The way out is the way in

"The way out is the way in" has an analogue: one door closes, another one opens.

After reading Suldog's "Happy New Year to Me" entry, it may be true: lose a job, get hired for a new one.  It might take a month, a year, or longer, but it's never easy, especially when it comes to the end of the year and at the expense of longevity.

Whenever people get laid off for business purposes (and not disciplinary ones - as in getting flat-out fired for being flat-out stupid), or at meetings where layoffs are discussed and people are concerned they'll be next, I always go back to the time I was laid off in 1995 from a company operating in Newton Corner.

Layoffs and staff reductions are usually geared to getting rid of deadwood, but sometimes when management has already gotten rid of incompetent and corrupt employees, they have to get rid of the loyal (those who have worked over 20 years) and those who make too much money (why keep a $40k worker when you can retain $20k workers?).

I was between temping in Downtown Boston after college and beginning to pay off student loans when I happened upon an ad working for hotel reservations for major companies.  The pay wasn't stellar, but enough to pay the bills I did have and keep a little cash on the side.

I began in August of 1995.  We had one big firm that was having a major convention in the South.  First, they had me typing in reservations...which was fine.  Then they had me going onto the phones, taking reservations.

There were good days when the reservationers were friendly; other days, I simply wanted the job to end.  I used to work from 11am to 8pm, come home on the express bus, and did it all again the next day.  Soon, I went to a traditional 9am - 5pm schedule.

Sometimes, to cheer employees up, management brought in food and had prizes, but somehow all that food got consumed while me and a few other people were on the phones.  In between doing the phones and entering reservations, I frequently got called to the carpet for accuracy and/or not selling people places other than the Big Hotels.

My health was also going downhill.  I had a near nervous breakdown in November 1995, enough to send me home and have a meeting with my supervisor the next day.  However, after Thanksgiving, everything seemed to improve.  I received about details about health insurance, salary, etc.  The company was going to have its annual Christmas Party at the hotel across the street.

Then December 5 came around.

Back then, I didn't see the warning signs: my time card was filled out for the rest of the week and it was only Tuesday; an admin handed me a $17 check for items I had purchased.  I was doing my usual work after I returned from lunch when my manager tapped me on the shoulder and told me to come to the office.

He gave The Speech - we lost two accounts, and as a result I no longer had a job.  He gave the same speech to nine other colleagues.   When I returned to my desk to collect my stuff, other managers and supervisors were devastated, apologized profusely, but the damage was done.

Oh, and we were disinvited from the company Christmas Party.

About a few months later, after I got hired temp-to-perm, I met up with an old colleague.  She was still working there and filled me in on the details of what happened after we were laid off:

• One woman who came that night to work and discovered us laid off quit immediately.
• The group we were making reservations for had their credit cards charged two or three times, which led to very angry conventioneers and a loss of another account, which led to more layoffs.
• Some of the subordinates were having inappropriate personal relationships with supervisors, which resulted in more firings - the people who were participating in those relationships and managers who looked the other way.
• Some of the management who had severe personality conflicts and rage problems with other co-workers was later fired.

From what I can gather, the final straw came when the owner sold it to a national congolmerate, sent the phone jobs to India, and fired everyone else.

The more I think about it, I was glad I got laid off from that company.  I don't like to talk cold on the phone (and a later temp job cemented that so much that I actually gave my agency my last day), but the promise of health insurance and being hired full time made me hang on until management decided, after four months, to let me go.

Businesses naturally don't want to panic other workers into feeling, "oh my God, I might be next!" but that's the nature of business, cruel as it is.  I say that each and every time someone gets laid off - and add that months from now, we might look at those layoffs as blip on the screen.

The impending death of WTKK

WTKK, ex-WSJZ, ex-WKLB, and for the longest time, WJIB (before it found a new home on 740 AM, which itself was WCAS), will likely go to the big Talk Radio Station in the Sky in the next week or two and be replaced with yet another derivative, shallow, dare I say corporate (as a slur/code word meaning profit grubbing capitalists) dance/top 40 radio station.

When I began listening to 'TKK in 1999, it was a fresh change.  I started getting more conservative leanings listening to Eagan & Braude, the Inside Track girls, Jay Severin, Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus, Michael Graham, and others.  It outsurvived Air America (in which the hosts of that long-gone network now ply their wares on MSNBC and NPR), and up until a couple of years ago, had promise and talent.  Then controversy worked its way in.  Imus and Severin were fired; Bill O'Reilly was shelved; and national conservative broadcasters far more strident filled in.

