Here is a long, somewhat interesting attack on the auction process via an amicus brief of sorts.
It just invites too much analysis. I mean even Reuters has an article lying about it: "Congress ordered the switch to digital, effective February 17, to free up public airwaves for other uses, such as for police and fire departments." I mean, really. That's obviously not why they're doing it. That's only a third of the bandwidth, and the remainder is less than is necessary to maintain analog channels.
The main concern is that there is a camera inside the converter boxes - "Matarina" from youtube posted a video trying to debunk this theory. I have to agree with those commenting that it was extremely poorly done and totally uncompelling. But 41K have watched it. Yes, a lot of people are concerned about this.
Possibility 1: Conspiracy on the part of the government to spy on Americans
The main reason I don't buy this is alluded to above - I don't know exactly how many people
have old televisions AND aren't using cable, but I just can't imagine that's the target group for a mass government spy operation. Unless you can explain how cable currently allows for this, in which case, this would close a loophole in the government spy program. There is a suggestion somewhere in this madness that specifically televisions made after 1995 are spy ready and thus do not need this addition. Here are some thoughts from random people.2 weeks ago, user "Bookkid900" posted a video on CNN's ireport (a bizarre concept that deserves its own analysis vis-a-vis the dumbing down of "news") - in his own words "I have a friend who is kind of a conspiracy theorist. He was trying to convince me that the many of the digital TV convert boxes that our coming out have microphones and cameras built into them. Knowing a bit about electronics I bought one of these devices opened it up fully intending on proving him wrong. To my surprise was right. This device has both a miniature camera lens and what looks like a microphone. I was so shocked I took pictures and video Please send this out to every one you know who is using one of these devices." Here is his video.
Intriguingly
, after nearly 700 views, there is only one comment, suggesting that the government wouldn't be capable of transmitting this information anywhere. Which, "Southerner01," is wildly faulty, given that information is somehow going through the box. Why would it make sense that it can come in, go out into the television, but can't be broadcast elsewhere? You should really do a little research into how sophisticated spying mechanisms have become before making idiotic comments. Especially with the "southerner" moniker. I mean, really. You already have a strike against you in terms of stereotyped intelligence.Remarkably, a crazy man broadcasting on youtube has made this point, by referencing an even crazier website.
Possibility 2: Goal of tricking Americans into beliving things have happened that haven't actually happened
The idea here is that digital is so capable of manipulation that the government would broadcast things that didn't happen to convince us they did, for unknkown purposes. The fellow who makes this compelling argument on youtube, against his best interest, goes on at length about the concern that local governments will use the information to enforce obscure sex laws. I'm not sure this creepy guy with a twin bed and child molester-style glasses should be terribly concerned about intimacy with his girlfriend being taped, but whatever. Over 21K people have watched that video.
Sure, that's possible. But who really cares? We don't have any way of knowing what's real and what's not as it is, and we never did. The government has lied to us about international af
fairs from the beginning of its existence. All governments do. So you need to accept that and move on.Possibility 3: To harrass old people
No, not a serious concern. But an extremely funny video.
God Bless America...
...and the occasional random laws that manage to pass that actually protect average citizens, entirely contrary to the goal of America, that being to crush 90+% of people's spirits into submission to the man. But, one of the winners prevents the jerk living somewhere in the radius of 4-5 floors on either side of me from using a jackhammer at 7am. Of course, if I find him, he will, mysteriously not be jackhammering anymore, ever. Let's say. But I did feel better on finding a maintenance employee a floor up frantically searching for the source of the noise as well. Better, as I'd specifically been told that this unacceptable maintenance and construction could not legally occur so early (because this is like the upmteenth time over the past 6 months, usually involving me finding construction workers who speak no english - see earlier posts - of course, query legality, as there is absolutely no shortage whatsoever of workers who will do construction in the heart of america at a time when the umemployment rate is hovering near 7-10% and it is relatively difficult to pass through the american educational system and have absolutely zero english profeciency. As in, unable to communicate in english that you don't speak english. I can, right now, perform that feat of wonder in 6 languages in whose countries I haven't illegally been working). So, WTF. Honestly, and they wonder why people are forced to resort to vigilante violence. Enforce the laws and make this world liveable, now. I really cannot listen to any more construction.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
What is Modal and why is it so absurdly soft?
