So the Olympics are over. I would say "finally" but I actually enjoyed the games throughout. I'll definitely miss coming home and turning on a really random sport and enjoying the sheer emotion displayed (well, not all of the athletes show emotion, but it's still fun to watch). I was actually quite impressed with these games. Call it low expections, but the games went off much better than I had thought possible.
There was a cynic in me who didn't think Greece could pull things together in time. Afterall, Greece is basically a third world country despite its location in Europe and membership in the EU. If you watched the marathon and all of the sites alongside the road, the runners may as well have been running in India. But whatever Greece's economic standing was and is, they pulled things together, however last minute and people who were there really seemed to enjoy it.
Cynicism aside, there was the fear in me that there would be some horrible terrorist hit. This, of course, didn't happen. And more than happy for that, I'm relieved. I should be happy that the best of the world can congregate in peace and enjoy two weeks of friendly competition. But I'm just relieved that nothing destroyed it. That's pretty sad isn't it? My joy in seeing athletes rejoice in their victory and hard work has been tempered by this ever-present worry that on the world stage, none of is really safe. I don't think about this in my normal everyday life. I don't worry about bombs coming down on San Francisco, but at special events like this? Yes, there's a pit in my stomach just hoping we never have to see the day. But you know what makes me forget about that?
A Brazilian marathoner rejoicing when he enters the Olympic stadium, running with his arms spread like an eagle, even though he had been attacked on the course just 3 miles earlier.
The Iraqi soccer team winning more than anyone could have imagined. And showing more heart than anyone else on the pitch.
An American wrestler crying, while sitting in the middle of the mat after winning the bronze, leaving his shoes in the center symbolizing his retirement from the sport.
A Greek hurdler who surprised the world with her run to gold.
It's these moments that make this all worthwhile. They remind us of our global connections. While we don't agree on many, many things, we can all rejoice when people from every corner of life can revel in what they've accomplished. Despite the immensity of these Games, it's these small moments that we will remember for so long.
I began this posting thinking I would write about "what next" when it comes to the Olympics (Beijing) and "what now" when it comes to Athens (sporting infrastructure). But you know what? Let's just revel in this for a moment. Call it an NBC moment if you will, but it's nice to look back on this short period of time and smile.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Rhapsody - first impressions
Ok, so I've spent a day exploring some music with Rhapsody. I'm even more in love with the ability to listen just about anything I can think of. In the past day I've listened to a lot of stuff I've been meaning to spin, like Dizzee Rascal (Boy in Da Corner), Frou Frou (Details), Black Eyed Peas (Elephunk), and Modest Mouse (Good News For People Who Love Bad News). I've also discovered The Streets (A Grand Don't Come for Free), another UK Garage band. Being able to listen to an entire album rather than just a song or two really helps me appreciate the music.
But enough with the concept of on-demand songs. More about the Rhapsody application itself. To say the least, the application is really lacking. So here's a rundown:
But enough with the concept of on-demand songs. More about the Rhapsody application itself. To say the least, the application is really lacking. So here's a rundown:
Good:
- Great breakdown of various genres. Here's a small list of some of the Hip Hop genres they list:
Foreign Rap/Hip-Hop
G-Funk
Gangsta Rap
Hardcore Rap/Hip-Hop
Jazz Rap/Hip-Hop
Latin Rap/Hip-Hop
Miami Bass
Not that these genres are ground-breaking. The good thing is that they're acknowledging that so many sub-genres of hip-hop exist. It's not just Top40 Hip-hop, Underground, and Gangsta. - They have samplers for each genre or artist. So if you're not sure if you'll like the genre or artist, you can give a 10 minute listen to a good variety of songs and then listen to more if you like it. Either way, it's a good way to try something out without devoting too much time. Best thing is that the sampler is truly a varied sampling, not just a couple of the more popular songs.
- Really fast start-up. So this may not seem like a big deal, but on-demand really should mean just that. Click on it and start listening! Rhapsody does a good job with this since songs seem to start within a second.
Bad or Lacking:
- No user reviews or ratings. This is the most glaring missed capability. If I've gone through the trouble of writing all this, don't you think I'd want to rate the stuff I've heard? Even if they don't want me write reviews, they should let me give 1-10 ratings, just like every other music app out there (including Real's own RealPlayer).
- More information about the artist, album, genre, and song. As it is, they provide very little info about what you're listening to. That's ok when you just want to give things a try, but if you want more info, you've gotta load up your browser with your favorite page to do research. Normally, for music I'll use Amazon since they have a lot of information including guest appearances. Right now, I've gotta guess who the guess rapper is on a song or go to Amazon to find out the correct info. Again, glaring omission.
- A Robust Recommendation engine. What I can only point to is Amazon. I'm always quite impressed with how well Amazon seems to be able to recommend things to me. Whether it's books or music, I've always got tons of things to try out at Amazon. There are several levels of recommendations at Amazon. They makes specific recommendations based on your previous likes and dislikes. This is perhaps the most robust piece of their engine. THey also recommend other similar artists when you're viewing a specific album or artist. And finally, they list what other people (who have bought the item) have liked. Rhapsody should have all of these, but right now there are only limited recommendations. I don't know if these are automated or not, but they seem of the "hey, here's a few artists from this genre" type rather than really smart recs like Amazon provides. On-demand songs is perhaps the best way to explore new music and Rhapsody should have all of these tools to assist users. It may cost a lot to implement these things in the way that Amazon has so deftly been able to, but it can only help get more word-of-mouth about the service. There's a reason I always go to Amazon to get an idea of how good or bad a movie or album is :) So until Rhapsody adds these sorts of things, I'll still be going to Amazon and entering ratings for all the music I listen to...and hopefully get some great recs.
- "Wish List" - I don't have a better term for this, but basically, in looking around for music, I'd like to queue up stuff to listen to later, but right now, there's no really simple way of doing this. I can save stuff off as a playlist, but then I've gotta manage that whole thing. It would be nice to simply store things in a "pending/need to listen to" folder or list and look through it when I've got time.
Anyways, this is just my first impression. And I've only spent 24 hours with this thing! I can only imagine other companies will begin offering similar services. If Rhapsody doesn't take these suggestions to heart, I'm sure some other company will do so. At least, let's hope so!
