In Case You Missed It

Last November, California voters approved a Los Angeles County ballot initiative requiring all performers in adult movies to wear condoms.  (I assume the law applies mainly to male performers, but I'm not sure.)  Now, Vivid Entertainment, a prominent pornography producer (sorry about the alliteration), is suing LA County, claiming that the law infringes upon the organization's rights to free expression.

Vivid makes a compelling argument:

"'Let's assume that we're filming an adult movie and it was taking place in the swashbuckler times. All of a sudden, Captain Jack slips on a condom,' Vivid's lead attorney Paul Cambria Jr told the [Los Angeles] Times. 'Obviously, that would basically destroy the movie, because it would be fake. Obviously, people would know that couldn't have happened then.'"

He's right, of course.  Everyone knows the one thing viewers demand from their pornography is verisimilitude.

You'll Get What We're Paid For?

California governor Jerry "Yeah, well I dated Linda Ronstadt when she was hot, Bee-otch!" Brown has presented his initial 2013 budget.  The whole budget announcement is a fairly ritualistic procedure.  The governor makes a speech.  Quite a bit of pageantry revolves around whether or not he sees his shadow.  If he does, the budget goes on to the legislature, where it is sliced, diced, poked, prodded, probed, shredded, tickled, massaged, deboned, fricaseed, lightly-breaded, and finally served on bed of romaine lettuce, before being voted on by the legislature.  Dancing follows.

For a change, the proposed budget contains some good news on the educational front, including an infusion of nearly $200 million for the community college system.  What we ultimately end up with won't be known for several months, but the fact that a new semester begins not with talk of impending cuts but with a mandate to grow is certainly refreshing.

Changes loom, too.  One of the biggest involves funding formulas: how community colleges earn their budgets.  Currently, colleges receive funding ("apportionment") based on the number of students they enroll.  Specifically, each college presents its census--the number of students enrolled in classes--to the state as of about the third or fourth week of each semester.  The state then "reimburses" a fixed amount per student to each college.  Regardless of other budget changes, this "per student" allocation will likely continue, but there is talk of changing criteria from enrollment to completion: Colleges would receive apportionment based on the number of students who complete degrees or certificates, rather than simply on the number of warm bodies in seats.

Certainly, this argument has some merit.  One can see the current system's potentially perverse incentives: If a college receives funding for each student enrolled, then administrators could push staff to increase the number of registrations, regardless of any individual student's readiness for classes.  Once the census-date passes, it matters little whether students remain in class or not--or whether they succeed--as the college has already received its funding for these students.  The taxpaying public might understandably prefer a system that rewards success.

I can assure you that most college instructors don't enjoy seeing students disappear (well, MOST students, anyway), and we want students to succeed.  In principle, a system that aligns apportionment with student achievement aligns incentives with what everyone wants anyway.  But student achievement depends on factors beyond an instructors--or, indeed, a college's--control.  Indeed, at a community college, the very definition of "success" is multi-faceted: Funding may be based on degree and certificate completion, but what about students who aren't seeking such things? What about a new immigrant who simply wants to take ESL classes?  What about the student who spends a semester at a community college and then quickly transfers to a four-year school or university?  Are these students and others like them "failures"?  Should community colleges be financially penalized for serving them?

These questions will need to be considered and debated (and lightly-breaded and fricaseed) in the months and years ahead.  For now, though, I seize this opportunity to feel guardedly optimistic.  Lord knows we've waited long enough.

It's Not Me, Right?

FROM THE AM-I-MISSING-SOMETHING? FILES:

Seen at the supermarket: A sticker advertising a package of melon slices for $4.99, reduced from. . .  $4.99.  And it's not like it was a typo, either: Underneath the "reduced price" information was the following: "You save: 0.00."  Is this supposed to appeal to people?  I mean, sure, I bought seven, but I didn't feel particularly good about it.

Don't Hate Me for My Tranquility

Yes, I see you there, poor things, toiling away your pathetic lives at thankless jobs, yearning for workday's end, praying for the release that will come only with sweet, sweet death.  What can I say?  As a member of the professoriate, I can only shake my head and pity you, the Great Unwashed (and, y'know, you really should shower or something), who know not the true serenity that comes with holding the least stressful of jobs: Professor.

That's right, according to CareerCast (and they should know, 'cause they have "Career" in their name), "University Professor" is the least-stressful job for 2013.  To be fair, though, that should really be "tenured" university professor: Only the tenured truly experience the stress-free life: Autonomy, general lack of physical danger, a certain droit du seigneur with each semester's crop of new co-eds. . . .or, y'know, so I've heard.

But, seriously, don't be hating on your old pal the Solipsist.  Remember, the least-stressful job is UNIVERSITY professor.  Community-college professor, on the other hand--even of the tenured variety--falls farther down the list--somewhere between New York City cabbie and Taliban informant.  Every morning I wake up disappointed that I have not suffered a crippling stroke and must indeed face another hopeless day filled with the vacant stares of slack-jawed students, their obstinate silences punctuated only occasionally by sub-guttural mutterings devoid of insight or meaning or let's face it vowels--the constant fear of violence from colleagues who seek any opportunity to do violence--physical, psychological, emotional--for the simple pleasure of feeding, lamprey-like on the foul milk of human suffering. . . .

Maybe I should take up air-traffic control.

More Musings

Had deconstructed fajitas for dinner.  I think that "deconstructed" entrees are just a chef's way of saying that he really can't be bothered anymore.

When Suddenly. . . Nothing Happened

Owners and players. These are the two principal sides in labor negotiations for any major sporting organization. For what it's worth, they are also the principal sides in negotiations involving the National Hockey League. Today, after a lockout that lasted nearly long enough to actually draw attention, NHL players and owners reached an agreement that will result in a shortened season beginning later this week.

Fundamentally, the issue came down--as it usually does--to revenue sharing. What percentage of league revenue goes to owners and what to players. Now, I'm a union guy, so I personally believe the majority of revenue should go to the players--the people who actually do the work that generates the revenue from the people who like to watch. Or, y'know, whatever it is that people do at hockey games. Even if, say, the players were to receive, say, 70% of revenues, that still means that 30 owners would divide 30%, while over 600 players would divide the rest. Of course, in the labor negotiations just concluded, the players were not realistically expecting to receive anything close to 70%; under the terms of the previous collective bargaining agreement, they received something like 57%, and the owners wanted them to receive less.

Now, of course, while the lockout continued, nobody received any revenue, so it would seem to have been in everyone's interest to resolve things as quickly as possible. For simplicity's sake, one could have simply proposed that each side take 50% of revenues and be done with it.

Obviously, this is a thoroughly uninformed opinion. I'm certain many factors must be considered to arrive at a fair and reasonable split. So what WAS the final settlement, after weeks and weeks of stagnation and the loss of millions of dollars and measureless reserves of goodwill?

50-50?

Yeah, that was certainly worth it.

In honor of the playoffs--coupled with a certain despondency at having to return to work tomorrow--today is a day off. See you tomorrow.