Of all the exports Britain has brought to America, there is one American import that hasn't caught on - Sesame Street.
The BBC flatly rejected Sesame Street in 1971 because they thought the programming was "authoritarian." (How can Big Bird be authoritarian?) So it went to another network in England (HTV) before Sesame Street was cancelled.
And like today, the BBC still won't tell British children how to get to Sesame Street - unless you live in Northern Ireland. The reason: there are already other children's programmes out there, including the "talk down to children's" Blue Peter and other shows.
Which leads me to believe one thing and one thing only: the BBC doesn't want Elmo or any of his friends running the Beeb, because you know Stadtler and Waldorf will have their own rollicking politics show, and that the Count will be a financial advisor, and that Bert and Ernie will surpass the popularity of the two women from Absolutely Fabulous.
5/25/2010
No President is above reproach
Criticizing the President of the United States, no matter how unwarranted or wildly bizarre it may seem, is not sedition, even if the President is your close friend.
No President is above reproach. In fact, we're fortunate enough to criticize, mock, cajole, protest and needle the President of the United States without getting thrown into jail, tortured, murdered, disappeared, or fined into poverty because their leader is seen as a God who must not be challenged. (Viz: North Korea, the former East Germany, Cuba, etc.)
If the Governor feels that the opposing party is being too harsh on the President, perhaps it's because there's a legitimate reason for the agita that resides beyond the Beltway, i.e. the President is not the Emperor, the United States isn't the Roman empire, and people don't like to be ruled.
No President is above reproach. In fact, we're fortunate enough to criticize, mock, cajole, protest and needle the President of the United States without getting thrown into jail, tortured, murdered, disappeared, or fined into poverty because their leader is seen as a God who must not be challenged. (Viz: North Korea, the former East Germany, Cuba, etc.)
If the Governor feels that the opposing party is being too harsh on the President, perhaps it's because there's a legitimate reason for the agita that resides beyond the Beltway, i.e. the President is not the Emperor, the United States isn't the Roman empire, and people don't like to be ruled.
5/21/2010
896 million reasons why cigarette smoking will never be banned in Massachusetts
With cigarette excise taxes $2.51 per pack and $562 million taken in as tax revenue, plus $315 million from the tobacco settlement, you would figure that half of that money goes to smoking cessation programs, right?
Wrongo. According to WBZ's David Wade, out of nearly $900 million, only one half of one percent - $4.5 million - is earmarked for programs that help people quit smoking.
The other $895.5 million heads right to the General Fund. You buy a $7.50 pack of cigs in a poor section of Boston, you buy a firehouse for a well-to-do tony village in the Berkshires. Your dirt-cheap $5.75 pack of below-generic cigs purchased in Springfield may show up as a perdiem for a representative in North Andover, a dedication for a library of a state senator in Taunton, or even a re-election campaign push for the governor. Redistribution and super-easy cash at its best.
Put another way - if the state ever banned cigarettes, the tax revenues from cigarettes at both the state and federal level (which was raised to $1.01 in 2009) would mean billions of dollars lost per year. Now we know why the state will never ban cigarettes, at least until the federal government determines that all cigarettes are a health hazard and must be pulled off the shelves immediately. Once the Federal government is willing to give up their money habit, the state will be forced to follow suit.
Russet Morrow Breslau, head of Tobacco Free Mass, makes this astute judgement: ""You can't balance the budget on the backs of smokers[.]"
Who are those smokers, who are shelling out an effective tax rate of 45-60% to the general fund? The poor and middle class.
Wrongo. According to WBZ's David Wade, out of nearly $900 million, only one half of one percent - $4.5 million - is earmarked for programs that help people quit smoking.
The other $895.5 million heads right to the General Fund. You buy a $7.50 pack of cigs in a poor section of Boston, you buy a firehouse for a well-to-do tony village in the Berkshires. Your dirt-cheap $5.75 pack of below-generic cigs purchased in Springfield may show up as a perdiem for a representative in North Andover, a dedication for a library of a state senator in Taunton, or even a re-election campaign push for the governor. Redistribution and super-easy cash at its best.
Put another way - if the state ever banned cigarettes, the tax revenues from cigarettes at both the state and federal level (which was raised to $1.01 in 2009) would mean billions of dollars lost per year. Now we know why the state will never ban cigarettes, at least until the federal government determines that all cigarettes are a health hazard and must be pulled off the shelves immediately. Once the Federal government is willing to give up their money habit, the state will be forced to follow suit.
Russet Morrow Breslau, head of Tobacco Free Mass, makes this astute judgement: ""You can't balance the budget on the backs of smokers[.]"