The Olympic mascot trying out the Trampoline.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Streaming Music
I've been into online streaming music for quite a while now. I began using Shoutcast years ago and have been listening to online streams at work all the time. As I've mentioned before, there are some really good streams out there.
So here's the next generation of streaming: Rhapsody. Now, this service has been around since 2001. I probably heard of it in 2002, but didn't think much of it. Afterall, who would want to pay $10 a month and not even get to "own" the music? Well, after some time, I've come around. I think this is actually a better music solution than buying individual song files on iTunes, Napster, or other similar programs. Don't believe me? Here's another opinion. Of course, I didn't trust this person, I listened to some friends and co-workers who subscribe and are very pleased. I've been loving this so far, but I'll post in a month or so for a recap of my experiences.
Some things to know about this service:
So here's the next generation of streaming: Rhapsody. Now, this service has been around since 2001. I probably heard of it in 2002, but didn't think much of it. Afterall, who would want to pay $10 a month and not even get to "own" the music? Well, after some time, I've come around. I think this is actually a better music solution than buying individual song files on iTunes, Napster, or other similar programs. Don't believe me? Here's another opinion. Of course, I didn't trust this person, I listened to some friends and co-workers who subscribe and are very pleased. I've been loving this so far, but I'll post in a month or so for a recap of my experiences.
Some things to know about this service:
- It's perfect for anyone who likes to explore different music or just check our something which a friend told you about. This is exactly the type of person I am. I tend not to buy CDs, but music is a big topic of conversation with a friend of mine, so I always want to check out what he's talking about. Generally, it's hard to do this if you have to buy the album or the individual song. Yes, I make decent money, but I'd quickly be in the poor house if I went out and bought everything I hear or read about. So, for about $8.50 a month, I can check out all the music I want and save them to my library if I like them.
- Pick your music or listen to radio stations. I love the Shoutcast radio streams, but sometimes I just like to pick out a specific song or artist and groove. I haven't listened to these Rhapsody radio stations, but I think they only have the basic types of stations. In these cases, I think Shoutcast (or even Yahoo's Launch) would be better, but we'll see if they expand their radio stations. As a side note, Launch's music stations have a breakdown by mood as well as genre so that's kind of cool to just pick your mood and go with it.
- Your music libraries can be accessed from any PC (not Mac yet). The potential here is pretty cool if you like to create mix tapes (talk about old school) for friends. This was something I did in high school (albiet not generally Western music). Now, you can create your playlist, and either email it to a friend, or, if you're at their place, just login to Rhapsody and your entire library is immediately available. This could be pretty cool for party planning too since you can add to your party playlist when you're at work and have it ready to go the day of your party by simply logging in and hitting play. Cool stuff.
- You should have access to broadband internet most of the time. Since the music streams, you can't listen to it offline or in the car. When offline, downloaded songs are more useful since you can listen whenever, wherever. But in my life, I'm close to an internet connection most of the time so it's not a big deal. In the car, I generally like to listen to NPR, not music. Also, my work commute is only 10 minutes, so it's not like I need hours of musical pleasure while in the car (except for those occassional drives down to LA)
Anyways, give this service a try. They've got a free service through the end of the month (apparently in honor of the Olympics...which is sort of odd to say the least) so you can check it out for yourself and see if it's something you're willing to pay for.
The Kumars at No. 42
If you've never heard of the BBC show "Kumars at No. 42" then you're in the majority. Apparently this is quite the popular show in England. I can't really comment on this show since I've never seen it. However, thanks to Sepia Mutiny, I've learned that BBC America will begin airing the show here in the States. It's playing on Sundays at 9pm on BBC America. I'll add more as I learn more about the show.
BTW, if you're interested in desi-related goings-on, Sepia Mutiny is a good "team blog" where a handful of people make quite a few posts. So many posts, in fact that it's hard to keep up. Nonetheless, it's a good bookmark.
Oh ya, my visitor numbers are sadly back on planet earth. I guess that's what happens when you stop writing about multi-level marketing. :)
BTW, if you're interested in desi-related goings-on, Sepia Mutiny is a good "team blog" where a handful of people make quite a few posts. So many posts, in fact that it's hard to keep up. Nonetheless, it's a good bookmark.
Oh ya, my visitor numbers are sadly back on planet earth. I guess that's what happens when you stop writing about multi-level marketing. :)
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Blog interrupted
In case any of you were planning to write about every one of your colleagues, exactly what you do at work, or your multiple sexual partners, keep this in mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just be prepared to pose in Playboy, get a book deal, and be the talk of the town.
Ancient Olympia and a chilled out scene
So NBC showed quite a bit of the shotput competition last night. Interesting because I had seen the prelims the night before on late night MSNBC and could now watch the medal round during a normal hour. Again, I'm a junkie and will watch prelims to these random sports just for the heck of it even if it's 2am.
Anyways, the coolest thing about the shotput was that the competition was being held in Olympia at the site of the ancient games. I'm sure this is the only reason NBC showed it during primetime because I can imagine Dick Ebersol or Bob Costas thinking it's an interesting sport.
The environment at this ancient stadium was more like an intramural football game, not a professionally planned, extra-slick production. And that's a refreshing change from the usual things which occur in huge stadiums where the fans are so far away from the actual athletes. This relaxed atmosphere is interesting since the audience is really only ones chillin out. The athletes are obviously intensely focused.
I recall watching the Winter Olympics on CBS and the feel of the games is so different than the Summer games. Of course there are fewer sports and athletes, but it's much more of a small town feel which is enjoyable. The only time we get that sort of feel at the Summer games is when the sports are small and have a small audience. Having a small venue helps even more.
Apparently, there's talk of bringing the Summer games to more small-ish cities like Athens and that would certainly cool if it helps to bring a closer-knit, more chilled out feel to the games. If that's the case, then San Francisco would be perfect!
Anyways, the coolest thing about the shotput was that the competition was being held in Olympia at the site of the ancient games. I'm sure this is the only reason NBC showed it during primetime because I can imagine Dick Ebersol or Bob Costas thinking it's an interesting sport.
