Last quarter, GM lost about $39 billion. It wouldn't take too many quarters like that before I was forced to borrow money from friends. Ford, too, is struggling, having narrowed their losses for the most recent quarter to just $380 million - beating analysts' expectations. While that might be only 1% of GM's loss, it still seems like a big number to me.
One reason that oil is difficult to replace is that if it were suddenly rendered obsolete, about $7 trillion in wealth - as yet untapped oil reserves - would suddenly be worthless. The folks who sit atop this vast wealth aren't particularly inclined to see that happen.
So, what vested interests have an interest in rendering oil obsolete? Why not auto makers?
One of the ways that Intel and Microsoft and Seagate (and others) have fed each other's success is by co-evolving. More storage or computing power allows for more sophisticated software (bloatware, to its critics). More sophisticated software requires more storage space and computing power. If you have a ten year old car, you can go pretty much wherever a brand new car can go. If you have a ten year old computer, you find large swaths of computer land are off limits for you. Whether it is planned or simply serendipitous, this rapid evolution of technology has helped computer sales. Today, even our phones rapidly become obsolete.
TV manufacturers have learned a lesson from this. In February of 2009, all analog broadcasting will stop and viewers will be forced to upgrade to High Definition - an act sure to stimulate hardware sales.
It seems to me that auto makers would want to take a similar approach with their cars. Imagine if they were to design cars that depended on something other than oil. Something that polluted less, or ran on cheaper fuel, or needed fueling less often - all of these options could help to stimulate sales. We so often talk and write about how positive might be the effects on our environment and our continued funding of extremism if we broke our oil addiction. But just imagine what this could mean for the auto industry.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
12 November 2007
10 November 2007
Norman Mailer - Dead at 84
Norman Mailer, like all great writers, refused the banal generalities used to caricature rather than characterize people and events, unafraid to be blunt. He died today, and David Wiegand of the San Francisco Chronicle writes:
LSD
I never really went into LSD. I sort of disapproved of it. I felt it was too easy. I have always had this very strong, call it a feeling, call it a prejudice, call it a conviction ... that the mysteries are not easily available. You have to earn entrance into them. You didn't learn things for too little. You had to pay a price. And I felt that LSD was blasting superhighways into the mysteries. And what I really didn't like about LSD is that people who were taking it were seeming to become less and less as they took it. They got emptier and more vapid.
Bush & Terrorism
You wrote about how the threat of nuclear annihilation created an existential crisis among young people.
That your death will be without meaning.
Do you see a comparable thing going on today with the war on terror?
9/11 is a perfect example of that. The horror, the shock, is that you get up in the morning, you say goodbye to your children, you kiss your wife, you go off to work, and you are dead. That was intolerable shock. That is why terrorists are so hated, because they destroy the idea that you are going to have a meaningful ending to your life, so therefore, what's the sense of working hard, if you are not doing it in the name of a higher purpose? That is why Bush can keep pushing the button: "Terrorists! Terrorists! Terrorists!" In a certain sense, Bush is a terrorist, because anyone who keeps evoking the word "terrorist" all the time is pressing a button to get a reaction, without any higher moral intent.
So what is the story of Bush, then?
Bush is a terrorist.
Do you think he is the worst president of your lifetime?
He is a spiritual terrorist.
It is interesting that, in retrospect, he makes somebody like Nixon look pretty good.
Nixon was a mean son of a bitch whose inner life probably smelled of old urine, but he was intelligent as hell, and he was serious, and he could recognize the limits that were incumbent upon him whenever he got into a venture. So looking back on him then, yes, we would be far better off with Nixon than we would be with Bush.
The Greatest Generation
What did you make of the baby boomers' belated embrace of the "greatest generation"?
[Laughs] I don't think we ever saw ourselves that way at all. It's cute. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality is we groused, we pissed, we moaned, we were furious. We just pissed and moaned right through the war. The idea of the greatest generation, it was low appeal to our vanity. I don't know what it was to younger people. But I think the smarter ones just said, "Oh, more bullshit."
Perhaps the quintessential American author of our era, Mailer, 84, married six times, fathered eight children, stabbed one of his wives during a booze-fueled party, once ran for mayor of New York City, and carried on feuds with other writers with such bloodlust that the whiny dustup between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell seems like a lovers' tiff.In an interview with Mark Binelli for Rolling Stones 40th Anniversary published this year, Mailer shared his ideas on LSD, Bush, and the "greatest generation," of which he was a part.
LSD
I never really went into LSD. I sort of disapproved of it. I felt it was too easy. I have always had this very strong, call it a feeling, call it a prejudice, call it a conviction ... that the mysteries are not easily available. You have to earn entrance into them. You didn't learn things for too little. You had to pay a price. And I felt that LSD was blasting superhighways into the mysteries. And what I really didn't like about LSD is that people who were taking it were seeming to become less and less as they took it. They got emptier and more vapid.
Bush & Terrorism
You wrote about how the threat of nuclear annihilation created an existential crisis among young people.
That your death will be without meaning.
Do you see a comparable thing going on today with the war on terror?
9/11 is a perfect example of that. The horror, the shock, is that you get up in the morning, you say goodbye to your children, you kiss your wife, you go off to work, and you are dead. That was intolerable shock. That is why terrorists are so hated, because they destroy the idea that you are going to have a meaningful ending to your life, so therefore, what's the sense of working hard, if you are not doing it in the name of a higher purpose? That is why Bush can keep pushing the button: "Terrorists! Terrorists! Terrorists!" In a certain sense, Bush is a terrorist, because anyone who keeps evoking the word "terrorist" all the time is pressing a button to get a reaction, without any higher moral intent.
So what is the story of Bush, then?
Bush is a terrorist.
Do you think he is the worst president of your lifetime?
He is a spiritual terrorist.
It is interesting that, in retrospect, he makes somebody like Nixon look pretty good.
Nixon was a mean son of a bitch whose inner life probably smelled of old urine, but he was intelligent as hell, and he was serious, and he could recognize the limits that were incumbent upon him whenever he got into a venture. So looking back on him then, yes, we would be far better off with Nixon than we would be with Bush.
The Greatest Generation
What did you make of the baby boomers' belated embrace of the "greatest generation"?
[Laughs] I don't think we ever saw ourselves that way at all. It's cute. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality is we groused, we pissed, we moaned, we were furious. We just pissed and moaned right through the war. The idea of the greatest generation, it was low appeal to our vanity. I don't know what it was to younger people. But I think the smarter ones just said, "Oh, more bullshit."
Time for a Virtual Democracy
Tim Harford, the Undercover Economist, has an interesting posting about the difference in efficiencies between markets and elections. It is upon the responsiveness of institutions to these two dynamics - markets and election - that our quality of life rests. In the comments, section, the point is made
And as I read this, I wonder, why? Why is it that we have to vote for one person or party or another? Why not vote on things issue by issue? We certainly have the technology. We can vote on whether Barry Bonds home rum record should have an asterisk or whether Britney Spears should get custody of her children. Ours is a wired world and there seems little reason why the public couldn't vote in an on-going basis for a variety of policy issues.