I should start by recommending that if you are not familiar with modal, you should immediately buy a shirt made out of it. It is like really soft light cotton, just drapes wonderfully and is like magic. And it is not expensive.
Evidently it is made from reconstituted cellulose from beech trees. This evidently means it is a variation on rayon.
So what exactly is rayon? Absolutely fascinating. So rayon is "technically" not an artificial fiber because it is made from trees BUT is treated as artificial because of the enormous amount of work required to turn the beech tree into rayon. Which doesn't really make sense to me because it's not as though they just picked the cotton for my sweatshirt and boom, there it was, but whatever. Miscellaneous information: rayon was originally created in the late 1800s by the French as a silk alternative.
The proces
s of production is rather complex, so I'm just going to quote it from here: "The manufacture of rayon begins with cellulose, frequently extracted from wood pulp, although any plant material with long molecular chains is suitable. The cellulose is steeped in caustic soda, which concentrates some of the cellulose into soda cellulose, which is then rolled or pressed to remove excess soda solution. After pressing, the cellulose is shredded into a substance called white crumb. The white crumb is allowed to oxidize, forming shorter molecular chains, and treated with carbon disulfide. The soda cellulose reacts with this substance, forming yellow crumb due to inorganic compounds that emerge during the chemical process. This yellow crumb is dissolved in a caustic solution, which relaxes the hydrogen bonds in the cellulose, producing a highly viscous substance. This substance gives its name to the manufacturing process, called the viscose process.
This viscous fluid is allowed to age, breaking down the cellulose structures further to produce an even slurry, and then filtered to remove impurities. Small air pockets are forced out to ensure a strong, even fiber, and the mixture is forced through a spinner, which forms many even strands of fine thread that enter a setting solution to form cellulose filaments: also called rayon. The rayon is stretched to form a strong, even bond, washed, and then formed into rayon fabric."
The process for making modal is a variation on this, known as polynosic. So some of the differences that make rayon very different from the magnificence of modal include that the molecular chain length of the cellulose is twice as long as traditional rayon and it is actually a
mix of rayon and polyester fibers.
Modal is trademarked by Lenzing AG, which also has Tencel, another excellent fiber. Here is a video babbling on about the lovely textiles -it is in German, but it is pretty easy to get the idea.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Monkeys pt. 9
Commerical Abuse of Monkeys!
A broad subject. We will start with totally random things.
1) Career Builder's use of monkeys:
So career builder created an ad campaign that had to do with monkeys some time back. In case you don't remember, here is a link to a boardroom full of monkeys dressed in rather elegant suits, a table covered with bananas, and a disturbed regular white-collar worker. A little weirder, and as part of some sort of "alernative" viral marketing campaign, they offered up the monk-e-mail, an e-mail, the content of which contained a monkey. An example is offered here (courtesy of this site).
Okay, so this is just kind of weird and honestly, a general problem with using animals for commercial purposes. Not only is career builder relying on stereotypes to characterize monkeys but it is also using them for commercial gain, none of which goes to the monkeys. Actually, I don't know that. But I'm willing to guess that these monkeys didn't receive trusts as a result of their work. I'm actually not kidding on that point. I do kind of have an issue with this, just based on the general view that you should gain based on your work, so although perhaps the trainers etc. should receive some recompense, clearly the monkeys should as well. No really, I mean it.
2) Insane people concerned with monkeys in the media:
Um, right. So some character named "Mr. Monkey" rather unironically made a list of famous monkeys. It is full of great information, like that Howard Stern had a monkey on his show - except of course that Baba Booey is not a monkey but a nickname for a person, so it really only vaguely has to do with monkeys.