The environment at this ancient stadium was more like an intramural football game, not a professionally planned, extra-slick production. And that's a refreshing change from the usual things which occur in huge stadiums where the fans are so far away from the actual athletes. This relaxed atmosphere is interesting since the audience is really only ones chillin out. The athletes are obviously intensely focused.
I recall watching the Winter Olympics on CBS and the feel of the games is so different than the Summer games. Of course there are fewer sports and athletes, but it's much more of a small town feel which is enjoyable. The only time we get that sort of feel at the Summer games is when the sports are small and have a small audience. Having a small venue helps even more.
Apparently, there's talk of bringing the Summer games to more small-ish cities like Athens and that would certainly cool if it helps to bring a closer-knit, more chilled out feel to the games. If that's the case, then San Francisco would be perfect!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Olympics Coverage - incremental progress
Not surprisingly, the Olympics are NOT the hot topic of conversation around the office. During the Sydney games there always seemed to be a bit of a buzz about it. All in all, I think I'm the only Olympics junkie left. Yes, I admit it, I'm an olympi-holic.
These games will be the end of me. Every night I'm up till 3am watching the most random competitions. I don't care who wins. It's just the spectacle of it all. Some people like to slow down and stare at car crashes on the side of the road. I like to watch fencing, weight-lifting, kayaking, etc, etc.
So considering I'm addicted to this stuff, I think I can comment on the coverage a bit.
As usual, the coverage on NBC primetime sucks. It's all swimming and gymnastics all the time. Oh, I forgot about Bob Costas and his evil smirk. Can someone please hop on a plane and kick his ass? One of these days I'm just going to throw my dinner plate at the TV and ruin a perfectly good TV and dinner.
The better coverage is on the cable networks. That's not to say that the announcers or hosts are any better. The sports covered on those networks are more interesting and generally, get more complete coverage than on NBC.
Prime example is sabre (which is different than fencing). It's funny because Slate.com calls NBC to task for the same thing I was intending to write about. So assuming you're not the junkie that I am, let me take you through the whole deal.
Bravo (a cable channel owned by NBC) has Olympic coverage during what can easily be referred to as happy hour. It's not live coverage, but it's fairly complete and it's on right after you leave work. You actually get to watch entire matches rather than cut and pasted coverage. So sabre was on and I was watching intently as some American woman won the bronze medal. I thought it interesting since this woman is the world champion, but she had stumbled a bit during the Olympics so she was stuck competing for the bronze medal. The announcers mentioned that another American would be competing for gold later that night. This woman was only 19 and barely made it to Athens because Nigeria decided not to send a female fencer.
So even though this woman wasn't that great, she had put together some great swordplay in the last few days so that she could compete for gold. What better storyline to cover? NBC loves to play up these under-dog type stories, especially if it's a young athlete making an Olympic debut and showing up the elder, more experienced teammate.
So lo and behold, NBC shows the women's sabre gold medal match later that night, but I almost missed it. Why? Because they only showed it for 30 seconds! They just skipped through the entire match showing only 4 or 5 points. It was faster than most highlights during the nightly news. And this for a match in which an American won gold for the time in 100 years! Not only an American, but an underdog American who barely made it to Athens. Now, if you've got this great storyline, why not play it up even more? We all know that NBC is a storyline-whore so what happened here?
Even better, later in the evening they spent a good 10 minutes on some story about the road between Athens and Olympia. Really, did we need that crap? Isn't that was video streaming of the web is for? And of course, they spent the rest of the night showing swimming and gymnastics. Of course those sports bring in the ratings, but seriously, would it have been difficult to find 10 minutes of air time to show the sabre?
I'm sure I sound like another complainer who can never be satisfied. Well, I'm definitely not satisfied. What annoys me the most is that NBC didn't even have to make shit up about the uniqueness of the sabre final. It was all right there for them! They're so used to playing shit up they couldn't see the need to just show this without fucking with it.
Anyways, there are a bunch of other annoyances I have with the coverage of these games, but overall, I definitely enjoy having the ability to watch hour after hour of wierdo sports. Too bad NBC has to actually cover it. Their cable partners have much better coverage and they should stick to showing the good stuff. NBC may as well just show highlights in 30 minutes increments especially since they take the viewing public as ADD afflicted losers who can't understand anything beyond the pool and the gymnastics arena (both of which are devoid of crowds).
These games will be the end of me. Every night I'm up till 3am watching the most random competitions. I don't care who wins. It's just the spectacle of it all. Some people like to slow down and stare at car crashes on the side of the road. I like to watch fencing, weight-lifting, kayaking, etc, etc.
So considering I'm addicted to this stuff, I think I can comment on the coverage a bit.
As usual, the coverage on NBC primetime sucks. It's all swimming and gymnastics all the time. Oh, I forgot about Bob Costas and his evil smirk. Can someone please hop on a plane and kick his ass? One of these days I'm just going to throw my dinner plate at the TV and ruin a perfectly good TV and dinner.
The better coverage is on the cable networks. That's not to say that the announcers or hosts are any better. The sports covered on those networks are more interesting and generally, get more complete coverage than on NBC.
Prime example is sabre (which is different than fencing). It's funny because Slate.com calls NBC to task for the same thing I was intending to write about. So assuming you're not the junkie that I am, let me take you through the whole deal.
Bravo (a cable channel owned by NBC) has Olympic coverage during what can easily be referred to as happy hour. It's not live coverage, but it's fairly complete and it's on right after you leave work. You actually get to watch entire matches rather than cut and pasted coverage. So sabre was on and I was watching intently as some American woman won the bronze medal. I thought it interesting since this woman is the world champion, but she had stumbled a bit during the Olympics so she was stuck competing for the bronze medal. The announcers mentioned that another American would be competing for gold later that night. This woman was only 19 and barely made it to Athens because Nigeria decided not to send a female fencer.
So even though this woman wasn't that great, she had put together some great swordplay in the last few days so that she could compete for gold. What better storyline to cover? NBC loves to play up these under-dog type stories, especially if it's a young athlete making an Olympic debut and showing up the elder, more experienced teammate.
So lo and behold, NBC shows the women's sabre gold medal match later that night, but I almost missed it. Why? Because they only showed it for 30 seconds! They just skipped through the entire match showing only 4 or 5 points. It was faster than most highlights during the nightly news. And this for a match in which an American won gold for the time in 100 years! Not only an American, but an underdog American who barely made it to Athens. Now, if you've got this great storyline, why not play it up even more? We all know that NBC is a storyline-whore so what happened here?