Imagine that every 2 to 4 years, you voted for one business conglomerate that was going to provide you with all your products and services in the coming 2 to 4 years. Your phone service, ice cream, automobiles, and housing would all be provided by whoever you "voted" for. We'd think that this was absurd. And yet, that is what we do at voting booth. Is it any wonder that so few Americans vote and so many are dis-satisfied with those who are elected? Isn't it time that we reflected in our democracy that we have made some advances in polling and communicating in the last 225 years?
Your vote buys one of two gigantic packages - a president or a congressman (at the national level, at least). But your dollar can be split into many parts and be used to buy many different products.
If we could choose to vote for every policy, power and person in government, and not be directly affected when we abstain from voting, then a vote might be more like a dollar.
It seems clear to me, at least, that the vote is a FAR blunter tool than the dollar.
And as I read this, I wonder, why? Why is it that we have to vote for one person or party or another? Why not vote on things issue by issue? We certainly have the technology. We can vote on whether Barry Bonds home rum record should have an asterisk or whether Britney Spears should get custody of her children. Ours is a wired world and there seems little reason why the public couldn't vote in an on-going basis for a variety of policy issues.
Imagine that every 2 to 4 years, you voted for one business conglomerate that was going to provide you with all your products and services in the coming 2 to 4 years. Your phone service, ice cream, automobiles, and housing would all be provided by whoever you "voted" for. We'd think that this was absurd. And yet, that is what we do at voting booth. Is it any wonder that so few Americans vote and so many are dis-satisfied with those who are elected? Isn't it time that we reflected in our democracy that we have made some advances in polling and communicating in the last 225 years?
09 November 2007
The Post-Information, Post-Revolutionary Entrepreneurial Economy
It’s popular to point out that we’re in an information economy. Popular but a little dated. By 1900, we had universities producing knowledge workers, albeit in small numbers. By 1900, we had telegraph and telephone. Credit and retail and their interdependent relationship had already begun. The rest of the century was a ride on this wave of information, knowledge work, and credit-fueled consumption.
It’s true that information matters today, but in a way very different from how it mattered in 1900. Back then, the point was to get more information. From telephone to IBM to Google, fortunes were made by companies able to provide more information since that time. Like water to a person living in Death Valley, it didn’t ever seem possible to get too much information. By contrast, in today’s world we’ve reached a tipping point. It is no longer information that limits but, rather, attention. We have too much information. The life of person living in Death Valley and a person living in Puget Sound are both defined by water, but the relationship is very different. Information matters, but not as something that is scarce and that limits.
The question now is how to live in a world with a glut of information. Once the information has been dispersed, how to again make progress? Not by dispersing more information but, rather, by dispersing decision making. This is going to radically change the distribution of power and the role of the employee within corporations. It will lead to the popularization of entrepreneurship
This tipping point of information will no more lead to the entrepreneurial economy than the growing complexity of the industrial economy led to the information economy. Other factors will come into play. But basically, the shift is the same. By about 1900, the limit to progress had shifted from industrial capital to knowledge workers, from factories to information. Today, the limit to progress has shifted from knowledge workers to entrepreneurs, from the worker as someone handed a script to the worker as someone expected to improvise.
In the most advanced economies – like the U.S. – more than 90% of the work force is employed within an organization. It’s doubtful that we’ll ever return to the days of the 17th century when each person was his own agent. The entrepreneurial economy will build on the advances of corporations and specialists just as the information economy built on the advances of factories and financial markets. It is not plausible that even 10% of the current employee population will leave organizations to form their own business. It is plausible that their roles within these organizations will fundamentally change.
In today’s world, the choice between employee and entrepreneur is quite binary. You either take the risk of starting your own business or you remain an employee. Left unexplored is the vast space between those two extremes. One of the main social innovations in the next decade will be an attempt to create way stations between those two extremes, offering employees more of the risk – return profile, and autonomy, of an entrepreneur and, for the particularly savvy corporations, offering entrepreneurs more of the infrastructure support and relative security of an employee.
But this matter of popularizing entrepreneurship is deeper still, getting as it does to the crux of progress.
Entrepreneurs as we normally think of them create and define a business. They perhaps don’t have as much freedom as we’d like to imagine – they do, in fact, have to meet a market need and run a business efficiently enough to make a profit. But they do get to define the business. For many, they represent the epitome of freedom. If they’re successful, they don’t even have to work in the business – it generates an income for them. But even if they have to – or choose to – immerse themselves in the work of the business, it is of their own defining. They don’t impose upon themselves any of the incessant meetings, odd tasks, and stupid policies that knowledge workers within so many corporations grate against.
And progress as its been embraced by the West is not about higher levels of enlightenment, more sex appeal, lower body fat, more knowledge, or more wealth. That is, it could be about any of these things but isn’t about any one of these things. Progress is about autonomy for the individual. If you have a car, you have more autonomy than a person with only shoes. If you have shoes, you have more autonomy than a person who is barefoot.
In this sense, the popularization of entrepreneurship represents a natural culmination of progress. And even the very notion of entrepreneurship is set to rapidly mature in this next economy.
Much of the progress of the last 700 years has come in the form of social invention – creating new institutions like the modern corporation, bank, church, or nation-state. This kind of progress has itself been a series of entrepreneurial acts, the creation of institutions that house new behaviors and create new value, new outcomes. These new institutions have emerged in a series of revolutionary acts, social earthquakes that disrupt families, cities, borders, and normal practices.
One of the things that will be so fascinating about the fourth economy, the entrepreneurial economy, is that it’ll make this act of entrepreneurship the norm. The culmination of economic progress is autonomy for the individual, something that will come about through the popularization of entrepreneurship. What this will mean in practical terms is that the individual will be living within custom institutions – a transformation of the very notion of institution. As we move towards a world in which more and more people are taking on the role of entrepreneur – creating or customizing institutions as a means to realize their potential and match their own passions – we’ll be moving towards a world in which social invention is no more an act of revolution than is investing in a mutual fund. The final revolution will be to mass manufacture revolution, the final product of the market economy.
It’s true that information matters today, but in a way very different from how it mattered in 1900. Back then, the point was to get more information. From telephone to IBM to Google, fortunes were made by companies able to provide more information since that time. Like water to a person living in Death Valley, it didn’t ever seem possible to get too much information. By contrast, in today’s world we’ve reached a tipping point. It is no longer information that limits but, rather, attention. We have too much information. The life of person living in Death Valley and a person living in Puget Sound are both defined by water, but the relationship is very different. Information matters, but not as something that is scarce and that limits.
The question now is how to live in a world with a glut of information. Once the information has been dispersed, how to again make progress? Not by dispersing more information but, rather, by dispersing decision making. This is going to radically change the distribution of power and the role of the employee within corporations. It will lead to the popularization of entrepreneurship
This tipping point of information will no more lead to the entrepreneurial economy than the growing complexity of the industrial economy led to the information economy. Other factors will come into play. But basically, the shift is the same. By about 1900, the limit to progress had shifted from industrial capital to knowledge workers, from factories to information. Today, the limit to progress has shifted from knowledge workers to entrepreneurs, from the worker as someone handed a script to the worker as someone expected to improvise.
