Random Thought for the Day

Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day. . . unless it's a blob fish: Those things are disgusting.

From the Gaffer of. . . .

When you go to a Steven Spielberg movie, you know what to expect.  So when a film is promoted as being "From the director of 'Saving Private Ryan'" (or, if more lighthearted, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), a viewer gets a decent idea of what the filmgoing experience will be like.  If said viewer liked "Saving Private Ryan," he is likely to go see the advertised film; if not, not.

Similarly, people have favorite actors or actresses, whose movies they will devotedly patronize.  People like Johnny Depp or Meryl Streep are generally worth watching, regardless of other considerations, so hearing that they (or whoever your personal favorites happen to be) are in a certain film will entice people to go see it.

The other day, I saw a commercial for--something, I forget what--that was promoted as being "From the studio that brought you 'The Help.'"  Now, if a film has any connection to "The Help," that's good enough for me to know I should avoid it like leprosy, but that's me.  If, however, you liked "The Help," then why are you reading this blog?

No, wait, that's not it.

What I meant was, Why would the fact that a movie was released by the same studio as a movie you liked entice you to go see the new movie?  Studios release all manner of films, and the quality of one has little if anything to do with the quality of another.  Universal could have but didn't promote "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas" as being "From the studio that brought you 'Schindler's List.'"  I think they made the right choice.

What's next?  "From the crowd hair supervisor of 'Titanic,' comes"  oh, would you look at that, "The Help."

It's Enough to Make a Liberal Scream "Big Government!"

Studies have revealed a new element in the "digital divide": While more and more children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have access to technology, researchers have found that these children spend more online hours on "time-wasting" activities than children in more affluent households.  Leaving aside the value-laden judgment of what constitutes "wasted time" (if I don't download pornography, all those buxom women will have been exploited for nothing!), I was struck by the following:

The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.

Hm.

Today, the Times reported that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to enact a proposal to ban the sale of large (over 16 ounce) sodas in movie theaters, restaurants, and many other venues throughout the city.  This is Mayor Bloomberg's latest attempt to improve the health of New Yorkers; previous efforts have included widespread smoking bans and restrictions on foods containing trans fats.

Ah, progressive public servants!  What else can I say, but. . .  ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!  These are precisely the kind of big-government, nanny-state programs that drive conservatives up a wall, and, frankly, they have a point. 

The fact that low-income kids are "wasting" too much time on non-productive online activities--assuming that even IS a fact--is not a government problem; it's a parenting one.  And between you and me, I'm fairly certain that plenty of one-percenter children spend what could only be considered excessive amounts of time playing Angry Words with Diablo II.

So, there, I just solved THAT problem: Can I have $200 million?  Tell you what, just give me 100 grand and we'll call it square.

(DIGRESSION: In "Angry Birds," why do you need a slingshot to shoot the birds at the pigs?  Can't birds fly?  Or is that why they're angry?  EOD)

As for Bloomberg's ban on large sodas: Really Mike?

Look, smoking ban? Good idea: Non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale second-hand smoke.  Trans-fat legislation kinda makes sense, too: Restaurant patrons have no real control (or often knowledge) of what ingredients are being used.  Requiring city restaurants to eliminate trans fats reduces citizens' exposure to a dangerous substance and levels the playing field so that no restaurant is being unduly penalized.

But what, exactly, is this ban on large sodas supposed to accomplish?  All these places that sell large sodas already sell sodas in smaller sizes: People simply choose to buy the large drinks because they want more soda.  And as Bloomberg even points out himself, nothing will stop people from buying more than one soda.  In fact, someone who currently buys a 20 ounce drink may actually end up drinking MORE soda under the new policy: If  a 16 ounce drink doesn't satisfy, this person will have no choice but to buy ANOTHER 12-16 ounce drink to quench his 20-ounce thirst.

If the Mayor really thinks soda is so dangerous, he should just be honest and ban it altogether.  (Actually, I probably shouldn't give him ideas.)

I am a firm believer in a strong and, frankly, activist government.  But I would ask the government to focus on big-picture problems like unemployment and poverty.  Until those are taken care of, for God's sake, let people drink Dr. Pepper and play Halo!

Confession of a Sex Offender

I am a sex offender.  I have never been arrested, much less convicted, but the fact remains, and I want to come clean now before my past catches up with me.  I hope you will show mercy.

It happened about 20 years ago.  I was living in Brooklyn at the time.  It was very late--3:00, 4:00 in the morning.  I had been drinking: I know that doesn't excuse my actions, but I hope it mitigates the situation somewhat.  I was on my way home--let me emphasize that this was in no way premeditated;  I truly had not planned on this happening.  I guess I just couldn't control myself .  Anyway, what happened was, in a dark alley in the Fort Hamilton area. . . . I urinated.