Even better, later in the evening they spent a good 10 minutes on some story about the road between Athens and Olympia. Really, did we need that crap? Isn't that was video streaming of the web is for? And of course, they spent the rest of the night showing swimming and gymnastics. Of course those sports bring in the ratings, but seriously, would it have been difficult to find 10 minutes of air time to show the sabre?
I'm sure I sound like another complainer who can never be satisfied. Well, I'm definitely not satisfied. What annoys me the most is that NBC didn't even have to make shit up about the uniqueness of the sabre final. It was all right there for them! They're so used to playing shit up they couldn't see the need to just show this without fucking with it.
Anyways, there are a bunch of other annoyances I have with the coverage of these games, but overall, I definitely enjoy having the ability to watch hour after hour of wierdo sports. Too bad NBC has to actually cover it. Their cable partners have much better coverage and they should stick to showing the good stuff. NBC may as well just show highlights in 30 minutes increments especially since they take the viewing public as ADD afflicted losers who can't understand anything beyond the pool and the gymnastics arena (both of which are devoid of crowds).
Friday, August 13, 2004
And now for something completely different
Ok, so let's forget about the source of all my recent hits. I've actually been getting an increasing number of visitors because my posts about everyone's favorite multi-level marketing scheme. Amazing how much info there is out there on the company. In any case, I got 87 visits yesterday!
Ok, so now for something much more interesting than commentary about my blog: The Olympics!
I'm definitely not looking forward to these Games like I was looking forward to the Sydney Games. But I'm getting more excited about them. Of course, the web has a lot of random articles about the Olympics. There have been the more serious ones analyzing the athletes and their chances of winning. Of course, the focus is usually on American athletes. In this day and age, you'd figure I would read more non-American sites, huh?
Well, whatever the case, here are a couple of really random articles:
Ever wonder about how many medals a country might win? Well, we all know there are powerhouses who spend lots of money on their programs thus they win lots of medals (US, China, Russia, Germany), but wouldn't it be nice to have a little more analytical approach to this? Well, our friends at PriceWaterhouseCoopers have answered your pleas! I'm just wondering how much analysis went into this.
Back in 2000 ESPN.com had this pick-em game where you could pick countries and score points based on the number of medals they won and the multiplier for that country. So a medal for the US would garner 1 point, while a medal for Thailand would garner 10 points. Or something like that. The less likely a country is to win a medal, the more points you'd get. Anyways, I'm sure this PwC research would have helped my score back in 2000. I sucked. My friend was smart and picked small countries which have good athletes in specific sports. Like Turkey is good at weightlifting (a la, the "Pocket Rocket")
Anyways, enough about that, on to the babes!
As usual, the media outlets like to draw in people either through controversy or sex. Since I'm not going to focus on the controversy of multi-level marketing, let's talk about sex! Several American female athletes have been posing in their skivvies for magazines like FHM and Maxim. Some, like Amy Acuff, are even posing for Playboy. Now, this may be old news in Australia where it seems like a bunch of female athletes have posed for years, it's pretty new to the US. Everyone including the New York Times and MSNBC are covering this.
Anyways, I'll try to report back on the most random stuff I find during the Olympics. I'm sure we'll all be watching them to some extent, so if you've got some interesting stuff you want to relate, leave a comment!
Ok, so now for something much more interesting than commentary about my blog: The Olympics!
I'm definitely not looking forward to these Games like I was looking forward to the Sydney Games. But I'm getting more excited about them. Of course, the web has a lot of random articles about the Olympics. There have been the more serious ones analyzing the athletes and their chances of winning. Of course, the focus is usually on American athletes. In this day and age, you'd figure I would read more non-American sites, huh?
Well, whatever the case, here are a couple of really random articles:
Ever wonder about how many medals a country might win? Well, we all know there are powerhouses who spend lots of money on their programs thus they win lots of medals (US, China, Russia, Germany), but wouldn't it be nice to have a little more analytical approach to this? Well, our friends at PriceWaterhouseCoopers have answered your pleas! I'm just wondering how much analysis went into this.
Back in 2000 ESPN.com had this pick-em game where you could pick countries and score points based on the number of medals they won and the multiplier for that country. So a medal for the US would garner 1 point, while a medal for Thailand would garner 10 points. Or something like that. The less likely a country is to win a medal, the more points you'd get. Anyways, I'm sure this PwC research would have helped my score back in 2000. I sucked. My friend was smart and picked small countries which have good athletes in specific sports. Like Turkey is good at weightlifting (a la, the "Pocket Rocket")
Anyways, enough about that, on to the babes!
As usual, the media outlets like to draw in people either through controversy or sex. Since I'm not going to focus on the controversy of multi-level marketing, let's talk about sex! Several American female athletes have been posing in their skivvies for magazines like FHM and Maxim. Some, like Amy Acuff, are even posing for Playboy. Now, this may be old news in Australia where it seems like a bunch of female athletes have posed for years, it's pretty new to the US. Everyone including the New York Times and MSNBC are covering this.
Anyways, I'll try to report back on the most random stuff I find during the Olympics. I'm sure we'll all be watching them to some extent, so if you've got some interesting stuff you want to relate, leave a comment!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Non-Issue - outsourcing
You know, it's rather annoying that the topic of job outsourcing is being brought up by the Kerry campaign. It's an easy topic to use and rouse up your supporters, but really, it's a serious non-issue. I understand why Kerry is using it - he's wants to put the focus on how bad the economy is right now, but why focus on outsourcing? It doesn't help to make people think the economy is being torn apart by jobs going to India, China, or wherever. There's so much information on this that I'm not going to link to much.
The basic numbers are this: Forrester Research claims that by 2015 (11 yrs from now) a TOTAL of 3.3 million American jobs will be lost to outsourcing. The Economist estimates that the regular American job market (regardless of outsourcing) churns through 7-8 million jobs every quarter. What that means is that the economy is robust enough to recycle 7-8 million jobs every quarter anyways, not that the economy will lose or gain 7-8mm jobs. That means 308-352 million jobs will be churned through in the same period as Forrester Research. Over the next 11 yrs, the estimates show that outsourcing accounts for only about 1% of the jobs out there. That's nothing!