In the most advanced economies – like the U.S. – more than 90% of the work force is employed within an organization. It’s doubtful that we’ll ever return to the days of the 17th century when each person was his own agent. The entrepreneurial economy will build on the advances of corporations and specialists just as the information economy built on the advances of factories and financial markets. It is not plausible that even 10% of the current employee population will leave organizations to form their own business. It is plausible that their roles within these organizations will fundamentally change.
In today’s world, the choice between employee and entrepreneur is quite binary. You either take the risk of starting your own business or you remain an employee. Left unexplored is the vast space between those two extremes. One of the main social innovations in the next decade will be an attempt to create way stations between those two extremes, offering employees more of the risk – return profile, and autonomy, of an entrepreneur and, for the particularly savvy corporations, offering entrepreneurs more of the infrastructure support and relative security of an employee.
But this matter of popularizing entrepreneurship is deeper still, getting as it does to the crux of progress.
Entrepreneurs as we normally think of them create and define a business. They perhaps don’t have as much freedom as we’d like to imagine – they do, in fact, have to meet a market need and run a business efficiently enough to make a profit. But they do get to define the business. For many, they represent the epitome of freedom. If they’re successful, they don’t even have to work in the business – it generates an income for them. But even if they have to – or choose to – immerse themselves in the work of the business, it is of their own defining. They don’t impose upon themselves any of the incessant meetings, odd tasks, and stupid policies that knowledge workers within so many corporations grate against.
And progress as its been embraced by the West is not about higher levels of enlightenment, more sex appeal, lower body fat, more knowledge, or more wealth. That is, it could be about any of these things but isn’t about any one of these things. Progress is about autonomy for the individual. If you have a car, you have more autonomy than a person with only shoes. If you have shoes, you have more autonomy than a person who is barefoot.
In this sense, the popularization of entrepreneurship represents a natural culmination of progress. And even the very notion of entrepreneurship is set to rapidly mature in this next economy.
Much of the progress of the last 700 years has come in the form of social invention – creating new institutions like the modern corporation, bank, church, or nation-state. This kind of progress has itself been a series of entrepreneurial acts, the creation of institutions that house new behaviors and create new value, new outcomes. These new institutions have emerged in a series of revolutionary acts, social earthquakes that disrupt families, cities, borders, and normal practices.
One of the things that will be so fascinating about the fourth economy, the entrepreneurial economy, is that it’ll make this act of entrepreneurship the norm. The culmination of economic progress is autonomy for the individual, something that will come about through the popularization of entrepreneurship. What this will mean in practical terms is that the individual will be living within custom institutions – a transformation of the very notion of institution. As we move towards a world in which more and more people are taking on the role of entrepreneur – creating or customizing institutions as a means to realize their potential and match their own passions – we’ll be moving towards a world in which social invention is no more an act of revolution than is investing in a mutual fund. The final revolution will be to mass manufacture revolution, the final product of the market economy.
08 November 2007
Bush vs. Clinton - Income Growth by Percentile
The amount of joy you get from a scoop of ice cream depends on lots of things. One big determinant of how much joy you get from it is how much you already have. If you already have 1,000 gallons of ice cream, your enjoyment isn't going to go up much if you get another. If you have only one scoop of ice cream, your joy will go up more. As you get more, your marginal utility (fancy economist speak for your additional joy from the next unit) falls. It is as true of money as it is for ice cream and clothes. A person with only $100 will get far more excited about another $10,000 than a person with $1 million. To be a Bush supporter is to deny this very simple and hard to refute claim.
CSPAN posted some charts today in conjunction with Bernanke's hearing, one of which I've recreated here. For me, this graph seems to capture what is indefensible about Bush's policies. (And note that even the median income in 2006 was probably much lower than what most people think - about $35,000.)
Income growth was higher for everyone during the 1990s. For those in the top ten percent, incomes grew twice as much. More important, though, is what happened to those at or below the median. The difference for those in the bottom 10 percent could hardly be more dramatic - during the 1990s, their income went up 11% and so far this decade, their incomes have dropped 3%.It is not just that the incomes are growing more slowly. The increase in marginal utility under Bush's tenure has been negligible. Is it any wonder his approval ratings have been abysmal?
CSPAN posted some charts today in conjunction with Bernanke's hearing, one of which I've recreated here. For me, this graph seems to capture what is indefensible about Bush's policies. (And note that even the median income in 2006 was probably much lower than what most people think - about $35,000.)
Income growth was higher for everyone during the 1990s. For those in the top ten percent, incomes grew twice as much. More important, though, is what happened to those at or below the median. The difference for those in the bottom 10 percent could hardly be more dramatic - during the 1990s, their income went up 11% and so far this decade, their incomes have dropped 3%.It is not just that the incomes are growing more slowly. The increase in marginal utility under Bush's tenure has been negligible. Is it any wonder his approval ratings have been abysmal?
Another Day, Another Batch of Headlines
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili drew an angry response from Russia on Thursday and faced growing censure from supporters in the West after he quashed opposition protests and imposed emergency rule. The response from Bush was more confused. "Georgia has a president,? Does that mean I'm governor there?" he asked aids.
Here in San Diego, Marines have put their drill instructor on trial for being abusive. Seriously. If they lose this trial, said their defense attorney, they're going to appeal on grounds that the judge was judgmental.
In New York, a restaurant is offering a $25,000 dessert. It includes 28 different cocoas, 5 grams of edible gold, and medical coverage for any health complications resulting from obesity. McDonald's has announced that they'll begin selling fries that include stents for only $12,000.
Yesterday, in Texas, a man set a record by sitting in a tub filled with 87 rattlesnakes. The stunt did two things for him. One, it gave him the Guinness record. Two, it substituted for a normal election. The voters in his district said, "Okay! You've proved it. You're ready to sit in congress."
Televangelist Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani, surprising observers who thought Giuliani's support for abortion would make it difficult for him to win the support of the evangelic community. Robertson said that he'd prefer to support a candidate who would not only fight for the rights of the unborn but be willing to bomb the cities of the born, but if he had to choose, he felt like he had to go with someone willing to bomb the born.
A couple driving near Chelan, Washington had a cow fall out of the sky and onto the hood of their minivan. I have no clue about how to embellish this.
Here in San Diego, Marines have put their drill instructor on trial for being abusive. Seriously. If they lose this trial, said their defense attorney, they're going to appeal on grounds that the judge was judgmental.
In New York, a restaurant is offering a $25,000 dessert. It includes 28 different cocoas, 5 grams of edible gold, and medical coverage for any health complications resulting from obesity. McDonald's has announced that they'll begin selling fries that include stents for only $12,000.
Yesterday, in Texas, a man set a record by sitting in a tub filled with 87 rattlesnakes. The stunt did two things for him. One, it gave him the Guinness record. Two, it substituted for a normal election. The voters in his district said, "Okay! You've proved it. You're ready to sit in congress."