The big thing I take away from this is that any kind of media format or gimmick has its niche until it runs out of steam.  Westerns, for instance, ran on TV from the early 50's to the late '70s.  Then game shows had their run on daytime from the late '50s to the late 2000's.  Soap operas were on every station from 12 noon to 4pm on every network between 1951 to 2008; now, there are only three soaps remaining.  Scripted reality shows will die out;  "Housewives of (fill in city here)", Survivor (fill in far-flung and dangerously infested country), and Big Brother will have its heroes elevated and its villains shilling infomercial products.  And rarely do you hear about scripted professional wrestling anymore.

Compare this to the late David Brudnoy, the late Jerry Williams, and the current Dan Rea on WBZ, who treated their audiences to a differing viewpoint without being shouted out.  They treated their listeners with patience, respect, and honor, not as people to be mocked so they can sell shady products.  And you actually learn something from these hosts - you don't walk away with a side-eye looking for the nearest shower.

Talk radio - conservative and liberal - is a dying breed because it's bloviating and preaching to its separate choirs.  Listening to 'TKK became tedious - it was as much the pro-Bush network as it was the anti-Obama network.  But any network falls into that place where they don't have to worry about their dissenters because they have their blunderbuss aimed right at their face.

The Fairness doctrine didn't kill WTKK.  The audience just dwindled away.

Update: WTKK 1999-2013, as of the end of Eagan & Braude's program.

The Alternative Minimum Tax Silencer

I've never advocated for the Alternative Minimum Tax because it never affected me. Without giving away too much on how I earn, it seems every time the waves of the AMT reach my financial front door, they seem to be swept away by another few bags of sand, in the form of a "patch."

The AMT is a lovely little tax that has only two rates - 26% and 28%.  If you reach the magic IRS amount, you will be made to calculate your income tax twice - first through the traditional method, and then through the AMT - and then pay the higher tax amount.  With the AMT, you cannot claim the standard or personal deduction; other deductions are very limited.  You would end up paying a LOT more in taxes, and you'll be very lucky to escape alive (with a refund).

Over the past few years, the AMT has become more like a surf wave that hits more houses, as it has never been indexed to inflation since 1969.  It would make sense to raise the AMT level, rather than having tens of millions of middle class earners to fork over an obscene amount of tax.

A new, revised AMT would involve the following:

1. Those earning more around $250,000 for singles, $375,000 for head of household, and $500,000 for married couples would automatically be subject to calculating the AMT.  Once the AMT is paid for the year, a credit is applied to next year's taxes.

2. The percentages on which levels would be increased from 26% to 33% for $250,000-$500,000 and from 28% to 35% for above $500,000.

3. All members of Congress - including the President - will automatically be subject to the AMT for as long as they hold office.

Now, I don't earn $250,000 a year, but the people who would be affected would be the same people clamoring for higher taxes - like celebrities, sports players, entertainers, activists, and other lobby groups.  It would certainly shut them up when they see that they're on the hook with Uncle Sam for at least $82,500 - the cost of a luxury car, a vacation to an exclusive island, a Rolex, or a shopping spree in New York - and perhaps more, because the AMT doesn't allow deductions.  They cannot schmooze away what they really owe with fancy accounting footwork - they have to bite down and write that check.  It would be a treat to watch Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other billionaires be forced to fund the government to the tune of $350 million per billion.

This is what Obama should unequivocably advocate for - updating and raising the level of the AMT, while excluding a lot of middle class earners from it.  By doing so, it would bring in real revenue from the real rich - those with an aristocratic attitude who want to influence the daily lives of others through their caprice, their arrogance, and their profligacy.  Recalibrating the AMT also alienate and infuriate all his friends and supporters that contributed millions to his (perpetual) campaign, only to be backstabbed with higher taxes.

Maybe with elections, forced retirements, and other activities, some authentic tax reform will come around that everyone would agree would be fair, bring in the appropriate revenue, and finally end class warfare.  But you and I know that Congress, given short time, would probably put in quick fixes until the same, tired, cliched drama rolls around next time.

The Fiscal Blarney Stone

It is rumored that the Blarney Stone in Ireland gives the one who kisses it magical powers of conversation.  If the Irish have transported even a small part the Blarney Stone to Washington, somehow it's given its politicians the gift to bullshit the entire nation.

What we have is not a fiscal cliff, nor a bump, curb, ant hill, or anything else.  It's a public pissing match between the radical wings of the left and the right in Congress, trying to put their version of fiscal and social utopia in place and trying to establish total power.  Whether it's taxes, entitlements, spending, or anything else, someone's going to be hurting no matter what resolution comes about.

Which is why I say do nothing.  Let the tax rates skyrocket, let the cuts to spending come home roost.  Let everyone share in the misery of everyone paying high taxes, watch the unemployment rate skyrocket, and then maybe, just maybe, the public who willingly votes people into office on looks and promises will dump these losers, hacks and know-nothings out in 2014 with quadruple the ferocity of 2010.

Simply do nothing - don't fix a damn thing.  For the first months, people will be fed up with gridlock in Washington.  Then the volume will get louder and louder until someone with guts says, "let's cut the crap and get things moving - or our political careers are toast."