Plus, the estimates are that only about 2-5% of total jobs lost are due to outsourcing. Again, that's nothing!
Okay, I'll admit that when you look at specific segments of the job market, the percentages are higher, but even then,
So c'mon Kerry, pick on the economy in more constructive ways than singling out outsourcing. Ya those jobs may seem huge when you talk to someone who's "lost" his job to outsourcing. But really, there are more important things to concentrate on relative to the weak job market. Saying you will encourage companies to keep jobs here means one of two things (maybe both): A) You don't want companies choosing the most efficient way to run their businesses, especially if it means hiring people outside of the US, or B) You will subsidize companies to hire people here even though is costs more.
Don't we already have a problem subsidizing people who don't need it (eg, corporate agriculture)?
So one more thing, I don't believe Bush has done much good for our economy, but he's certainly not the one forcing companies to push jobs overseas. Let's focus on things which actually can actually improve our economy. If Kerry wants to pick on Bush about the economy, he should focus on the fact that the recent (enormous) tax cuts haven't really put much money into the hands of the average consumer. If we all agree that this is a consumer driven economy, and that companies will hire and grow their business if consumers are there to buy their goods, then governmental stimulii should focus on that consumer! There's an issue to talk about if you want to get the masses on your side.
Now, I know I'm leaving a lot of holes in my argument. I should really fill in those gaps, but I'm too lazy to do so right now. Obviously this is a more nuanced than just saying it's not an issue at all, but I think everyone should see that outsouring is not an issue which should be at the top of an economic agenda.
The basic numbers are this: Forrester Research claims that by 2015 (11 yrs from now) a TOTAL of 3.3 million American jobs will be lost to outsourcing. The Economist estimates that the regular American job market (regardless of outsourcing) churns through 7-8 million jobs every quarter. What that means is that the economy is robust enough to recycle 7-8 million jobs every quarter anyways, not that the economy will lose or gain 7-8mm jobs. That means 308-352 million jobs will be churned through in the same period as Forrester Research. Over the next 11 yrs, the estimates show that outsourcing accounts for only about 1% of the jobs out there. That's nothing!
Plus, the estimates are that only about 2-5% of total jobs lost are due to outsourcing. Again, that's nothing!
Okay, I'll admit that when you look at specific segments of the job market, the percentages are higher, but even then,
So c'mon Kerry, pick on the economy in more constructive ways than singling out outsourcing. Ya those jobs may seem huge when you talk to someone who's "lost" his job to outsourcing. But really, there are more important things to concentrate on relative to the weak job market. Saying you will encourage companies to keep jobs here means one of two things (maybe both): A) You don't want companies choosing the most efficient way to run their businesses, especially if it means hiring people outside of the US, or B) You will subsidize companies to hire people here even though is costs more.
Don't we already have a problem subsidizing people who don't need it (eg, corporate agriculture)?
So one more thing, I don't believe Bush has done much good for our economy, but he's certainly not the one forcing companies to push jobs overseas. Let's focus on things which actually can actually improve our economy. If Kerry wants to pick on Bush about the economy, he should focus on the fact that the recent (enormous) tax cuts haven't really put much money into the hands of the average consumer. If we all agree that this is a consumer driven economy, and that companies will hire and grow their business if consumers are there to buy their goods, then governmental stimulii should focus on that consumer! There's an issue to talk about if you want to get the masses on your side.
Now, I know I'm leaving a lot of holes in my argument. I should really fill in those gaps, but I'm too lazy to do so right now. Obviously this is a more nuanced than just saying it's not an issue at all, but I think everyone should see that outsouring is not an issue which should be at the top of an economic agenda.
UPDATE, 1:22pm: Here's a more nuanced take on this issue from . Now, if Kerry wants to focus on the social ramifications and real solutions to outsourcing (rather than just financially incenting businesses to stay here) this could be a real talking point. But I don't think any political issue brought up in this election season will allow for more nuanced discussions. It's all sound-bites from here on.
Controversial Subjects - where's the juice?
So can I just say that my blog is getting serious hits now? 67 people visited my site yesterday. That may not seem like a lot of hits, but considering I used to get 5 or 6 visits a day, that's a huge increase.
And for what? No, not for my philosophical musings about freedom of thought, loving a dog, or whatever. People seem to be really interested in everyone's favorite semi-pyramid scheme. Yes, Quixtar and BWW are on everyone's minds. People have been leaving a few comments too. Here's an interesting comment by someone from India. It's interesting to read some of the numbers and the types of products available. This sort of validates my thoughts about the possibilities of making real money off the company. People have also been leaving their musings about being approached in stores.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, I have a festering passive-agressive hatred of the company and I do feel sympathy for the people stuck in this. I say SOME because, hey, they can still get out if they want to. Afterall, it's a business, not a cult! As I mentioned before, more honesty about what the company is would do us all some good. When it comes down to it, I'd rather get pitched by a car salesman because A) They're better at it and B) At least I get to drive a new car and dream that I can actually own it.
Anyways, back to the tie in with my post title. What get people interested in things? No, it's not facts. Facts may keep people interested and keep them coming back for more intellectual worth. But what hooks people in is controversy. Now, I wouldn't say Quixtar & BWW are controversial, but everyone seems to have an opinion on these companies. And that gets people here. We're faced with this everyday on TV, on the web, wherever. We tune in to CNN or the late local news to see the latest thing. And if they're showing a stump speech by Kerry or Bush, some people may stay and watch, but more than likely, people will only stay if there's something juicy. Like the Kobe or Peterson trials. People want the juice so they talk about it the next day in the breakroom or when they go out for happy hour.
Is this bad? Well, in the ideal world everyone would be interested and educated about the "issues of the day" And those issues of the day would be more worldly things like AIDS, elections, Darfur, etc, etc. But seriously, we live in the real world. People don't want to be brought down by such serious subjects. Not all the time at least. So I've learned to deal with it. So have the news networks. They usually have some serious tidbits sprinkled in with the juicy topics of the day. So be it. At least people get a little bit of everything. Is this ideal? Maybe, maybe not. That's life. I stay away from CNN and my local news because I don't find value in sitting through the crap. Other people obviously do since the ratings don't lie (or do they?). And that's fine. I'll just start my personal crusade to educate the masses :P
BTW, let me give credit to the person who recently linked to me. Thanks!