Televangelist Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani, surprising observers who thought Giuliani's support for abortion would make it difficult for him to win the support of the evangelic community. Robertson said that he'd prefer to support a candidate who would not only fight for the rights of the unborn but be willing to bomb the cities of the born, but if he had to choose, he felt like he had to go with someone willing to bomb the born.
A couple driving near Chelan, Washington had a cow fall out of the sky and onto the hood of their minivan. I have no clue about how to embellish this.
07 November 2007
Odd Numbers in Defense of Oil
"In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel over what I considered to be an odd number."
- Steven Wright
Congress has approved a new Pentagon spending bill. It's for $460 billion and does not include provision for Iraq.(Basically, including Iraq would make it about $550 billion.) Isn't that like paying tuition for your kid and learning that it does not include classes? Meanwhile, Iraq's GDP is about $40 billion. Add in Iran ($194 billion), North Korea ($40 billion), and Libya ($34 billion) and you have GDP totals of just over $300 billion. I say that we use our defense budget to simply buy our enemies instead, price equal to annual GDP. We save 44% and they no longer constitute a threat.
Today, General Motors announced that they LOST $39 billion in the third QUARTER of this year. Exxon also reported a drop in profits for the 3rd quarter - they made only $9.4 billion, down from the $10.5 billion they made in the third quarter of last year. Their revenue for the quarter was $102 billion.
So, put this in perspective. Exxon's annual profits are about equal to Iraq's total GDP. And as Greenspan said, we wouldn't be in Iraq if not for oil. So, wouldn't it be cheaper all around just to get out of Iraq and then give Exxon 10% of our defense budget? And then we'd have enough money left over to directly subsidize our auto industry as well.
Or, we could put some money into alternative energy, treating that like a urgent priority given how expensive it is to protect oil resources and to recover from climate change. Then we could .... nah. That would be too expensive. Better to just keep spending the half trillion a year.
Finally, a barrell of oil is soon to cost $100. I should be a little discomfited by this, but I'm not. Dick Cheney has promised that once oil hits $100 a barrel he's going to declare the day a new national holiday.
- Steven Wright
Congress has approved a new Pentagon spending bill. It's for $460 billion and does not include provision for Iraq.(Basically, including Iraq would make it about $550 billion.) Isn't that like paying tuition for your kid and learning that it does not include classes? Meanwhile, Iraq's GDP is about $40 billion. Add in Iran ($194 billion), North Korea ($40 billion), and Libya ($34 billion) and you have GDP totals of just over $300 billion. I say that we use our defense budget to simply buy our enemies instead, price equal to annual GDP. We save 44% and they no longer constitute a threat.
Today, General Motors announced that they LOST $39 billion in the third QUARTER of this year. Exxon also reported a drop in profits for the 3rd quarter - they made only $9.4 billion, down from the $10.5 billion they made in the third quarter of last year. Their revenue for the quarter was $102 billion.
So, put this in perspective. Exxon's annual profits are about equal to Iraq's total GDP. And as Greenspan said, we wouldn't be in Iraq if not for oil. So, wouldn't it be cheaper all around just to get out of Iraq and then give Exxon 10% of our defense budget? And then we'd have enough money left over to directly subsidize our auto industry as well.
Or, we could put some money into alternative energy, treating that like a urgent priority given how expensive it is to protect oil resources and to recover from climate change. Then we could .... nah. That would be too expensive. Better to just keep spending the half trillion a year.
Finally, a barrell of oil is soon to cost $100. I should be a little discomfited by this, but I'm not. Dick Cheney has promised that once oil hits $100 a barrel he's going to declare the day a new national holiday.
06 November 2007
Today's Headlines - Another Look
Ron Paul raised $4 million in one day, breaking Mitt Romney’s one day record for fundraising. If he’s unable to win the election, he plans to use his newly discovered fundraising skills to raise the money to simply buy congressmen.
The writer’s strike has shut down TV productions all over town. Love of Life and Scrubs is said to be taking advantage of this lull in script production to film scenes for their foreign markets, showing actors gesturing and talking emotionally. The reasoning is that they can dub in the foreign language dialogue later, once the strike is settled and the writers are able to inform the actors of what it was they were saying. Rumor has it that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a similar plan.
In spite of the fact that Mukasey refused to denounce waterboarding, he’ll likely be confirmed by the Senate as the new attorney general. Bush said he doesn’t understand the fuss. He’s no fan of snowboarding either, but no one has brought that up.
Rosie O’Donnell is reportedly finalizing a deal with MSNBC to start her own TV show, doing political commentary. Donald Trump was outraged. “What makes executives think that anyone would want to watch an obnoxious personality prone to juvenile fights?”
Bush called Musharraf’s firing of the Pakistani chief justice and closing down of TV stations a mistake. Apparently, Musharraf now says that he had only meant to turn off his TV, not actually shut down TV stations.
NASA scientists said they discovered a fifth planet orbiting a star outside our own solar system. Citigroup and Countrywide have already announced new subprime mortgage program for investors interested in buying real estate there.
The Pentagon is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals, so it is planning to lower its entry requirements. “As it turns out,” says a Pentagon spokesmen, “having been arrested for carrying guns or fighting does not make a person unfit for military duty.”
Researchers have recently discovered one difference between men and children. Breastfeeding raises the IQs of children by 7 points. By contrast, the mere sight of breasts actually lowers the IQs of men by 14 points.
The writer’s strike has shut down TV productions all over town. Love of Life and Scrubs is said to be taking advantage of this lull in script production to film scenes for their foreign markets, showing actors gesturing and talking emotionally. The reasoning is that they can dub in the foreign language dialogue later, once the strike is settled and the writers are able to inform the actors of what it was they were saying. Rumor has it that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a similar plan.
In spite of the fact that Mukasey refused to denounce waterboarding, he’ll likely be confirmed by the Senate as the new attorney general. Bush said he doesn’t understand the fuss. He’s no fan of snowboarding either, but no one has brought that up.
Rosie O’Donnell is reportedly finalizing a deal with MSNBC to start her own TV show, doing political commentary. Donald Trump was outraged. “What makes executives think that anyone would want to watch an obnoxious personality prone to juvenile fights?”
Bush called Musharraf’s firing of the Pakistani chief justice and closing down of TV stations a mistake. Apparently, Musharraf now says that he had only meant to turn off his TV, not actually shut down TV stations.
NASA scientists said they discovered a fifth planet orbiting a star outside our own solar system. Citigroup and Countrywide have already announced new subprime mortgage program for investors interested in buying real estate there.
The Pentagon is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals, so it is planning to lower its entry requirements. “As it turns out,” says a Pentagon spokesmen, “having been arrested for carrying guns or fighting does not make a person unfit for military duty.”
Researchers have recently discovered one difference between men and children. Breastfeeding raises the IQs of children by 7 points. By contrast, the mere sight of breasts actually lowers the IQs of men by 14 points.