And by all means, keep talking smack to one another, Congress and Mr. President, until someone lets the real agenda slip out of their mouths - total and absolute control over the entire nation.  The first person who utters on camera - even off the record - "we're doing this to grab power," and their party will be rendered into the ash heap of political irrelevancy.  It doesn't matter who does it - all it takes is one admission.

But don't call this a crisis.  It's a pure pissing match between the radical wings, all broadcast by a willing press.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And its only resolution will be to keep the status quo and kick the can down the road for another year - unless a brainstorm of lightning hits Washington and suddenly gives its politicians common sense.

Update: Jonathan Krugman of the New York Post comes up with the truth: Obama wants to raise the  the debt ceiling again so the government can spend more.  That's what happened the last time until Congress came to a "resolution."  Again, I say let everything melt down, go into a hellish talespin, and only then will someone come forward and say, "stop acting like pissy little drama queens and come to a solution - or else we vote you all out."

When "single (blank)" is code for "state monopoly"

Massachusetts operates its liquor stores by letting independent distributors purchase and sell the liquor in retail stores.  Other stores let the state itself price and distribute the booze - a prime example being New Hampshire, where you can buy certain kinds of beer in drug stores but you could only buy the hard stuff at State Liquor Stores.

Due to yesterday's Hurricane Sandy, many stores were closed up and down the Eastern Seaboard.  Most reopened today - except for all liquor stores in Pennsylvania (via Consumerist, Philly.com), which closed per their Liquor Control Board "to assess the damage from Hurricane Sandy."

Now, if that meant "to prevent people from looting the stores for free liquor," that's one thing (and understandable - but no one should be denied a tipple in between cleaning out from a hurricane).  If it means "we want to make sure none of the stores were damaged," it's fine.  But when it's a vague phrase meant to keep people in the dark (no pun intended), and when people are crossing into Maryland and Delaware to purchase - it raises a lot of eyebrows.

One of the comments in Philly.com, however, drew my attention.  In reference to Pennsylvania's oft-maddening liquor purchase laws, which would make Ben Franklin drink,

"The truth is if [the Liquor Control Board is] run really efficiently, and being a single buyer for the whole state, this system could really have the lowest prices anywhere."

I take "single buyer" to be the code for "state monopoly."  Single buyer implied some nice middle-aged guy named Fred works in Harrisburg and buys all the alcohol for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  State monopoly evokes deep bureaucracies that we thought had died with the Soviet Union.

In fact, "single (blank)" is shorthand for state monopoly in anything.  ("Medicare for All" is the cynically cutesy code for "You have no choice for healthcare other than what we're offering, and if you don't like it, tough.")  This is why it makes sense when people want "single payor" healthcare, they really are referring to a state monopoly where a thick, unwavering bureaucracy makes every decision on health care as if they have a rubber band firmly tightened over their hinterparts, controlling every single aspect of healthcare from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how much sleep we get, and what medicines we're allowed to take.  The state and only the state gets to determine things, not individuals or businesses.

And that's what people really believe to their own selfish and myopic means: that if they're ruled over by the state, they will be treated benevolently.  Most often, they realize the harsher reality of a dictatorship: no room complaints and criticism, no freedom of movement, and a huge cult of personality they must honor, or else.

The real meaning behind "you didn't build that"

Mark Trumbull of the Christian Science Monitor puts forth an excellent column behind Obama's "you didn't build that" speech.

Here is the complete excerpt:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

And also the final summary, emphasis mine:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Now if you put both of those phrases together, they do make an abundant amount of sense, don't they?  Any President who is mindful that (a) people have a great opportunity to be successful and (b) are willing to put forth their dreams can do it.  You could of course do everything on your own, from the sweat of your brow, and turn out to be wildly successful, but it's an uphill battle.  If you get more people involved, it makes the job a lot easier.

"You didn't build that" to me, doesn't mean "The government built it, it gets all of the credit, so don't try anything funny."  It's more astonishment and amazement that without even the grain of help the government could give (better yet, the rules and regulations it could impose), the government is saying, "C'mon, are you serious?  You got absolutely zero help from us or anyone else, and it's successful?" Then once the person proves their success, the government can say, "Well done."

Again, reading the whole speech and not cherry-picking certain phrases the left and right like, you get the full picture.

UPDATE 9/2/2012: Kyle Smith of the New York Post has more.

Chief Justice Roberts' neat tricks

Chief Justice John Roberts did something I like in regards to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare - it was certainly not a dirty trick, but a fairly neat one in its cleverness and simplicity.

After a few days of celebrating, chest-thumping, and self-congratulation, the hangover from the people who wanted ACA upheld will leave them thinking about something else.  "ACA is upheld, but what did they say about that tax thingy?"