Someone I had almost forgotten about - Elijah, the pet chimp in Being John Malkovich. I've seen the movie several hundred times but didn't think of him, I suppose because he actually is so human in the movie. And is really given more attention than some of the characters by Cameron Diaz (in one of her great roles). Theoretically at least, he is really treated as a human, being given childhood psychological trauma, just like everyone else who grew up when he did.
3) Monkeys and Reality:
Now here is a thought: wikipedia has an entry titled "List of Fictional Apes." Query whether it really makes sense to call real monkeys in movies "fictional" because they are playing characters - like if you're playing a character and you don't know it, are you really fictional? I'm not at all sure. It's rather Truman Show-esque --> so if I'm living my life and don't know that I'm a character in a film, am I really a character or am I myself? I think I'm just myself.
4) Actual documentation of my babbling:
Evidently, chimps acting are doing so in a state of terror: "In order to force them to perform, trainers often beat young chimpanzees with their fists, clubs, or even broom handles. Shock devices may also be used. This systematic pattern of abuse and dominance causes the animals to be constantly anxious and fearful, always anticipating the next blow."
Yikes. And it goes on:
"Apes are routin
ely beaten into submission and forced to pantomime human behaviors that are foreign and confusing. The public learns nothing about a chimpanzee or orangutan by watching him or her riding a skateboard or dancing in a tutu. In fact, it is misleading to portray these animals as cute, cuddly, childlike creatures, and doing so encourages people to acquire these intelligent, strong, and often dangerous animals as 'pets.'"
Fair point. Chimps are not particularly good pets, nor are they human. And, dear god, Jane Goodall is in support of what I'm saying, so clearly it's correct.
But really, the problem is the same as with anything - you can forget that people are horrible until you are faced with the fact that they treat animals horrifically. I wouldn't normally cite PETA as a source, but this handout makes a rather compelling case. "Steve Martin's Working Wildlife" is a fascinating example (NB that no, not the steve martin you're thinking of).
Wow. Does this guy look creepy, or what? It really isn't surprising that he disposed of an unwanted chimp in an inappropriate manner.
In any case, this diatribe could go on indefinitely. Point being, there is something to be said for not using actual animals in commerical media. Particularly monkeys. For some reason, it looks especially exploitative.
A broad subject. We will start with totally random things.
1) Career Builder's use of monkeys:
So career builder created an ad campaign that had to do with monkeys some time back. In case you don't remember, here is a link to a boardroom full of monkeys dressed in rather elegant suits, a table covered with bananas, and a disturbed regular white-collar worker. A little weirder, and as part of some sort of "alernative" viral marketing campaign, they offered up the monk-e-mail, an e-mail, the content of which contained a monkey. An example is offered here (courtesy of this site).
Okay, so this is just kind of weird and honestly, a general problem with using animals for commercial purposes. Not only is career builder relying on stereotypes to characterize monkeys but it is also using them for commercial gain, none of which goes to the monkeys. Actually, I don't know that. But I'm willing to guess that these monkeys didn't receive trusts as a result of their work. I'm actually not kidding on that point. I do kind of have an issue with this, just based on the general view that you should gain based on your work, so although perhaps the trainers etc. should receive some recompense, clearly the monkeys should as well. No really, I mean it.
2) Insane people concerned with monkeys in the media:
Um, right. So some character named "Mr. Monkey" rather unironically made a list of famous monkeys. It is full of great information, like that Howard Stern had a monkey on his show - except of course that Baba Booey is not a monkey but a nickname for a person, so it really only vaguely has to do with monkeys.
Someone I had almost forgotten about - Elijah, the pet chimp in Being John Malkovich. I've seen the movie several hundred times but didn't think of him, I suppose because he actually is so human in the movie. And is really given more attention than some of the characters by Cameron Diaz (in one of her great roles). Theoretically at least, he is really treated as a human, being given childhood psychological trauma, just like everyone else who grew up when he did.