05 November 2007
Outrage Fatigue and 2 Georges
I'm suffering from outrage fatigue. After nearly seven years of George, mine seems to be a common condition. The presidential election is now one year away but already Americans have distracted themselves with the small differences between Hillary, John, Joe & Barak and with the larger, but less relevant, differences between Rudy, Fred, John, and Mitt.
George doesn't have foreign policy. He looks into the soul of a leader like Putin or Musharraff and places his confidence in them, seemingly confused when they rule like despots. When the people of, say, Pakistan turn against the leader he's bet on, he's left alienated and ineffectual. While Pakistan has been brewing as a major issue, George trusted his friend Musharraf to quell riots there while he pushed to attack Iran, showing a gift for multitasking through even the most important events of his administration. At this point, he could easily leave the next president with military conflicts and / or civil wars raging in a row of contiguous countries stretching from Egypt to China, an unprecedented swath of policy failure which boggles the mind, including as it does Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - countries that are home to about a third of the world's Muslims. It would be hard to have intentionally created so much chaos.
Meanwhile, here at home, George made only his fifth veto. In addition to vetoes against funding for stem cell research (twice), troop withdrawal, and health care for children, he's decided to veto a water bill. Water issues constitute a quiet crisis, something we're acutely aware of here in southern California. "Today, mankind is using about 160 billion tons more water each year than is being replenished by rain. If this water were carried in water trucks, it would require a 300,000 mile-long convoy of trucks every day - a convoy length 37 times the diameter of the Earth. This is how much water we are using and not replenishing." [from James Martin's The Meaning of the 21st Century] Whether George's environmental legacy would best be represented by an ostrich or Dodo bird is an argument I'll leave for others.
George is also appointing an attorney general, a supposed advocate for the people of this country, who believes that torturing and wire-tapping citizens is perfectly fine - showing a casual disregard towards the individual not seen since King Charles was beheaded for thus ignoring the rule of law and the rights of citizens.
I could go on, but I'm just tired of it all. Tired of the former frat boy cheerleader who seemingly seizes on every policy decision as an excuse for doing a cheap imitation of Alfred E. Newman. Tired of the press taking him seriously and acting as if anything he and his advisers said still makes sense. Quite simply, I've got outrage fatigue.
All that to say that Lowell George (a southern California boy) and Little Feat were my favorite band when I was in high school. One evidence of genius is that its products don't age. Lowell was more than a wicked slide guitar player with funky white overalls. He was a songwriting genius. This song in particular seems to capture my current political funk. Sing along if you care.
Enjoy.
George doesn't have foreign policy. He looks into the soul of a leader like Putin or Musharraff and places his confidence in them, seemingly confused when they rule like despots. When the people of, say, Pakistan turn against the leader he's bet on, he's left alienated and ineffectual. While Pakistan has been brewing as a major issue, George trusted his friend Musharraf to quell riots there while he pushed to attack Iran, showing a gift for multitasking through even the most important events of his administration. At this point, he could easily leave the next president with military conflicts and / or civil wars raging in a row of contiguous countries stretching from Egypt to China, an unprecedented swath of policy failure which boggles the mind, including as it does Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - countries that are home to about a third of the world's Muslims. It would be hard to have intentionally created so much chaos.
Meanwhile, here at home, George made only his fifth veto. In addition to vetoes against funding for stem cell research (twice), troop withdrawal, and health care for children, he's decided to veto a water bill. Water issues constitute a quiet crisis, something we're acutely aware of here in southern California. "Today, mankind is using about 160 billion tons more water each year than is being replenished by rain. If this water were carried in water trucks, it would require a 300,000 mile-long convoy of trucks every day - a convoy length 37 times the diameter of the Earth. This is how much water we are using and not replenishing." [from James Martin's The Meaning of the 21st Century] Whether George's environmental legacy would best be represented by an ostrich or Dodo bird is an argument I'll leave for others.
George is also appointing an attorney general, a supposed advocate for the people of this country, who believes that torturing and wire-tapping citizens is perfectly fine - showing a casual disregard towards the individual not seen since King Charles was beheaded for thus ignoring the rule of law and the rights of citizens.
I could go on, but I'm just tired of it all. Tired of the former frat boy cheerleader who seemingly seizes on every policy decision as an excuse for doing a cheap imitation of Alfred E. Newman. Tired of the press taking him seriously and acting as if anything he and his advisers said still makes sense. Quite simply, I've got outrage fatigue.
All that to say that Lowell George (a southern California boy) and Little Feat were my favorite band when I was in high school. One evidence of genius is that its products don't age. Lowell was more than a wicked slide guitar player with funky white overalls. He was a songwriting genius. This song in particular seems to capture my current political funk. Sing along if you care.
"Telephone is ringing.
Tell me it was Chairman Mao.
I don't care who it is ...
I got the apolitical blues."
Enjoy.
Systems Thinking and the New Economic Age
The Change in Thinking video really was a foundation for a larger claim about a new economy, a new society. But to the extent that it stood alone, its points were largely as follows.
1. Reductionist thinking was not something abstract that stayed in books. Applied to the real world of work and commerce, it gave the distinctions that fed division of labor and even the way we approached institutions: we built institutions for learning and work and play, separating into different domains the most essential elements of being human.
2. Reductionist thinking turns our focus inwards - towards the pieces of a problem. By contrast, systems thinking focuses us on the relationships between those pieces. Most of the really interesting problems we face today defy reductionist thinking - defy problem solving that focuses on a part. We created this modern world by applying the reductionist way of thinking. We can't hope to transform it by reliance on the same.
3. To illustrate the extent to which reductionist thinking has been conflated with thinking, I offer the Monty Hall Paradox. Simply put, reductionist thinking with its focus on the parts misses most of the problem. By contrast, focusing on the relationships - even with the card we tend to ignore - is the essence of systems thinking. Focus on the relationship rather than the two "closed" doors (or cards) is twice as effective.
4. Leaders need to begin introducing the elements of systems thinking into their organization. Our world is full of systems. Introducing new methods of thinking, consciously creating intellectual capital, and challenging our defaults in perception and problem framing are essential to dealing with all the truly interesting problems.
This particular video was meant to be a set up to a video explaining the new economic age, an age that will transform the corporation as the Enlightenment transformed the nation-state, or the Renaissance transformed the church. To see what larger framework this fits into, you can go to this post from August - The 4th Economy.
Basically, systems thinking is going to be an essential part of the coming transformation. Our really important problems have little regard for national boundaries or institutions that pretend to neatly parse the experiences of being human or regional effects. A job in Michigan might depend on economic conditions in Europe or the value of the dollar. Floods in Southeast Asia might be exacerbated by carbon emissions in the U.S. Problems in manufacturing might have little to do with manufacturing and everything to do with the approach to design. Most of our problems came out of an over reliance upon reductionist thinking and won't be solved by continued reliance upon this view that, at its core, insists that the world can be as neatly fragmented as an orange.
Our founding fathers had adopted a new way of thinking. They were men of the Enlightenment, a revolutionary and different way of thinking in its time. In our own time, we need leaders who not only adopt this new way of thinking but are able to create new experiences that help others to appreciate systems. For those paying attention, I think that the world is already offering such experiences in abundance. Seeing them simply requires a change in thinking.