In an election year, raising taxes in an election year is an election killer.  Walter Mondale, when running for President in 1984 against Reagan, stated thus when nominated by his party: "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Little wonder why Mondale was trounced; Reagan won 49 states; Mondale his own home state of Minnesota plus the District of Columbia.  525-13 was the soundest trouncing of a Presidential candidate since 1936.

If you were running for office, would you want to celebrate imposing tax increase on those who don't have health insurance?  If a person doesn't obtain health insurance in the first year of ACA in 2014, they pay a $95 per year/1% of income fine.  Later on, it increases to $220/2.5% of income fine.  Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people who can't afford or choose not to purchase health insurance and you have the biggest tax increase in American history, as the ACA will be funded not just with people who elect to pay the fine, but people who might be fined for not having adequate health insurance as defined by the government.  Update 7/1/2012: Terry Keenan of the New York Post has more - including fines for small businesses paying anywhere from $40,000 to $140,000 for not supplying health insurance to workers.

Chief Justice Roberts' tricks?  First, he took away Obama's ability to implement the ACA through executive order, which might have happened if the ACA were struck down and caused even more problems (executive branch usurping the judicial branch would have caused a huge firestorm).  Second, he gave Obama and the remaining Democrats the distasteful task of telling voters why the ACA must be funded through taxes.  Voters who brought in the Republicans in 2010 through a "shellacking" will now likely make sure those who mention ACA as "good for them" be drummed out of office.  Third, and most importantly, Roberts assured the public that judicial activism - ruling from the bench - does not replace or circumvent the right to vote to strike down laws.

Hence, you could be a judge who is hell-bound to rule for their own whims and biases, yet it ultimately comes down to the voters who will make the final, absolute decision to uphold or strike down a law, directly through referendum or indirectly through voting in someone who will strike down the laws in question.  That's what voters did with Scott Brown in 2010 and with Congress months later - they took their displeasure to the ballot box.

Chief Justice Roberts handed the Obama administration a victory - but not a victory they want to promote.  In effect, Chief Justice Roberts said, "Try to defend your law as a tax increase on every single American - and don't be surprised if more voters decide to speak loudly through the ballot box."

Full disclosure: I work for a health insurance company.  My opinions do not reflect those of my company and are wholly my own.

A thirst for common sense

Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced an idea to limit soda sizes to 16 ounces.  The limit is only for sugary drinks that have over 25 calories per 8 ounces.  Diet sodas and water would likely exempted.  However, the city of Cambridge thinks this is an equally delightful idea, would likely include ALL drinks, all the name of "the war on obesity."

But myopic rules like these don't work.  They're designed to be stifling and show the laziness of governments not to do their research on health, to knee-jerk their way into control of the populace who consumes these drinks.  This is why rules like this get ridiculed; no law is worse than when proposed by someone who doesn't like what others do (and is tyring to get money from the government to fund such cockeyed schemes) and try to control others.

Furthermore, by disguising these stiff laws as "it's for your own good," they hide the real motivation behind them, which is "we don't like what you're doing, regardless of it being harmless, and we'll prevent you from doing it any way we can."  Types of laws like this usually devolve into resentment, confusion, and then revolt and black markets.  See the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s for an example of that success story.

A better idea would be to suggest that occasionally, a 20 ounce drink with as much sugar as your pancreas can handle is fine, so long as you balance it out during the day.  That's better than being laughed at as a crank and a control freak.

Five Years from Now: A new kind of commencement speech

I got this idea from Suldog, who in turn got his idea from a commencement speaker who put forth a pretty astringent speech to a set of high school students in Wellesley.  Mine might not be as funny as Suldog's, but all I ask is that you read. 

Good morning.

I'm not here to give you a happy, "the world is yours" speech.  I'm here to give you an idea of what happens in the real world - not the overpaid celebrity commencement speech world.

In the past few weeks, you've cleaned out your dorm rooms, said your final goodbyes, had your final off-campus party, survived your final collegiate hangover, and likely had your university supply you with your usual senior tradition.

This morning, you are here in your shirts and ties, your best dresses, your hair combed and curled and blown out just so, wearing your best shoes or heels, so your chancellor or principal can hand you a piece of paper stating you've met all the requirements of your degree.

Fast forward to five years from now.

Today, you may wear your spiral curls, spread out on your shoulders like the goddess Aphrodite, wearing your favorite slinky dress you wore to a sorority party where you met your future husband, plus a sparkly pair of Louboutin sandals to show off your opal-painted toenails.  Five years from now, you may be pregnant with your second child, with one screaming two year old in your ears, your hair tossed in a frightful mess, and cursing the husband you met at the sorority party for "working late" again, wondering if he's having his way with the secretary in his office.