And for what? No, not for my philosophical musings about freedom of thought, loving a dog, or whatever. People seem to be really interested in everyone's favorite semi-pyramid scheme. Yes, Quixtar and BWW are on everyone's minds. People have been leaving a few comments too. Here's an interesting comment by someone from India. It's interesting to read some of the numbers and the types of products available. This sort of validates my thoughts about the possibilities of making real money off the company. People have also been leaving their musings about being approached in stores.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, I have a festering passive-agressive hatred of the company and I do feel sympathy for the people stuck in this. I say SOME because, hey, they can still get out if they want to. Afterall, it's a business, not a cult! As I mentioned before, more honesty about what the company is would do us all some good. When it comes down to it, I'd rather get pitched by a car salesman because A) They're better at it and B) At least I get to drive a new car and dream that I can actually own it.
Anyways, back to the tie in with my post title. What get people interested in things? No, it's not facts. Facts may keep people interested and keep them coming back for more intellectual worth. But what hooks people in is controversy. Now, I wouldn't say Quixtar & BWW are controversial, but everyone seems to have an opinion on these companies. And that gets people here. We're faced with this everyday on TV, on the web, wherever. We tune in to CNN or the late local news to see the latest thing. And if they're showing a stump speech by Kerry or Bush, some people may stay and watch, but more than likely, people will only stay if there's something juicy. Like the Kobe or Peterson trials. People want the juice so they talk about it the next day in the breakroom or when they go out for happy hour.
Is this bad? Well, in the ideal world everyone would be interested and educated about the "issues of the day" And those issues of the day would be more worldly things like AIDS, elections, Darfur, etc, etc. But seriously, we live in the real world. People don't want to be brought down by such serious subjects. Not all the time at least. So I've learned to deal with it. So have the news networks. They usually have some serious tidbits sprinkled in with the juicy topics of the day. So be it. At least people get a little bit of everything. Is this ideal? Maybe, maybe not. That's life. I stay away from CNN and my local news because I don't find value in sitting through the crap. Other people obviously do since the ratings don't lie (or do they?). And that's fine. I'll just start my personal crusade to educate the masses :P
BTW, let me give credit to the person who recently linked to me. Thanks!
Monday, August 09, 2004
Free to be who I want
I'm thinking of this song by the Soup Dragons right now because it really fits a conversation I had earlier today (it's called I'm Free)
I was chatting with a friend earlier today about freedom of thought and how it's actually a bit hard to be completely honest about your feelings with everyone. No, I'm not talking about being a liar and withholding factual information, I'm talking about following the crowd because that's what the crowd wants. You could call it groupthink, if you want.
We were specifically talking about gay marriage. I'm pretty ambivalent about the issue. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue for me. It doesn't affect my everyday life and I don't think it's a big enough issue that people in high places need to make definitive statements regarding it. My friend was pretty ambivalent about it too until recently. We didn't really get into his current opinion, but we did quickly agree that his recent change in opinion was because of the nature of the "left" in San Francisco (more generally, the Bay Area).
Here's where following the crowd comes in. You're expected to be for gay marriage because if you aren't you're a homophobe, a racist, a pig. Whatever you want to call it, you're not cool. And that's actually what my friend was focusing on. He just didn't like the fact that it wasn't cool to disagree with the general opinion on the issue.
This is something that's thrown back and forth between the Left and Right all the time. Neither side is all too tolerant of opposing ideas. They say college campuses (and the blogging universe) are the foundation of liberalism. They say talk radio is the bastion of conservative thought. If you're in college it's tough to be openly conservative. If you're on talk radio, it's tough to be liberal.
Of course, I've got no point here :) I'm just reminding folks of this fact. If you read this and decide to be more open to other people's thoughts, then great. If on top of that you want to re-but their arguments with solid facts, even better. If you don't wish to pay attention to any of this, you can just wrinkle up your face and blame the media and their sound bites :)
What do I do? Well, I generally let the person talk and give an internal shrug if I don't agree. I tend not to express my opinion back. Why? Because I've found that people are very proud of their opinions and I'm not in any position to challenge their pride. In fact, most of my opinions are not built solid facts so who I am to stop someone and make them re-think? The most I do is let the other person know that there are other opinions out there and try to explain why those people have a valid opinion as well.
Anyways, just food for thought. If nothing else, it's just interesting to recall the times when you've recently been faced with this whole thing. It happens to me less now that I live in San Jose and people are pretty much just concerned with their own suburban lives, but when we lived in San Francisco it was pretty evident every time I walked down the street.
Give it some thought. Then see if you'd change your behavior or not. It's a good self-check.
I was chatting with a friend earlier today about freedom of thought and how it's actually a bit hard to be completely honest about your feelings with everyone. No, I'm not talking about being a liar and withholding factual information, I'm talking about following the crowd because that's what the crowd wants. You could call it groupthink, if you want.
We were specifically talking about gay marriage. I'm pretty ambivalent about the issue. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue for me. It doesn't affect my everyday life and I don't think it's a big enough issue that people in high places need to make definitive statements regarding it. My friend was pretty ambivalent about it too until recently. We didn't really get into his current opinion, but we did quickly agree that his recent change in opinion was because of the nature of the "left" in San Francisco (more generally, the Bay Area).
Here's where following the crowd comes in. You're expected to be for gay marriage because if you aren't you're a homophobe, a racist, a pig. Whatever you want to call it, you're not cool. And that's actually what my friend was focusing on. He just didn't like the fact that it wasn't cool to disagree with the general opinion on the issue.
This is something that's thrown back and forth between the Left and Right all the time. Neither side is all too tolerant of opposing ideas. They say college campuses (and the blogging universe) are the foundation of liberalism. They say talk radio is the bastion of conservative thought. If you're in college it's tough to be openly conservative. If you're on talk radio, it's tough to be liberal.