1. Reductionist thinking was not something abstract that stayed in books. Applied to the real world of work and commerce, it gave the distinctions that fed division of labor and even the way we approached institutions: we built institutions for learning and work and play, separating into different domains the most essential elements of being human.
2. Reductionist thinking turns our focus inwards - towards the pieces of a problem. By contrast, systems thinking focuses us on the relationships between those pieces. Most of the really interesting problems we face today defy reductionist thinking - defy problem solving that focuses on a part. We created this modern world by applying the reductionist way of thinking. We can't hope to transform it by reliance on the same.
3. To illustrate the extent to which reductionist thinking has been conflated with thinking, I offer the Monty Hall Paradox. Simply put, reductionist thinking with its focus on the parts misses most of the problem. By contrast, focusing on the relationships - even with the card we tend to ignore - is the essence of systems thinking. Focus on the relationship rather than the two "closed" doors (or cards) is twice as effective.
4. Leaders need to begin introducing the elements of systems thinking into their organization. Our world is full of systems. Introducing new methods of thinking, consciously creating intellectual capital, and challenging our defaults in perception and problem framing are essential to dealing with all the truly interesting problems.
This particular video was meant to be a set up to a video explaining the new economic age, an age that will transform the corporation as the Enlightenment transformed the nation-state, or the Renaissance transformed the church. To see what larger framework this fits into, you can go to this post from August - The 4th Economy.
Basically, systems thinking is going to be an essential part of the coming transformation. Our really important problems have little regard for national boundaries or institutions that pretend to neatly parse the experiences of being human or regional effects. A job in Michigan might depend on economic conditions in Europe or the value of the dollar. Floods in Southeast Asia might be exacerbated by carbon emissions in the U.S. Problems in manufacturing might have little to do with manufacturing and everything to do with the approach to design. Most of our problems came out of an over reliance upon reductionist thinking and won't be solved by continued reliance upon this view that, at its core, insists that the world can be as neatly fragmented as an orange.
Our founding fathers had adopted a new way of thinking. They were men of the Enlightenment, a revolutionary and different way of thinking in its time. In our own time, we need leaders who not only adopt this new way of thinking but are able to create new experiences that help others to appreciate systems. For those paying attention, I think that the world is already offering such experiences in abundance. Seeing them simply requires a change in thinking.
02 November 2007
1 Change in Thinking - Intro
In 1994, I made a video I titled A Change in Thinking. It was my attempt to argue that we need a change in thinking in order to move into a new economic age. Systems thinking seems to me a way of thinking better suited to our new realities that seem to defy reductionist, or analytic thinking.
In this video, a much younger me wanders around various beautiful sites in San Diego that includes Balboa Park, La Jolla Cove, Torrey Pines Golf Course, an orchard, and the Natural History Museum. Beginning with this introduction (or skipping directly into segments that more intrigue you) you can watch this 30 minute video straight through.
In this video, a much younger me wanders around various beautiful sites in San Diego that includes Balboa Park, La Jolla Cove, Torrey Pines Golf Course, an orchard, and the Natural History Museum. Beginning with this introduction (or skipping directly into segments that more intrigue you) you can watch this 30 minute video straight through.
2 Change in Thinking - New Economic Age
Once people change their thinking, all other changes follow. In this segment, I compare the philosophy of Rene Descartes and Adam Smith - making the claim that organizing around the principles of analytic, or reductionist, thinking led to capitalism. An economic and social revolution followed from an intellectual revolution. This pattern is set to happen again, as organizations and leaders begin to organize around the principles of systems thinking.
3 Change in Thinking - Intellectual Capital
Intellectual capital is to this economy what industrial capital was to the industrial revolution. Yet it is not enough just to teach rules. Rules work in one environment but not necessarily in another. In a changing environment, you need to be continually sensitive to changes in the success of particular rules. Theories ought not to become beliefs that can't be tested.
4 Change in Thinking - Learning
The difference between education and training? You'd send your daughter to a sex education class, but not a sex training class.
To create new learning - something needed in order to keep pace with new and changing environments - one needs experience and a theory. This kind of learning challenges and changes our existing categories, our existing ways of thinking. Traditional learning tends to conform to our existing categories. Systems thinking suggests a very new and different way to think about education.
To create new learning - something needed in order to keep pace with new and changing environments - one needs experience and a theory. This kind of learning challenges and changes our existing categories, our existing ways of thinking. Traditional learning tends to conform to our existing categories. Systems thinking suggests a very new and different way to think about education.
5 Change in Thinking - the Monty Hall Paradox
This Monty Hall Paradox is counter-intuitive. You're likely to win money betting on it with friends, a win-win because it'll teach them to look for relationships and earn you money.
Basically, get yourself three cards and another person. One should represent the dream job and the other two can represent your unemployment check. One person should play game show host, the other contestant. After the person chooses one card, lift up one of the cards she didn't choose - showing her the unemployment check. Now, ask her if she'd like to switch from the first card she picked to the one you didn't turn over.
This simulation is set up to allow a group of people to choose whether they will always stay with their first choice, always switch, or flip a coin to decide whether or not to switch. The narration in the video assumes that you've done this and run 20 simulations testing each rule, or scenario. Note that the most common belief - the , it doesn't matter so I'll flip a coin belief - actually falls into the category of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you flip a coin, you really do get 50-50 results. But if you challenge what you think you know, you'll probably learn something new.
Basically, get yourself three cards and another person. One should represent the dream job and the other two can represent your unemployment check. One person should play game show host, the other contestant. After the person chooses one card, lift up one of the cards she didn't choose - showing her the unemployment check. Now, ask her if she'd like to switch from the first card she picked to the one you didn't turn over.
This simulation is set up to allow a group of people to choose whether they will always stay with their first choice, always switch, or flip a coin to decide whether or not to switch. The narration in the video assumes that you've done this and run 20 simulations testing each rule, or scenario. Note that the most common belief - the , it doesn't matter so I'll flip a coin belief - actually falls into the category of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you flip a coin, you really do get 50-50 results. But if you challenge what you think you know, you'll probably learn something new.
6 Change in Thinking - Systems Thinking
In this segment, I focus on the defining characteristic of systems - what emerges from their interaction. Analysis ignores this and in the process often misses what is most important. You can know all about the behavior of the gas hyrogen and the gas oxygen but fail to predict the behavior of the fluid H20.
Chapter 7 Change in Thinking Video - Leadership
In this final chapter, I simply declare that just as it would be good for a person living in Itay to speak Italian, so it would be good for a person dealing with systems to adopt systems thinking.
Systems thinking will be to the next economy what reductionist, or analytical, thinking was to the industrial revolution. It's time to begin taking a systems perspective.
Systems thinking will be to the next economy what reductionist, or analytical, thinking was to the industrial revolution. It's time to begin taking a systems perspective.
How Many Foreigners Would You Kill to Save an American?