Today, you may wear a Hugo Boss suit, a $125 tie, and tied shoes.  Five years from now, your human resources department, with your supervisor, manager, and two HR representatives, will hand you a box for your personal belongings because the company has gone out of business.  The remainder of the company will get that speech too, but as there is no more money, there will be no severance.  For many weeks after, you will not be able to find a job; whatever you did save will dwindle to pocket change; your health insurance will be cancelled, and that the only jobs you're qualified won't even cover your rent.

Today, you may have ended your academic career with straight A's from primary school, through middle school, high school, and college.  Your 4.0 GPA has showered you with accolades, praise, and the title "summa cum laude."  You were likely the class valedictorian.  Five years from now, you're in a hospital bed, IV's dripping with chemotheraputic poison because your PCP didn't like a spot on your brain and it turned out to be Stage IV brain cancer - which explains the slurred speech, the migranes, the dizzy spells, the vomiting, and the occasional spacing out.  All of your hair is gone; you've dropped from a robust weight to a thin, cachexic skeleton of yourself, praying for that last seizure or the death rattle.

Of course, today you're just here to get the hell out of this college.  You didn't want to be here; you got a 2.0 GPA just to avoid academic probation; you partied all the time, took drugs, and just didn't care.  Five years from now, you're in a prison cell.  The reason was spelled out by a judge who was tired of seeing you again and decided the rest of your life would be served best away from modern society.  She was tired of looking at your heroin-wasted, hyper-tense body, pleading for just one more chance to do good, even after the five other times you were caught hustling for drug money, but the last straw was a home invasion with your friends, and in turn one of your friends - to save himself from your fate - plead and turned state's evidence.  Karma got him - he was stabbed to death by a vicious prison gang member.

Those are the extreme cases.  You may experience other things nowhere nearly as unpleasant as what I've described.  I'm here to shatter perceptions, to transition you from the dream world to the real world, and to grab your attention, I used those stories as extreme examples.

Reality happens.  Dreams are often killed by something we don't prepare for - fate, if you will, has something in store to prepare us for real life.  To have commencement speakers pump the "go forth and be successful" drivel into your brains does you no good.  You could work hard and get nowhere.  You could follow your dreams and hit a hard brick wall.  Meanwhile, the commencement speaker is cashing their check for a new trip to the Carribean Islands.

Mary Ann Esposito, when telling her audience how to get the hairy "choke" out of artichokes, told us in an easy, laid back fashion, "You do nothing."  What she did is braise the artichoke in chicken stock, lemon juice, parsley, garlic, and mint, let it rest for awhile, and then with a spoon, popped out the choke very easily. 

Like the hairy choke that Mary Ann Esposito told you to "do nothing" with, "do nothing" with your life. 

Forget five year expectations.  Better yet, don't plan.   Let things happen, and you'll be pleasantly surprised where fate might lead you.

If you're successful in some things but not in others, that's fine.

If you choose not to marry, whether because you don't want to or for other political reasons, that's fine.

If you don't earn a million dollars, but can live very well with thirty thousand, that's fine.

If you choose not to have children, or decide to adopt because you physically can't, that's fine.

And for those of you who weren't valedictorians, who were satisfied with a 3.0 GPA, who didn't party all that often and got an occasional hangover, who didn't have a SO, who have a small balance on their college loans, who stayed anonymous - you were fine all along.

There will be times you'll have to live with your parents because you still can't afford to live on your own, attend court hearings to get custody of your children, go weeks without pay because you're on strike, sit through boring, pointless meetings peppered with business cliches and jargon, and so forth. That's life.  Just sit back, relax, don't plan, and let things fall into place.

Thank you.

The $18 gallon of milk and the $5 can of Pepsi

Nunavut, the relatively new province in Canada carved out of the Northwest Territories, is enduring high food prices.

Not just ordinary high food prices.  Food prices bordering on outright gouging.

Would you pay $104 (Canadian) for a case of bottled water?  Here, it's about $9-10, and the store-brand is about $6.

How about $10 for a bell pepper, where it's about $2 here?  A two-liter bottle of Pepsi for $19.  Store-brand chicken - here, you could get it for about $6 a pound.  In Nunavut, it's $65 for a 2kg package, or roughly $14.75 a pound.

Part of the reason why prices are so high is understandable - Nunavut has no roads, it is remote place, and fuel and shipping factor into the price.  But with Nunavut's minimum wage at $11 an hour, you can bet stores are exploiting the disadvantages of not having access to more stores.  If they are the only game in town, you can bet they're going to charge whatever they like and make a profit off of it.

Furthermore, Nunavutians could go to a major city, purchase what they need at a fraction of the price, and then ship it home.  However, shipping costs would easily negate this convenience - if shipping to Nunavut is $10 per kilogram and you're shipping 100 kilograms of food that cost you $500, that's $1,000 added to the price, easily double the cost you've purchased and increasing the per-kilogram cost to $15.