OK, it's not exactly raping a panda, but, still, in many jurisdictions--perhaps in New York for all I know--had I been unlucky enough to be caught, I could theoretically have been charged with a sexual offense (indecent exposure, most likely).  While I probably would have served no jail time, especially if I agreed to plead guilty, this conviction could have placed me on watch lists along with rapists and child molesters.  And as more and more jurisdictions pass laws aimed at protecting children from predators, this could have had significant impact on where I could live and work.

No one could argue against protecting children.  (Well, I probably could if I were feeling ornery, but I won't.)  And some of these laws--like those aimed at keeping child molesters away from elementary schools and playgrounds--are hard to argue with in principle (if somewhat questionable in practice).  On the whole, though, the reflexive impulse of legislators to pass "tough on crime" laws aimed at broadly defined "sex offenders" is wrong-headed at best and quite possibly unconstitutional.

What's truly ironic is that laws banning sexual offenders from, say, public parks are more likely to be observed by the generally law-abiding public urinator than by the truly dangerous sexual predator.  So who's being protected?  True, you can argue that such laws allow police to arrest predators simply for being in an area with children--thus stopping them before they can prey on the innocent.  But unless we are planning to station police at every entrance to every park--indeed, to every public space that falls within boundaries off-limits to sex offenders--then these laws are effectively unenforceable.

To protect the public, governments should consider legislation that allows the criminal justice system to impose restrictions on the truly dangerous and on a case-by-case basis.  There is a significant difference between a serial rapist and someone who pees in a public place--or for that matter an 18-year-old who has consensual sex with, say, a 17-year-old boy- or girlfriend. Nevertheless, all these people could fall under the category of "sexual offender" in one or more jurisdictions around the country.

It seems to me that any law that would treat me--or, let's face it, 99% of the male population and a not-insignificant portion of the female--the same as Ted Bundy is, to put it mildly, flawed  legislation. And anyone who thinks that urination constitutes a sexual offense should retake high-school biology.

Another Day at Solipsist Central

SOL: Can I ask a question?

WOS: No.

SOL:  OK. . . .(Humming) Hmm. . . .Hmm. . . Hmmm. . . .

WOS: Stop.

SOL: OK. (Pause)  I was just wondering. . .

WOS: Oh, God.

SOL: How does Pac-Man poop?

WOS: . . .

SOL: Does he poop?  I mean, he does eat a lot of fruit.

WOS: (Whimper.)

SOL: Well, I think it's a reasonable question.

Indignation!

So, let me get this straight: Last Saturday was Armed Forces Day (the culmination of Armed Forces Week!); today is Memorial Day; then, in November we have Veterans' Day.  Plus, we're supposed to "think of the troops" on days like Thanksgiving and the 4th of July and. . .and.. . .and. . .I don't know, Arbor Day.

I just have one question: Who do these guys think they are?!?

They get three official holidays and a whole week.  And what do I get?  NOTHING!  When, I ask you, when is National Solipsist Day?!?  Because if these guys get a whole set of days for--what, exactly?  Serving their country?  Risking their lives?--then I should certainly get a day--a month!--for the services that I provide.  I mean, seriously, I--

WOS: OK, I'm going to have to cut you off now.

SOL: But I wasn't fini--

WOS: Yes, you were.  Hand over the laptop.

SOL:  But--

WOS: Now!

SOL: Too soon?

WOS: Shut up.  Happy Memorial Day, everyone.  Thanks to all those who serve. 

In Order to Save Time, This Post Has No Title

Tim Jackson, a professor of sustainable development, considers productivity overrated.  For one thing, he says, our emphasis on productivity increases unemployment: Since increased productivity, by definition, means greater output from the same (or fewer) inputs, then, as productivity grows, fewer inputs are needed.  And for "inputs," read "employees."  Jackson says we should rethink our commitment to ever-increasing productivity, and instead focus our energies on improving those sectors of the economy in which increased efficiency is not the best way to measure value--sectors like healthcare, the arts, and education.  Furthermore, a renewed commitment to craftsmanship--valuing quality over quantity--could lead to greater employment and, indeed, greater human satisfaction.

But what does he know?  He's British!  I bet he'd love to see America slack off:  That's what Brits have been waiting for since 1776!  We relinquish our productivity advantage, next thing you know, we'll all be speaking. . . whatever language they speak in Britain!

Since its inception, this blog has been produced with a commitment to ever-increasing efficiency.  Every day, I type for one hour, whether I have anything to say or not, and I have increased the number of words typed by over 17% over the last three years.  Furthermore, when I have a point to make, I have striven to say it in the most efficient way possible, efforts that probably reached their culmination in my celebrated post of August 14, 2010, reprinted here in its entirety:

Kumquats!

Efficiency overrated indeed!