Who are those smokers, who are shelling out an effective tax rate of 45-60% to the general fund? The poor and middle class.
4/14/2010
Kind of makes me wonder about biases too
Hub Blog highlights today's Tea Party Rally at the Boston Common and how it's a double standard for the media to ignore the anti-Iraq War protests while covering the Tea Party rally like the minutiae of the Bay City Rollers ca. 1978.
I'll give Hub Blog my answer to his question. It's a long one, so bear with me.
Dubya was President in 2003. Most on the left thought that the reason for the Iraq War was because he wanted to avenge his father's Gulf War Invasion of 1991 - the one Bush Sr. didn't finish and let Saddam Hussein and his sons continue their bloodthirsty rule. There were also rumors that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. - which motivated Dubya even more. The press dared not name-check the anti-war movement's principals (some of whom were pretty hard-left outfits who supported Saddam - a Stalinist cult of personality that the hard left adored with a passion) because it would mean limited access to interviews and giving free publicity to leftist hardliners in America would cause serious repercussions from more conservative corners - including curtailing circulation and cramping ratings. So the media barely touched on the rigid dogma of the people sponsoring these anti-war rallies for fear that broadcasting who they really were would garner threats and shut off access.
Now the inverse is occuring. Obama is now president, and although he's nowhere near a Stalinist, the left adores him to the point of fanatical zeal, i.e. the king shall not be smeared, he is infalliable, and his word is gospel; anyone who challenges it is a heretic and must be silenced. Enter Sarah Palin, who not only mentions the Emperor wears no clothes, but takes pure glee in mentioning that Obama wants to turn America into Europe - long the American left's dream - and it must be stopped. The left has always been jealous of American exceptionalism - that instead of the world twirling around European and Asian axes, Americans manage to do quite well without a huge nanny state or VAT taxes and the corrupt politicians that fawn over them.
Not only that, Sarah Palin is very much plain spoken. She is astringent and much like the light that vampires don't want to see when the sun rises. Sarah Palin is not one you want to mess with and it would be better to put your bare hands on a 12.5kV Amtrak catenary wire than try to . The critics know this and fear that she will put them in her sights and destroy their dreams. Fear begets irrational reaction, and the air fills with shouts of "teabagger" and references to Hitler. Hence, this is also why the press is looking over the Tea Party movement with a fine tooth comb and why she's the target of their ridicule and scorn. Anyone who is fully and rigidly invested in the plan to transform America into Europe West fears Sarah Palin, her charisma and her ability to persuade - and for her to win means a long-standing defeat.
Albert Einstein had this wonderful quote that's pertinent to this day: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." It would be wise for both parties to take heed of it and understand what it means - maybe even the Tea Party movement.
I'll give Hub Blog my answer to his question. It's a long one, so bear with me.
Dubya was President in 2003. Most on the left thought that the reason for the Iraq War was because he wanted to avenge his father's Gulf War Invasion of 1991 - the one Bush Sr. didn't finish and let Saddam Hussein and his sons continue their bloodthirsty rule. There were also rumors that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. - which motivated Dubya even more. The press dared not name-check the anti-war movement's principals (some of whom were pretty hard-left outfits who supported Saddam - a Stalinist cult of personality that the hard left adored with a passion) because it would mean limited access to interviews and giving free publicity to leftist hardliners in America would cause serious repercussions from more conservative corners - including curtailing circulation and cramping ratings. So the media barely touched on the rigid dogma of the people sponsoring these anti-war rallies for fear that broadcasting who they really were would garner threats and shut off access.
Now the inverse is occuring. Obama is now president, and although he's nowhere near a Stalinist, the left adores him to the point of fanatical zeal, i.e. the king shall not be smeared, he is infalliable, and his word is gospel; anyone who challenges it is a heretic and must be silenced. Enter Sarah Palin, who not only mentions the Emperor wears no clothes, but takes pure glee in mentioning that Obama wants to turn America into Europe - long the American left's dream - and it must be stopped. The left has always been jealous of American exceptionalism - that instead of the world twirling around European and Asian axes, Americans manage to do quite well without a huge nanny state or VAT taxes and the corrupt politicians that fawn over them.
Not only that, Sarah Palin is very much plain spoken. She is astringent and much like the light that vampires don't want to see when the sun rises. Sarah Palin is not one you want to mess with and it would be better to put your bare hands on a 12.5kV Amtrak catenary wire than try to . The critics know this and fear that she will put them in her sights and destroy their dreams. Fear begets irrational reaction, and the air fills with shouts of "teabagger" and references to Hitler. Hence, this is also why the press is looking over the Tea Party movement with a fine tooth comb and why she's the target of their ridicule and scorn. Anyone who is fully and rigidly invested in the plan to transform America into Europe West fears Sarah Palin, her charisma and her ability to persuade - and for her to win means a long-standing defeat.