However, if you're a person with a narcissistic political bent, the cogs are turning in your head - just like cigarettes, you'd demand for a tax so high that few people buy the product you don't like.  Instead of an outright ban on bottled water, a town with a snobbish environmental bent (and a few bitter cranks) could charge $100 for a case.  In New York, where Mike Bloomberg is trying to limit soda sizes to sixteen ounces, he could instead charge $0.125 per ounce in taxes, tacking on $1 for every 8 ounces of soda consumed (64 ounces would command $8)  Or how about a two cent per calorie tax on fattening foods?  No one would want to buy a 2850 calorie milkshake if they're paying $57 in pure tax on it - or that 6,000 calorie Vermonster sporting a $120 tax!

'Elf and Safety? Stuff and nonsense!

"Health and safety" is a completely rational reason for shutting something down that is obviously dangerous.  For example, if you have a bunch of donuts on the shelf and one of them has been tested for salmonella, you get rid of the remaining donuts as a precaution.  It's a waste to get rid of the donuts, but there's that rare chance that salmonella-contaminated donut in your hand might contaminate others.

Abuse of "health and safety" as an excuse to exert power and be an obnoxious killjoy is rampant in Britain.  The list of what constitutes banning things in the name of health and safety is pretty darn stupid, at least to this Yank.  Unless you're putting rocks in hanging baskets, using an ironing board to try out your new chainsaw by cutting vegetables with it, it's just plain grating for town councils to wag their bony bureaucratic fingers at others.

It's also narcissism gone amok: if the town's image is so sullied by people doing ordinary things such as flying kites, tying up bicycles, pouring tea, and having bake sales, while sweeping drug use, larceny, burglaries and assault under the rug, the town's priorities require a massive reworking and shakeup, including the public sacking of the people responsible for using "health and safety" as an excuse to spoil other people's livelihoods.

(Dying) Spirit of Radio

Donna Halper comments on the sale of WFNX to Clear Channel Communications.

Commercial radio is dying for certain, but equally at the hands of MP3/iDevices, greedy media conglomerates, and lackluster, talent-free psuedomusicians who are bred by record labels to be pretty and safe, not to go "outside the box" with 35 minute jams (Allman Brothers), eight-movement art-rock symphonies (Yes), politically-charged hard-left agitmusic (Rage Against the Machine) and thirteen minute progressive rock operas (Rush - the reason for the title of this entry, as Donna Halper discovered Rush and brought them out of Canada).

And sad to say, college and public radio won't fill in that void, but for a different reason: limited funds preclude them from putting forth what the audience desires, and to do so they must pump for money.  Pirate radio stations won't fill that void either - you got to play the FCC's licensing game or else.

Musical Darwinism is fun to watch until you're the format that becomes obsolete.

Personal comment: I went to school just steps down the street from the original WBCN studios (1265 Boylston Street).

Free - to eat a Quarter Pounder with cheese

I love this great opinion piece by Kerry J. Byrne, a food and drink writer of the Boston Herald.

The government is not going to get a nation of anorexics, vegans, or perfectly proportioned people any time soon - because the very first attempt to regulate eating will make the American Revolution look like a shoving match.  No nation but in America can someone select what they want to eat, how much they want to eat, and at what price point they want to pay for what they eat.  We don't follow the anorexic or

I like going to b. good, which is burger joint that sells much healthier burgers and so forth.  A full meal with fries and a shake costs about $12 - and often I can afford it.  However, I also like to go to Burger King for a bacon double cheeseburger for half of that cost.  I can either have a yogurt parfait at Au Bon Pain, a yogurt shake at b. good, or ice cream at Ben & Jerry's (or a local joint).

Now, if you have $3 and you can feed yourself pretty well on that, you're lucky.  It might be true that we have healthy food deserts (but you also notice there are plenty of lottery and liquor oases), but if there is food and it sates us until the next meal, then someone's telling a big fat lie.  Moreover, if you can buy that meal off the dollar menu at Wendy's and work all 800 calories off in a day, bless you.  No one's forcing a gun to your head to do jumping jacks and mountain climbers - just move around and keep active.

How about this neat idea from a mother with three children - you can still have junk food, but you gotta work for it.  If there's a McDonald's three miles away, the Happy Meal is yours if want to walk for it.  Or if you want to go to Sonic, we take the dog too and give it a run.  I think that's a marvelous idea - work for your junk food, make it slightly more difficult to access (no knee-jerk food fascism such as bake sale bans and getting into a lathering snit over 2800 calories shakes - unless you've had major dental work and can't eat solid foods), and get some exercise in the bargain - it'll make you at least hungrier for it!