3) Monkeys and Reality:
Now here is a thought: wikipedia has an entry titled "List of Fictional Apes." Query whether it really makes sense to call real monkeys in movies "fictional" because they are playing characters - like if you're playing a character and you don't know it, are you really fictional? I'm not at all sure. It's rather Truman Show-esque --> so if I'm living my life and don't know that I'm a character in a film, am I really a character or am I myself? I think I'm just myself.
4) Actual documentation of my babbling:
Evidently, chimps acting are doing so in a state of terror: "In order to force them to perform, trainers often beat young chimpanzees with their fists, clubs, or even broom handles. Shock devices may also be used. This systematic pattern of abuse and dominance causes the animals to be constantly anxious and fearful, always anticipating the next blow."
Yikes. And it goes on:
"Apes are routin
ely beaten into submission and forced to pantomime human behaviors that are foreign and confusing. The public learns nothing about a chimpanzee or orangutan by watching him or her riding a skateboard or dancing in a tutu. In fact, it is misleading to portray these animals as cute, cuddly, childlike creatures, and doing so encourages people to acquire these intelligent, strong, and often dangerous animals as 'pets.'"Fair point. Chimps are not particularly good pets, nor are they human. And, dear god, Jane Goodall is in support of what I'm saying, so clearly it's correct.
But really, the problem is the same as with anything - you can forget that people are horrible until you are faced with the fact that they treat animals horrifically. I wouldn't normally cite PETA as a source, but this handout makes a rather compelling case. "Steve Martin's Working Wildlife" is a fascinating example (NB that no, not the steve martin you're thinking of).
Wow. Does this guy look creepy, or what? It really isn't surprising that he disposed of an unwanted chimp in an inappropriate manner.
In any case, this diatribe could go on indefinitely. Point being, there is something to be said for not using actual animals in commerical media. Particularly monkeys. For some reason, it looks especially exploitative.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Monkeys pt. 8
Monkeys and Cotton!
1) Sock Monkeys:
Sock Monkeys are, rather logically, monkeys made out of socks. What
is a little weird about it is that the sock monkeys look like normal rather cute toys and not at all like socks. So you might be asking, what's up with with "sock
" adjective?
Rockford Red Heel, a sock company that makes durable socks with red heels, takes credit for this particular creation. So much so that the socks and monkey dolls are presented side-by-side in the purchase area. Oddly, these sock monkeys cost $25-$35 each. I mean, yes, they are very cute and I am very tempted to buy one. But, really? Maybe $15? I don't know. Anyways...
Of course, the main question you're asking is, my goodness, the economy and everything the way it is, how I can afford to get Sally Jo that amazing Rockford sock monkey? Well, as luck would have it, the folks at Rockford are kind enough to offer FAQs (I will not get started on how annoying I find the use of "FAQs"). It is very simple. You need a pair of Rockford socks (yo
u may need an additional sock if you want to make a hat) and you should probably use large size socks. Furthermore, you will need "stuffing, thread and two buttons for the eyes. Most people also do a small amount of embroidery on the face (black embroidery thread and an embroidery needle will take care of all your basic needs)." If you want accessories, facts, or delightful coffee table books, check here.
Here are the specific instructions.
I have to admit, I am extremely motivated to make one of these dolls.
And for the true aficionados, there is a sock monkey blog. Sadly, there isn't much posting, but I'm not sure how much you can talk about this subject.
There are a scary number of sites dedicated to dealing with sock monkeys:
Monkey of Sock
Sock Monkey Fun (includes a lawyer sock monkey and a featured monkey of the month)
Hazel and Melvin's Sock Monkeys (Just tons of stuff, including their saved adopted monkeys...)