I'm proud to be American, kind of. I'm proud to be a Davison, kind of. I'm proud to be a Californian, kind of. But my being an American or a Davison doesn't make me feel like my own life is automatically worth more than an Armenian or a Gonzalez or Lee. I don't think that we ought to casually kill Pennsylvanians in order to ensure the life and property of Californians. I've no illusions about Americans or Californians or Davisons being superior to non-Americans, non-Californians, or non-Davisons.
All that to say that I'm convinced that one of the thing that separates the neocons like Cheney and Norman Poderhertz from us normal people is their willingness to use a "foreigner discount rate" equal to nearly 1. Cheney has talked about a 1% doctrine. Simply stated, if there is even a 1% chance that a country poses a threat to the US, we have the right to use preemptive force to stop them. This kind of patriotism seems to me more of a pathological condition than a noble sentiment. It seems more like a sign of mental illness than a sound basis for foreign policy. The foreigner discount rate of nearly 1 suggests that a foreigner's life is worth some fraction of an American's.
You might say that I'm biased. I am, afterall, married to a Canadian. But I've met a variety of people from other countries and have yet to be able to make generalities about them any more than I can about Americans. Some are fat, some are thin, some are generous, some are selfish, some are violent, some are passive ... people are people no matter where the international sperm lottery has placed them.
There is a chance that Iran will gain a nuclear weapon within the next three to five years. There is an even smaller chance that once they have this, they will use it against another country. And there is an even smaller chance yet that this country will be us. How many Iranians does that justify killing today? Cheney and Poderhertz would likely say, all of them. I just don't buy it.
I don't like the idea of killing, but I'd be glad to pull the trigger to stop one foreigner from killing 100 innocent Americans. I wouldn't even be very squeamish about sanctioning the murder of one foreigner to save the life of one American. But once you get to the point of killing 10 foreigners for one American, or 1,000 foreigners for one American - at that point the mathematics of morality seems to make patriotism seem like an excuse for discounting the lives of others rather than a healthy affinity for one's own.
This is one of the questions I would love to hear asked at these seemingly weekly candidate debates. How many foreigners would you sanction killing in order to save the lives of 100 Americans? At this point, we'd learn whether these politicians are more in touch with their patriotism or their humanity. It seems to me like a fairly important question.
All that to say that I'm convinced that one of the thing that separates the neocons like Cheney and Norman Poderhertz from us normal people is their willingness to use a "foreigner discount rate" equal to nearly 1. Cheney has talked about a 1% doctrine. Simply stated, if there is even a 1% chance that a country poses a threat to the US, we have the right to use preemptive force to stop them. This kind of patriotism seems to me more of a pathological condition than a noble sentiment. It seems more like a sign of mental illness than a sound basis for foreign policy. The foreigner discount rate of nearly 1 suggests that a foreigner's life is worth some fraction of an American's.
You might say that I'm biased. I am, afterall, married to a Canadian. But I've met a variety of people from other countries and have yet to be able to make generalities about them any more than I can about Americans. Some are fat, some are thin, some are generous, some are selfish, some are violent, some are passive ... people are people no matter where the international sperm lottery has placed them.
There is a chance that Iran will gain a nuclear weapon within the next three to five years. There is an even smaller chance that once they have this, they will use it against another country. And there is an even smaller chance yet that this country will be us. How many Iranians does that justify killing today? Cheney and Poderhertz would likely say, all of them. I just don't buy it.
I don't like the idea of killing, but I'd be glad to pull the trigger to stop one foreigner from killing 100 innocent Americans. I wouldn't even be very squeamish about sanctioning the murder of one foreigner to save the life of one American. But once you get to the point of killing 10 foreigners for one American, or 1,000 foreigners for one American - at that point the mathematics of morality seems to make patriotism seem like an excuse for discounting the lives of others rather than a healthy affinity for one's own.
This is one of the questions I would love to hear asked at these seemingly weekly candidate debates. How many foreigners would you sanction killing in order to save the lives of 100 Americans? At this point, we'd learn whether these politicians are more in touch with their patriotism or their humanity. It seems to me like a fairly important question.
31 October 2007
Have You Heard the One About?
I have a new vice - reading the Overhead in ... blogs. Brilliant. It is like found comedy - or is that commentary? Here are some of my favorites from just the last couple of days, all reportedly just snippets of conversation overheard in public places.
Overheard on the Beach
THE BLONDE LEADING THE BLONDE
Girl #1: I'm glad we aren't having earthquakes here like back in Cali.
Girl #2: It would suck coming over to Maui and then having an earthquake here.
Girl #1: Hey, can you feel an earthquake in a plane?
Girl #2: Um...
--Kihei, Maui, Hawaii
*******
Girl #1, whispering: Oh my god, I'm choking on this macaroni.
Girl 2: Then how are you talking?
Girl 1: The macaroni is stuck in my throat straight up, and I'm breathing through the hole in the noodle.
Girl 2: Ohhh, that makes sense.
--Virginia Beach, Virginia
**********
ENERGY POLICY
Man in skirt to bald woman: Seriously... Marijuana-fueled cars. It'd be great! Everyone would be high, and we'd have clean air!
--Avon, New Jersey
**************
Overheard in New York
RELATIONSHIPS
Dude: I'm needy and you do stuff for me. That's how our relationship works.
--2nd Ave. & St. Mark's Place
**************
Boyfriend: Listen, you're dissatisfied with me, and I'm dissatisfied with me. We have something in common! I think this relationship can work.
--32nd & 6th
*************
NYU freshman girl: I have a boyfriend -- I don't need a social life.
--Starbucks
*************
Old bitter woman to husband: I don't understand sex.
--72nd & 2nd
**********
PARENTING
Father to three-year-old son: The ruler of the universe says to stop chattering.
--7th Ave, Park Slope
************
Mother to chatty child: Don't you have your pacifier? So pacify!
--Kingsborough Community College, Brooklyn
**********
RACE
Southern lady looking at surfers in wetsuits: I never knew there were so many negro surfers!
--El Granada, California
***********
Black woman to tanning salon flyer guy soliciting her: Nigga, you be blind!
--W 4th St & 6th Ave
************
Sports editor: We need more magical black men.
--Columbia Spectator office
***********
HOW TO TELL IF IT WAS A GOOD PARTY
Blonde: So, I woke up and Jessica's underwear was still on my head...
--P.S. 1, Queens
***********
TRAVEL
Pilot: Like any pilot, I like to hear myself talk... All you're hearing now is 'Blah, blah, blah.'
--Delta flight, JFK
************
Stewardess, sounding surprised during landing: Great job, honey.
--JFK
****************
POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Little girl: Is George Bush a Republican or a Dominican?
--Times Square
***********
Hobo to another: So, I hear you're an international spy now.
--Washington Square Park
**********
40-something tourist to her daughter: All the homeless may be Democrats, but not all Democrats are homeless.
--Canal & Broadway
Overheard on the Beach
THE BLONDE LEADING THE BLONDE
Girl #1: I'm glad we aren't having earthquakes here like back in Cali.
Girl #2: It would suck coming over to Maui and then having an earthquake here.
Girl #1: Hey, can you feel an earthquake in a plane?