Byrne is certainly right about one thing - we aren't active enough.  I'm not and I'm free to admit it - I work 8-9 hours a day at a desk, and the last thought on my mind on the way to work or on the way home on the bus is exercise.  I could get a bicycle, but I like to ride with my huge noggin al fresco - no helmet.  When we aren't active, even if we're on a strict macrobiotic hypervegan diet, we gain weight.  The worst thing we can do is nag people to death to lose the weight, but given an appropriate, non-obnoxious incentive to do so, and people will flock to it.

Take out the fear of getting injured or being a victim to violent and non-violent crimes, and all those poor people who are overweight will be healthier.  It'll certainly knock down the Potemkin food deserts and the fun out of marching lockstep in the streets, extolling the virtues of Puritanism gone amok.

How's that MegaMillions hangover coming along?

When I bought three MegaMillions tickets before everyone and his relatives gummed up the machines on Friday, I got more and more aggravated at people - not because of the size of the jackpot, but at the cavalier attitudes of people who had never played the lottery before, thinking they were going to be the ones with the winning ticket.

Outraged Liberal brings up a great question: why are people so willing to avoid taxes, but when a lottery offers a huge jackpot, people have no qualms in paying hundreds of dollars in tickets?

Purely for the entertainment value, lotteries are far easier and far less painless way to pay taxes (which lotteries really and truly are) than writing a check to either the IRS or the Massachusetts Department of Revenue every month - especially those who pay that 5.85% optional tax.  Conversely, the lure of winning the jackpot prize is designed by the states to extract as much money from the starry-eyed hopeful as possible, while certain taxes can be avoided by not doing the prescribed activity that activates those taxes.

That's also why some people blindly overpay their taxes intentionally - to get as big a refund as possible from the government.  That parallels when people pay the lottery so much without paying attention to the odds - to win the biggest jackpot they can.   A smarter thing to do is make sure the playing field is equal.  When people pay their taxes, the goal should be to have a refund as close to zero as possible, meaning your withholdings to the government is equal to what the government is expecting from you (you've had $2,000, they calculate you owe $2,010, you overpaid by $10).  The same thing applies to lotteries: forget the jackpot and try to break even.  If you play $10, winning $10 is optimal; anything extra is just gravy.

"[R]edistributing wealth — to the wealthy"

Somewhere, critics of the electric car are not merely smiling broadly, they're laughing out loud, because they know that a sucker with too much money and guilt on their hands will front $107,000 for a new "green" toy, that later on turns out to be a huge brick.

It's circular thinking once again - take high taxes from the rich with a wink and a nod, give to the poor through entitlements, retake the entitlements from the poor through high gasoline and food prices, and return that money to the rich through guilt-soothing gimmicks such as $100K+ electric cars, affirmation of wacky utopian theories, and the simple fact that these guilt-riddled aristocrats will have no problem donating to their favorite politician's re-election campaigns, all the while bleating like goats that they're the so-called "99%."

The serfs and commoners will be left to fend for themselves - they get ground by the millstones of de facto taxation and inflation.  That is, until the serfs and commoners discover what breaks millstones are chisels, mallets, and hammers - something that was done in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down.

The GM Edsel? Not quite, but close

Jon Keller comes out with an interesting take on why the public - save some really die-hard greenies with some money to burn - won't buy a $40,000 electric plug-in automobile.

The Volt is not the modern-day Edsel by a longshot, but even though electricity is cheap and plentiful and we can plug in any other device to recharge without a second thought, the thoughts of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere without any power - say, a busy highway - scares people.  That's what also killed the GM EV-1 - not the fact that it didn't emit noxious fumes, but the prospect of finding a plug where there wasn't one and running out of battery power.

Furthermore, where there are far more fuel-efficient vehicles out there for a fraction of the price of a Volt, it's little wonder why, even with a $7,500 energy credit, why people are hesitant to buy them.  Sure, buying gas would be expensive, but it would certainly beat having to call AAA for a charge back home.  However, those that can afford the $32,500 are likely more affluent and can afford to buy a Volt (or a Leaf or even a Honda Prius).  The Volt is a niche car, a novelty for the smug, something you show your friends in the hopes they get jealous because they're driving around in their less fancy car.

It was the same thing with calculators in the '70s - even the most basic calculator cost $100, which in today's dollars would be around $600 - but now that calculators are mass produced, that same $100 can buy a calculator with far better power and functions - I had a TI-85 that I used for fifteen years - and a basic calculator can be had for under a dollar in some places, thanks to cheaper costs in technology and the ability to mass produce.  It also explains why when in the '90s, 2GB of flash memory cost over $100; now a thumb drive with the same amount can be had for less than $10 - again, thanks to mass production.

If the car companies can mass-produce electric vehicles, you will then see the price of an electric vehicle decrease appreciably.  Then you'll have the $15,000 electric car that can charge from no battery power to 100% in 2 hours, run 250 miles on a single charge, and have the MPG equivalent of 150.  It isn't here yet, but give it time and it will be.