Albert Einstein had this wonderful quote that's pertinent to this day: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." It would be wise for both parties to take heed of it and understand what it means - maybe even the Tea Party movement.
2/28/2010
A bonus is a bonus is a bonus...
Eeka of One Smoot Short puts her thoughts in the Big Bank Bonus Bingo. Even a token amount of money in a gift card goes a long way to say thanks.
We don't get bonuses at work per se. (Definitely not the $400,000 Bank of America execs get.) Whenever we've had a good year, the company shares the profits by depositing the monies into our 401(k) plans, usually at a rate of 3-6% of our salary, depending on our performance as a whole.
Pro: not a single dollar gets taxed, so we don't get whacked with income taxes if they cut a check instead.
Con: if the market ever goes down, like last year, it will take a long time to get that money back; and even if we've save all those nice bonuses they've given us, the money gets taxed as soon as we retire.
We don't get bonuses at work per se. (Definitely not the $400,000 Bank of America execs get.) Whenever we've had a good year, the company shares the profits by depositing the monies into our 401(k) plans, usually at a rate of 3-6% of our salary, depending on our performance as a whole.
Pro: not a single dollar gets taxed, so we don't get whacked with income taxes if they cut a check instead.
Con: if the market ever goes down, like last year, it will take a long time to get that money back; and even if we've save all those nice bonuses they've given us, the money gets taxed as soon as we retire.
2/21/2010
Phasing in sounds like a good idea...
Hub Blog posts an article regarding an easier way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The idea is to add a carbon tax of $300 a ton, or about $2.60 per gallon of gasoline.
I like it, but not for reasons of the psuedo-religion of environmentalism.
No - slapping a high premium on oil and gasoline would certainly discourage the excessive speculation going on in Wall Street. Put a $2.60 tax on a gallon of gasoline, and you will find a LOT of investors who should have no business in Wall Street leaving the energy futures market quicker than you can say "perp walk" and "margin call."
The reason? People who find themselves grumbling of paying $5 a gallon for gas will reduce demand even further. The demand on crude oil has been quite low since the stock market crash of 2009, even though we pay an average of $2.60 in Massachusetts. People like cheap gas (I do, even though I don't drive) but when gas is sky-high, people reduce a lot of their car driving. When gas went from $4.11 a gallon in June 2008 to $1.59 in December 2008, certainly it put money back in their pockets.
The reason why gasoline prices are high now is because Wall Street thinks that once the economy improves, people will return to their bad old driving habits and hence increase demand, and hence line their portfolios with monster profits. A $2.60 per gallon tax will not only cool off demand, it will all but freeze it. The crude oil traders in the NYMEX pits would drive the wholesale price to under a dollar because no one wants to drive when gas is over $5 a gallon. The floor, then, for a gallon of gas would be around $3.25-$3.50.
The other benefit will be that hostile foreign countries who feel the US will always be dependent on them for cheap oil won't be so accomodating when they go into their little diatribes against America. The Great Satan/imperialists/warmongers would finally tell these countries that, yeah, your imports are nice, but we've got cars that are more fuel efficient anyway. So, take your tankers back from whence they came and your fevered conspiracy theories and mumbo-jumbo too.
A better way to implement this gas tax would be to add this tax in 2011 at the end of every quarter. Adding 65 cents a quarter to the price of gasoline is less painful and won't cause as much panic as doing it all at once. Or, increasing the tax 10 cents every other week would cause far less panic as long as the public is notified beforehand.
The only problem I would forsee is a few activists screaming (as they're wont to do) "This tax is regressive towards the poor." Really? Everyone who drives will pay this tax, but in return for this high tax, innovation would explode exponentially - cars with better fuel mileage, substantial improvements to public transportation, and other developments. For example, Bermuda has a minimum gas price of $2.00 per liter - or $7.56 per gallon - yet their cars are much smaller and fuel efficient. So a 20 liter tank of gas that has a fuel efficiency of 5L/100km gives a Bermudian a 400km range - and the island itself is only 52 square kilometers. Conversely, Bermudians use scooters and public transportation to get around the islands. The same would happen if the US implements a this tax and the 30 gallon tanks of gas giving only 15 miles per gallon shrink to 10 gallon tanks giving 45 miles to the gallon. Same distance, but better fuel efficiency.