Of course, I've got no point here :) I'm just reminding folks of this fact. If you read this and decide to be more open to other people's thoughts, then great. If on top of that you want to re-but their arguments with solid facts, even better. If you don't wish to pay attention to any of this, you can just wrinkle up your face and blame the media and their sound bites :)
What do I do? Well, I generally let the person talk and give an internal shrug if I don't agree. I tend not to express my opinion back. Why? Because I've found that people are very proud of their opinions and I'm not in any position to challenge their pride. In fact, most of my opinions are not built solid facts so who I am to stop someone and make them re-think? The most I do is let the other person know that there are other opinions out there and try to explain why those people have a valid opinion as well.
Anyways, just food for thought. If nothing else, it's just interesting to recall the times when you've recently been faced with this whole thing. It happens to me less now that I live in San Jose and people are pretty much just concerned with their own suburban lives, but when we lived in San Francisco it was pretty evident every time I walked down the street.
Give it some thought. Then see if you'd change your behavior or not. It's a good self-check.
Loving All Creatures
I think there's something in most cultures about the ideal of loving all of God's creatures. It's not something I aim to do in my everyday life. Lately, however, I'm amazed at the amount of love we can show to pets. We're dog-sitting for a friend while she's out of the country on vacation. The dog is a 9 yr old golden retreiver who epitomizes "man's best friend". Even with his age, he always wants to check out where we are going, makes sure that anyone passing by our front window gets barked at, and loves to play any time we're up for it. And surprisingly, I'm hugging and playing and looking after this dog like I never thought I would.
I say suprisingly mainly because while I was growing up we never had any pets in our house. My mother was allergic to pets and for quite a few years we didn't have the space for a dog that would need lots of room to run around. At times I've even wondered what drives people to spend thousands of dollars on their pets. Now I understand.
I don't know if I would spend my life savings to care for a dog, but I do know that I would go out of my way to ensure that my charge is well taken care of and is comfortable. Interestingly, we've been treating this dog like a child (mainly because he loves to act like one). But it has come so naturally that both my wife and I are amazed that we haven't wanted a dog for much longer.
I was talking to a friend the other day about how it's almost a bit odd that Americans love their pets so much. We're both familiar with Indian culture and very few pets are kept in that country. In fact, even though most Hindus claim to look out for all creatures, they show very little care for any of the animals living in the street. The cows roaming the boulevards are simply a nuisance and all anyone does is to make sure they don't hit any of them (hard) with their cars or motorcycles. And the dogs? More like mangy mongrels. They live off the scraps of families and the lack of a quality diet really shows. I venture to say that, on average, the rich folks in India seem to care less for the animals in the streets than the people that are forced to live in shacks in the streets.
And here we are in a rich country with so much disposable income that entire business models are built around people's love for their pets (let's forget about the disaster of pets.com for a moment). So is the amount of love shown tied to the amount of money available to spend? Well, it's certainly a part of it, isn't it? Here in America we have this strange confluence of historical partnership with animals and enough money to continue supporting that partnership. I dare say that applies more generally to the West as well. This may be the case in certain pockets of the East, but from my experience it's more of an anomaly than the norm.
So anyways, enough with the philosophizing. Time to take the dog out :)
I say suprisingly mainly because while I was growing up we never had any pets in our house. My mother was allergic to pets and for quite a few years we didn't have the space for a dog that would need lots of room to run around. At times I've even wondered what drives people to spend thousands of dollars on their pets. Now I understand.
I don't know if I would spend my life savings to care for a dog, but I do know that I would go out of my way to ensure that my charge is well taken care of and is comfortable. Interestingly, we've been treating this dog like a child (mainly because he loves to act like one). But it has come so naturally that both my wife and I are amazed that we haven't wanted a dog for much longer.
I was talking to a friend the other day about how it's almost a bit odd that Americans love their pets so much. We're both familiar with Indian culture and very few pets are kept in that country. In fact, even though most Hindus claim to look out for all creatures, they show very little care for any of the animals living in the street. The cows roaming the boulevards are simply a nuisance and all anyone does is to make sure they don't hit any of them (hard) with their cars or motorcycles. And the dogs? More like mangy mongrels. They live off the scraps of families and the lack of a quality diet really shows. I venture to say that, on average, the rich folks in India seem to care less for the animals in the streets than the people that are forced to live in shacks in the streets.
And here we are in a rich country with so much disposable income that entire business models are built around people's love for their pets (let's forget about the disaster of pets.com for a moment). So is the amount of love shown tied to the amount of money available to spend? Well, it's certainly a part of it, isn't it? Here in America we have this strange confluence of historical partnership with animals and enough money to continue supporting that partnership. I dare say that applies more generally to the West as well. This may be the case in certain pockets of the East, but from my experience it's more of an anomaly than the norm.
So anyways, enough with the philosophizing. Time to take the dog out :)
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Just One Man's Perceptions
My post about Quixtar has been linked from this blog. And no, this is not my way of basking in the light of my newfound Internet fame :) I'll start basking only when people call me the Anti-Quixtar messiah :P
Actually, this person's blog attempts to be a neutral party in providing information about Quixtar and joining. I haven't read enough of the blog to say whether he's truly neutral or not. The few posts I've read seem to put him in the neutral camp. That would be the first person I've met who's neutral on the company.
Anyways, I mentioned in a comment to him that I probably come off as a Quixtar hater. I actually don't know enough about the company to care too much either way. Obviously though, I wouldn't recommend anyone to join up with Quixtar. What I am a hater of is the damned IBOs (Individual Business Owners) who keep coming up to me or who think about coming up to me in stores and see if I'm interested in a personal business.
Come to think of it, I was in Great Mall over the weekend taking a break on a bench. Behind me were 3 desi's sitting down on the adjacent bench. Two of them were talking to the third starting off with small talk. It quickly led to the personal business thing. My wife and I looked at each other, joked in Gujarati about warning the 3rd guy about what he's being pulled into. Actually, I wouldn't stop someone from joining; they can figure it out on their own. If they want to join, that's their business.
So there it is. The solictors need to be smoother with this thing because it's way too easy to predict who they are and why they're talking to you in the first place. And from what I've read today about Quixtar, you can buy a lot of training/personal improvement materials to help your business. Either those materials suck, or Quixtar's gotta hire Tony Robbins to put together a 12-step improvement process.