Why BBC and PBS are "worlds apart"

Imagine for a moment that you could have the best show on American television.  It's critically acclaimed, has a giant fan following, and the network wants to have several spinoffs.

The catch?  You have to pay $600 a year for the privilege.  If you don't pay this $600 a year, the TV Enforcement Police will come and take you to jail.

Sounds silly, right?  Not if you're in Britain.  An "As You Were Saying" column in the Saturday Boston Herald breathlessly extols the "fresh and innovative" programming of the BBC over the "stuffy, predictable" PBS.  Britons pay $230 a year for a TV license, which is a mandatory tax which is paid to the British government and is considered a criminal offense to try to evade it.

Unlike Britain, however, Americans have the luxury of not paying a TV tax to fund PBS, as PBS is already funded by taxpayers - partly by the government and partly by viewer donations through fundraising drives.  The programming might be a little less than the BBC offers, but it's still good programming nonetheless.

Furthermore, the BBC has had its share of controversies and criticisms - thanks to its left-leaning political bias.  Britons may not mind forking over $8 billion a year for improved programming, but when that money is used to promote political agendas from its directors and viewers that some Britons don't believe in, then it's no wonder Britons are not too keen on paying an excise tax just to watch TV.

If PBS were to take the licensing tax route, The Corporation for Public Television - PBS's parent - could demand that everyone pay for their network programming through a TV tax.  In some respects the programming might improve, but at the expense of having the political opinions of the CPB overshadowing the next Office or Doctor Who.   It would also result in many viewers and non-viewers going up in arms against paying for something they don't need, want, or use - which is the reason why PBS doesn't have a big a budget as BBC and must engage in such tactics as selling $20 DVD's for $240 and to have Sesame Street characters plead that they'll be joining Mr. Hooper in Heaven if PBS doesn't get funding.

The commercial and cable networks self-sustain through advertising and cable fees; they can cancel shows when they are not bringing in viewers, even if they are "critically acclaimed" and are much better than the various permutations of lowest-common-denominator TV, designed to give people their 15 minutes of fame before disposing them.  PBS does broadcast commercials to a point, but even so, some upper-class viewers would immediately object to having McDonald's ads mixed in with Dora the Explorer, or ads for various drugs sponsoring This Old House.

If the intent of the writer was to promote a TV tax to fund PBS, he might want to read up on why the American Revolution got its roots - from the tax on tea.

Making memories - the last day in Hyde Park

I was going to "plead the Fifth" of why I left Hyde Park, but now that I'm here in West Roxbury, I feel that I should tell you why I (and my mother) left.

After thirty-six years, Hyde Park just wasn't the same anymore.  When people who lived here long ago remark that it looks like a ghost town, with hardly any vibrancy and reason to linger, it's time to go.  If residents (and the police) think you're more an interloper than a resident, you know the neighborhood you grew up in isn't yours anymore.  Hyde Park is still a bedroom community, but over the years there's a stark, unspoken line divided by the overcrowded, only-line-in-town Route 32 buses and the infrequent, expensive, yet designed-for-the-suburban-resident Commuter Rail.

After two days of moving back and forth between the old and new houses (I was tired, nay, exhausted, from hauling in boxes after boxes after boxes of stuff - and in significant pain), yesterday was the final day I would be at the old house, just to clean up the last things there.  My brother came to see the house for the last time before he went back to his apartment in Roslindale. 

While my mother cleaned out the house on Summer Street, I volunteered to walk to Central Hardware in Cleary Square to get new keys for the new house.  Mainly, the walk was a way to clear my head, escape from all the stress of the move and the leave, and have a moment to myself other than constantly load and unload things out of boxes.

During my youth, I had walked to Cleary Square to get food, pizza, sundries, etc.  All the old stores had gone, replaced by tacky stores and many empty storefronts.  Even the bus stop, which for many years had conveniently been placed in front of what had been Mama Mia's and Van's, had been moved to in front of Most Precious Blood, which is now a charter school.

I got my keys, and walked back to Tedeschi's for a New York Post and some lottery tickets.  I walked down Summer Street for the final time, like I had done many times late at night coming home from the Stoughton train.  I came up the stairs for the last time as my mother finally cleaned everything up so the new tenant could move in.

After I turned in my keys and we locked the door for the last time, we visited my grandfather, and by then I knew the end was coming.  When we had our last family Thanksgiving at Summer Street, I felt no emotion other than elation.  This time, I beginning to choke up.  Not cry like a banshee, but have that hefty, lump-in-the-throat feeling with stinging in the eyes.  I quickly walked back to the car once we were done.

We got in the car, drove through the potholes of Parrott St for the last time, and then we were gone.  Only the ghosts of memories past - good and bad - remained behind.