And I do like the aspect that control freaks who use the environment as an excuse to implement wild schemes like this will not like this kind of tax either because with it, they can't impose their ideals on us. Environmentalism, along with socialism and communism, is a false religion to begin with - they are religions worshipped by the elite who missed the memo that the United States isn't ruled by a monarchy or a dictator with military fatigues and bushy facial hair. If you want to worship trees and plants and pray that one day, animals can hold a reasonable conversation with you, go right ahead - but trying to control behavior because your morality must be followed without question harbors resentment and revolt. Americans don't like to be ruled.
Finally, if the benefits of this high tax outweigh the skepticism, indeed it will be a small cost to pay. The true scientific proof for global warming has not been established yet, and may take many years to establish, but if we can stave off at least the bad parts, it will be a boon for many people, not a curse.
The idea is to add a carbon tax of $300 a ton, or about $2.60 per gallon of gasoline.
I like it, but not for reasons of the psuedo-religion of environmentalism.
No - slapping a high premium on oil and gasoline would certainly discourage the excessive speculation going on in Wall Street. Put a $2.60 tax on a gallon of gasoline, and you will find a LOT of investors who should have no business in Wall Street leaving the energy futures market quicker than you can say "perp walk" and "margin call."
The reason? People who find themselves grumbling of paying $5 a gallon for gas will reduce demand even further. The demand on crude oil has been quite low since the stock market crash of 2009, even though we pay an average of $2.60 in Massachusetts. People like cheap gas (I do, even though I don't drive) but when gas is sky-high, people reduce a lot of their car driving. When gas went from $4.11 a gallon in June 2008 to $1.59 in December 2008, certainly it put money back in their pockets.
The reason why gasoline prices are high now is because Wall Street thinks that once the economy improves, people will return to their bad old driving habits and hence increase demand, and hence line their portfolios with monster profits. A $2.60 per gallon tax will not only cool off demand, it will all but freeze it. The crude oil traders in the NYMEX pits would drive the wholesale price to under a dollar because no one wants to drive when gas is over $5 a gallon. The floor, then, for a gallon of gas would be around $3.25-$3.50.
The other benefit will be that hostile foreign countries who feel the US will always be dependent on them for cheap oil won't be so accomodating when they go into their little diatribes against America. The Great Satan/imperialists/warmongers would finally tell these countries that, yeah, your imports are nice, but we've got cars that are more fuel efficient anyway. So, take your tankers back from whence they came and your fevered conspiracy theories and mumbo-jumbo too.
A better way to implement this gas tax would be to add this tax in 2011 at the end of every quarter. Adding 65 cents a quarter to the price of gasoline is less painful and won't cause as much panic as doing it all at once. Or, increasing the tax 10 cents every other week would cause far less panic as long as the public is notified beforehand.
The only problem I would forsee is a few activists screaming (as they're wont to do) "This tax is regressive towards the poor." Really? Everyone who drives will pay this tax, but in return for this high tax, innovation would explode exponentially - cars with better fuel mileage, substantial improvements to public transportation, and other developments. For example, Bermuda has a minimum gas price of $2.00 per liter - or $7.56 per gallon - yet their cars are much smaller and fuel efficient. So a 20 liter tank of gas that has a fuel efficiency of 5L/100km gives a Bermudian a 400km range - and the island itself is only 52 square kilometers. Conversely, Bermudians use scooters and public transportation to get around the islands. The same would happen if the US implements a this tax and the 30 gallon tanks of gas giving only 15 miles per gallon shrink to 10 gallon tanks giving 45 miles to the gallon. Same distance, but better fuel efficiency.
And I do like the aspect that control freaks who use the environment as an excuse to implement wild schemes like this will not like this kind of tax either because with it, they can't impose their ideals on us. Environmentalism, along with socialism and communism, is a false religion to begin with - they are religions worshipped by the elite who missed the memo that the United States isn't ruled by a monarchy or a dictator with military fatigues and bushy facial hair. If you want to worship trees and plants and pray that one day, animals can hold a reasonable conversation with you, go right ahead - but trying to control behavior because your morality must be followed without question harbors resentment and revolt. Americans don't like to be ruled.
Finally, if the benefits of this high tax outweigh the skepticism, indeed it will be a small cost to pay. The true scientific proof for global warming has not been established yet, and may take many years to establish, but if we can stave off at least the bad parts, it will be a boon for many people, not a curse.
2/05/2010
YouAREtheweakestFacebookfriend, g'bye
This week, I did a move or several on Facebook that would probably qualify as one that may make people a little mad.
I have people from my old school who have known each other for years. I've known them for years; they are not bad people. Put alcohol and them together, and you pine for the voice of Caillou, the most annoying child in the universe. (Except for Kate Jackson, late from The Pointy Universe.)