Girl #2: Um...
--Kihei, Maui, Hawaii
*******
Girl #1, whispering: Oh my god, I'm choking on this macaroni.
Girl 2: Then how are you talking?
Girl 1: The macaroni is stuck in my throat straight up, and I'm breathing through the hole in the noodle.
Girl 2: Ohhh, that makes sense.
--Virginia Beach, Virginia
**********
ENERGY POLICY
Man in skirt to bald woman: Seriously... Marijuana-fueled cars. It'd be great! Everyone would be high, and we'd have clean air!
--Avon, New Jersey
**************
Overheard in New York
RELATIONSHIPS
Dude: I'm needy and you do stuff for me. That's how our relationship works.
--2nd Ave. & St. Mark's Place
**************
Boyfriend: Listen, you're dissatisfied with me, and I'm dissatisfied with me. We have something in common! I think this relationship can work.
--32nd & 6th
*************
NYU freshman girl: I have a boyfriend -- I don't need a social life.
--Starbucks
*************
Old bitter woman to husband: I don't understand sex.
--72nd & 2nd
**********
PARENTING
Father to three-year-old son: The ruler of the universe says to stop chattering.
--7th Ave, Park Slope
************
Mother to chatty child: Don't you have your pacifier? So pacify!
--Kingsborough Community College, Brooklyn
**********
RACE
Southern lady looking at surfers in wetsuits: I never knew there were so many negro surfers!
--El Granada, California
***********
Black woman to tanning salon flyer guy soliciting her: Nigga, you be blind!
--W 4th St & 6th Ave
************
Sports editor: We need more magical black men.
--Columbia Spectator office
***********
HOW TO TELL IF IT WAS A GOOD PARTY
Blonde: So, I woke up and Jessica's underwear was still on my head...
--P.S. 1, Queens
***********
TRAVEL
Pilot: Like any pilot, I like to hear myself talk... All you're hearing now is 'Blah, blah, blah.'
--Delta flight, JFK
************
Stewardess, sounding surprised during landing: Great job, honey.
--JFK
****************
POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Little girl: Is George Bush a Republican or a Dominican?
--Times Square
***********
Hobo to another: So, I hear you're an international spy now.
--Washington Square Park
**********
40-something tourist to her daughter: All the homeless may be Democrats, but not all Democrats are homeless.
--Canal & Broadway
LA - Rhymes with Play
Last night I went to the Lakers home opener against the Houston Rockets. My buddy Daryl's first regular season game as the GM of the Houston Rockets. (What is Steven Wright’s line – I went to a general store but they wouldn’t let me buy anything specifically. Now my own friend Daryl is a guy who manages, but doesn’t manage anything specifically.) He invited us up for dinner and the game and we delightedly accepted.
The waiter said it is a busy night in this part of LA, telling us that there were three big events within just a few blocks. Mind you, this is a Tuesday. But then again, this is Los Angeles, the capital of entertainment. Even on a Tuesday there are a plethora of entertainment options.
At the Staple Center, the LA Lakers home opener. A very big deal. Sold out. RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET is a little concert venue – the Nokia Theater. A couple of guys are playing music there during our game – a couple of guys named Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. But this is LA. That’s not all. The biggest draw in LA that night, according to our waiter? The Mayan Club. What is the Mayan Club, you ask (sounding just like me)? It’s where, once a year, they feature Mexican Midget Wrestling. MMW. This drama includes not just nasty contests between sweet little men – said men are occasionally thrown out of the ring and then thrown back in by the crowd. This is the hardest ticket in town to get. Suddenly, my excitement about watching the Lakers and Rockets is subdued. Bruce is in town? Neil? I don’t get “Hey, Hey, My, My?” or “Badlands?” And I don’t get to toss midgets? You expect me to have fun watching men in shorts when I know that this is going on so close by?
The game was exciting even though I was suddenly and acutely aware of what I was missing. The Lakers have Kobe Bryant, which is rather like having a stock portfolio made up entirely of Google - high performing, exciting returns, and a frightening lack of diversity. The Lakers are one twisted ankle away from being able to beat any NCAA team in the nation. Meanwhile, Daryl (I know - I'm biased) has already put together a team that has an enormous diversity of talent. The Rockets team continued to score points quite steadily, regardless of who played. (The Rockets had four players score in the double digits - the Lakers only two.)
And then the basketball gods decided to smile on Daryl. At one point, two Lakers were standing alone under the Rockets' rim, unable to get the handle on the ball when it, like an extra in a comedy, unexpectedly looped up into a surprising arc, falling neatly into the hoop, scoring two points for the Rockets. The Rockets' margin of victory? 2 points.
Entertainment seems to be one of the few industries in which we Americans run a trade surplus. As I drove home, coming to a complete stop at midnight (my darling wife looks up and announces, in stark contrast to rush "hour" typical of most places, "Hmm - rush day"), I realized that there is little that we Americans take more seriously than playing.
The waiter said it is a busy night in this part of LA, telling us that there were three big events within just a few blocks. Mind you, this is a Tuesday. But then again, this is Los Angeles, the capital of entertainment. Even on a Tuesday there are a plethora of entertainment options.
At the Staple Center, the LA Lakers home opener. A very big deal. Sold out. RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET is a little concert venue – the Nokia Theater. A couple of guys are playing music there during our game – a couple of guys named Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. But this is LA. That’s not all. The biggest draw in LA that night, according to our waiter? The Mayan Club. What is the Mayan Club, you ask (sounding just like me)? It’s where, once a year, they feature Mexican Midget Wrestling. MMW. This drama includes not just nasty contests between sweet little men – said men are occasionally thrown out of the ring and then thrown back in by the crowd. This is the hardest ticket in town to get. Suddenly, my excitement about watching the Lakers and Rockets is subdued. Bruce is in town? Neil? I don’t get “Hey, Hey, My, My?” or “Badlands?” And I don’t get to toss midgets? You expect me to have fun watching men in shorts when I know that this is going on so close by?
The game was exciting even though I was suddenly and acutely aware of what I was missing. The Lakers have Kobe Bryant, which is rather like having a stock portfolio made up entirely of Google - high performing, exciting returns, and a frightening lack of diversity. The Lakers are one twisted ankle away from being able to beat any NCAA team in the nation. Meanwhile, Daryl (I know - I'm biased) has already put together a team that has an enormous diversity of talent. The Rockets team continued to score points quite steadily, regardless of who played. (The Rockets had four players score in the double digits - the Lakers only two.)
And then the basketball gods decided to smile on Daryl. At one point, two Lakers were standing alone under the Rockets' rim, unable to get the handle on the ball when it, like an extra in a comedy, unexpectedly looped up into a surprising arc, falling neatly into the hoop, scoring two points for the Rockets. The Rockets' margin of victory? 2 points.
Entertainment seems to be one of the few industries in which we Americans run a trade surplus. As I drove home, coming to a complete stop at midnight (my darling wife looks up and announces, in stark contrast to rush "hour" typical of most places, "Hmm - rush day"), I realized that there is little that we Americans take more seriously than playing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)