Ok, that's seriously enough. The company doesn't need any more of my comments. Thanks Eric Janssen for the link, you've sent a lot of hits my way and now I'm seriously on my way to internet fame :) Now I just need to make a billion dollars off this thing.
Actually, this person's blog attempts to be a neutral party in providing information about Quixtar and joining. I haven't read enough of the blog to say whether he's truly neutral or not. The few posts I've read seem to put him in the neutral camp. That would be the first person I've met who's neutral on the company.
Anyways, I mentioned in a comment to him that I probably come off as a Quixtar hater. I actually don't know enough about the company to care too much either way. Obviously though, I wouldn't recommend anyone to join up with Quixtar. What I am a hater of is the damned IBOs (Individual Business Owners) who keep coming up to me or who think about coming up to me in stores and see if I'm interested in a personal business.
Come to think of it, I was in Great Mall over the weekend taking a break on a bench. Behind me were 3 desi's sitting down on the adjacent bench. Two of them were talking to the third starting off with small talk. It quickly led to the personal business thing. My wife and I looked at each other, joked in Gujarati about warning the 3rd guy about what he's being pulled into. Actually, I wouldn't stop someone from joining; they can figure it out on their own. If they want to join, that's their business.
So there it is. The solictors need to be smoother with this thing because it's way too easy to predict who they are and why they're talking to you in the first place. And from what I've read today about Quixtar, you can buy a lot of training/personal improvement materials to help your business. Either those materials suck, or Quixtar's gotta hire Tony Robbins to put together a 12-step improvement process.
Ok, that's seriously enough. The company doesn't need any more of my comments. Thanks Eric Janssen for the link, you've sent a lot of hits my way and now I'm seriously on my way to internet fame :) Now I just need to make a billion dollars off this thing.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Would things change?
With the Dem. National Convention ending, the presidential campaign is warming up, with the usual slinging back and forth between the major candidates. A lot of talk has been around the major changes which Kerry would make if he becomes president - things like health care, Iraq, etc. Something that was a huge issue last year, but has been forgotten by the media whores (grin) is the legal proceedings involving enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay. Here's a pretty interesting (if long) article on this topic from slate.com.
The article actually tackles two issues: The actual legal proceedings involving the enemy combatants and the Dept. of Justice as well as the latest about the Abu Ghraib torture. The stories are not well weaved together, but the connections are really around how these issues are being tackled in and out of the judicial system. Also, the author makes some big-ish leaps in connecting things together. Regardless, some things are enlightening.
The most interesting thing about this is the author's connection between these proceedings and the amount of respect America gets in the world. In my opinion, the amount of disdain that America gets in Europe and the rest of the world is not predicated just on how this stuff turns out. It's not just based on how Iraq or the War of Terror turns out either. Regardless of what happens to these torturers, to the enemy combatants, to Iraqis, or to Queda, people will still hate what America is.
That being said, I find it really important to recognize that our judicial (both civilian and military) can really help to contribute towards showing that America is a just nation. That we, as Americans, believe in doing the "right" thing. The DoJ is doing everything legally possible to stretch out the plight of the people in Guantanamo Bay. The DoJ is not simply stretching out the timelines, but making it near impossible for these people to defend themselves (either in a court of law or outside of the civilian court system). While that's perfectly legal, wouldn't it be great to see justice in Guantanamo that is just as swift as it apparently is when "high value Queda targets" are captured? Wouldn't it also be nice to see some recognition that torturing prisoners can be the fault of more than just a few nutcases?
So back to my original point (and to the title of this post). Would a President Kerry ensure these things are done? The last paragraph of this article mentions that this would not likely change. And I tend to agree. Partly because the wheels are already in motion on this and it's hard to completely change directions at these lower levels without replacing every individual involved in the prosecution. Partly because Kerry might be too afraid of backlash to ease up on this "justice".
But at the least, there needs to be a clear recognition that if we are to stand proud and say that we are a just nation, we not only need to get our allies to agree with us before going to war, we not only need to convince ourselves of our rightness. We need to do these seemingly little things. We have a reputation in this world. Extremists on both sides will argue that our reputation is good or bad. Pragmatists in this world need to show that regardless of our current reputation, we must do many small things to improve it.
The article actually tackles two issues: The actual legal proceedings involving the enemy combatants and the Dept. of Justice as well as the latest about the Abu Ghraib torture. The stories are not well weaved together, but the connections are really around how these issues are being tackled in and out of the judicial system. Also, the author makes some big-ish leaps in connecting things together. Regardless, some things are enlightening.
The most interesting thing about this is the author's connection between these proceedings and the amount of respect America gets in the world. In my opinion, the amount of disdain that America gets in Europe and the rest of the world is not predicated just on how this stuff turns out. It's not just based on how Iraq or the War of Terror turns out either. Regardless of what happens to these torturers, to the enemy combatants, to Iraqis, or to Queda, people will still hate what America is.
That being said, I find it really important to recognize that our judicial (both civilian and military) can really help to contribute towards showing that America is a just nation. That we, as Americans, believe in doing the "right" thing. The DoJ is doing everything legally possible to stretch out the plight of the people in Guantanamo Bay. The DoJ is not simply stretching out the timelines, but making it near impossible for these people to defend themselves (either in a court of law or outside of the civilian court system). While that's perfectly legal, wouldn't it be great to see justice in Guantanamo that is just as swift as it apparently is when "high value Queda targets" are captured? Wouldn't it also be nice to see some recognition that torturing prisoners can be the fault of more than just a few nutcases?
So back to my original point (and to the title of this post). Would a President Kerry ensure these things are done? The last paragraph of this article mentions that this would not likely change. And I tend to agree. Partly because the wheels are already in motion on this and it's hard to completely change directions at these lower levels without replacing every individual involved in the prosecution. Partly because Kerry might be too afraid of backlash to ease up on this "justice".
But at the least, there needs to be a clear recognition that if we are to stand proud and say that we are a just nation, we not only need to get our allies to agree with us before going to war, we not only need to convince ourselves of our rightness. We need to do these seemingly little things. We have a reputation in this world. Extremists on both sides will argue that our reputation is good or bad. Pragmatists in this world need to show that regardless of our current reputation, we must do many small things to improve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)