Of course, the day after, I looked at their profiles and pictures. I'll admit the pictures were innocent and it was your garden variety get-wasted-and-pose-as-a-group-and-make-goofy-faces variety. Pretty innocent stuff, if you really want to grind it fine.
The updates, however, made me angrier every time I read them. Tons of inside jokes. One person begging for pictures of her in heels falling flat on her ass. People begging to be taken out of the country. They sounded like they were congratulating themselves on getting wasted like the old days.
It brought me back to the day where I was in high school and while they played, drank, dated, and horsed around, I didn't get to do any of those things. Thanks (and this is a sincere thanks, not a sarcastic thanks you get when someone eats a fudgsicle and hands you the stick) to my parents, who saw these kids as pretty unruly. They made sure I had a good head on my shoulders. They made me study and go to school and work for what I wanted. Above all, they made sure I stayed out of trouble, because they promised not to rescue me if stuff happened.
I agonized over the decision for a couple of days. What would they think of me? Would I be demonized?
Then, I heard a voice that was female, and distinctly English, with four tones heralding her arrival. "Mr. ClearySquared...have these people always been by your side? Will they ever show up at your time of need? Or are they daft, immature, insecure people who are only out to have fun? It's time to vote off...the Weakest Links!"
Yep, my inner Anne Robinson - the game show host with a gimlet eye for bullshit - cast that eye towards me.
It was time to employ the FB Ban Hammer. The Friend Sledge-o-matic.
All I had to do was click the "X" near the word "Do you wish to break your connection?" It was the equivalent "YouAREtheweakestlink...g'bye," but mercifully without the virtual Walk of Shame and the post-voting interview. Painless and very clean, but I did it.
For a couple of days, I felt really bad. So far I haven't received requests to bring them back. I thought they were going to send me a message saying, "WTF? Why did you defriend me?" But then Anne came back and said, "There are plenty of people out there who will be your friends even outside of Facebook. The real friends will be the ones who will show up when you need them, just as you will show up when they need you. And if the ones who want to come back want an explanation, ask them: will you be there when I need you? If they can't answer that question, well, to borrow from another game show that made it to the States and was hosted by Regis Philbin, you have your final answer."
Then she winked and said, "G'bye."
I have people from my old school who have known each other for years. I've known them for years; they are not bad people. Put alcohol and them together, and you pine for the voice of Caillou, the most annoying child in the universe. (Except for Kate Jackson, late from The Pointy Universe.)
Of course, the day after, I looked at their profiles and pictures. I'll admit the pictures were innocent and it was your garden variety get-wasted-and-pose-as-a-group-and-make-goofy-faces variety. Pretty innocent stuff, if you really want to grind it fine.
The updates, however, made me angrier every time I read them. Tons of inside jokes. One person begging for pictures of her in heels falling flat on her ass. People begging to be taken out of the country. They sounded like they were congratulating themselves on getting wasted like the old days.
It brought me back to the day where I was in high school and while they played, drank, dated, and horsed around, I didn't get to do any of those things. Thanks (and this is a sincere thanks, not a sarcastic thanks you get when someone eats a fudgsicle and hands you the stick) to my parents, who saw these kids as pretty unruly. They made sure I had a good head on my shoulders. They made me study and go to school and work for what I wanted. Above all, they made sure I stayed out of trouble, because they promised not to rescue me if stuff happened.
I agonized over the decision for a couple of days. What would they think of me? Would I be demonized?
Then, I heard a voice that was female, and distinctly English, with four tones heralding her arrival. "Mr. ClearySquared...have these people always been by your side? Will they ever show up at your time of need? Or are they daft, immature, insecure people who are only out to have fun? It's time to vote off...the Weakest Links!"
Yep, my inner Anne Robinson - the game show host with a gimlet eye for bullshit - cast that eye towards me.
It was time to employ the FB Ban Hammer. The Friend Sledge-o-matic.
All I had to do was click the "X" near the word "Do you wish to break your connection?" It was the equivalent "YouAREtheweakestlink...g'bye," but mercifully without the virtual Walk of Shame and the post-voting interview. Painless and very clean, but I did it.
For a couple of days, I felt really bad. So far I haven't received requests to bring them back. I thought they were going to send me a message saying, "WTF? Why did you defriend me?" But then Anne came back and said, "There are plenty of people out there who will be your friends even outside of Facebook. The real friends will be the ones who will show up when you need them, just as you will show up when they need you. And if the ones who want to come back want an explanation, ask them: will you be there when I need you? If they can't answer that question, well, to borrow from another game show that made it to the States and was hosted by Regis Philbin, you have your final answer."
Then she winked and said, "G'bye."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)