Luckily, Hazel and Melvin have given me a good transition into the topic I really wanted to talk about, monkey prints.
2) Monkey Print Clothing:
Here it is, the Sock Monkey Dress. This piece is "a custom-designed, couture piece custom fit exclusively for you," including 30 faces with individual name tags. Oh, BT
W, it's $1,500. For a sock monkey dress.
There are of course some more tasteful monkeys to be found. For example, the fabric finder in its "Monkey Jungle" section has a number of prints of monkeys dressed in clothes from the Renaissance era. Obviously, this is also pretty weird.
Alternatively, and while playing into the, monkeys love bananas stereotype, Hart's Fabric offers a more entertaining and kid friendly (and significantly more affordable) alternative with its "Monkey and Banana Cotton F
abric Pink." Delightful, really.
Of course, what I was really looking for was a Lily Pulitzer print. Here is a great example for children, in Pink Monkey See Toile - a fun little bathing suit. You have to be a little creative to see the monkeys, particularly as they are small and rather monochromatic. But if you look closely, you will see that they have their arms interlinking and alternate between being light and dark colored. Very cute.
1) Sock Monkeys:
Sock Monkeys are, rather logically, monkeys made out of socks. What
is a little weird about it is that the sock monkeys look like normal rather cute toys and not at all like socks. So you might be asking, what's up with with "sock
" adjective?Rockford Red Heel, a sock company that makes durable socks with red heels, takes credit for this particular creation. So much so that the socks and monkey dolls are presented side-by-side in the purchase area. Oddly, these sock monkeys cost $25-$35 each. I mean, yes, they are very cute and I am very tempted to buy one. But, really? Maybe $15? I don't know. Anyways...
Of course, the main question you're asking is, my goodness, the economy and everything the way it is, how I can afford to get Sally Jo that amazing Rockford sock monkey? Well, as luck would have it, the folks at Rockford are kind enough to offer FAQs (I will not get started on how annoying I find the use of "FAQs"). It is very simple. You need a pair of Rockford socks (yo
u may need an additional sock if you want to make a hat) and you should probably use large size socks. Furthermore, you will need "stuffing, thread and two buttons for the eyes. Most people also do a small amount of embroidery on the face (black embroidery thread and an embroidery needle will take care of all your basic needs)." If you want accessories, facts, or delightful coffee table books, check here.Here are the specific instructions.
I have to admit, I am extremely motivated to make one of these dolls.
And for the true aficionados, there is a sock monkey blog. Sadly, there isn't much posting, but I'm not sure how much you can talk about this subject.
There are a scary number of sites dedicated to dealing with sock monkeys:
Monkey of Sock
Sock Monkey Fun (includes a lawyer sock monkey and a featured monkey of the month)
Hazel and Melvin's Sock Monkeys (Just tons of stuff, including their saved adopted monkeys...)
Luckily, Hazel and Melvin have given me a good transition into the topic I really wanted to talk about, monkey prints.
2) Monkey Print Clothing:
Here it is, the Sock Monkey Dress. This piece is "a custom-designed, couture piece custom fit exclusively for you," including 30 faces with individual name tags. Oh, BT
W, it's $1,500. For a sock monkey dress.There are of course some more tasteful monkeys to be found. For example, the fabric finder in its "Monkey Jungle" section has a number of prints of monkeys dressed in clothes from the Renaissance era. Obviously, this is also pretty weird.
Alternatively, and while playing into the, monkeys love bananas stereotype, Hart's Fabric offers a more entertaining and kid friendly (and significantly more affordable) alternative with its "Monkey and Banana Cotton F
abric Pink." Delightful, really.Of course, what I was really looking for was a Lily Pulitzer print. Here is a great example for children, in Pink Monkey See Toile - a fun little bathing suit. You have to be a little creative to see the monkeys, particularly as they are small and rather monochromatic. But if you look closely, you will see that they have their arms interlinking and alternate between being light and dark colored. Very cute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
