Recently, a number of right wing bloggers and pundits have been arguing that Pelosi, Reid and President Obama are pushing American politics to the far left. Reading them, you might think that America is developing an European-style social state.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
First things first - America is not Europe. The labor protection laws that exist on the continent, and to some extend in the UK, simply don't exist here. It's all that strangely worded 'work at will' (this was coined, as you might expect, by a right wing pundit in the late 1940's or early 1950's, when American unions were fighting for labor protection laws. What happened was that 'right to fire' laws became known as 'work at will' laws - something that implies the exact opposite of what these laws actually are!) You can be fired for any reason in the US. There are some protections, but they're being eroded or removed quite rapidly. Right to work [sic] laws are a state concern, and as such the Feds have very little capacity to pass any labor protection laws.
Secondly, there's no national health system. It might be possible to implement one, but I don't think anyone - except perhaps a few diehards who don't look at the financial state of European health systems - wants a national, tax-payer funded system. European health systems, and the granddaddy of them all - Britain's - are all in dire straits. Administrative costs keep climbing, while the care provided is worsening. And no one knows exactly how much goes into these systems because no government in Europe is very open about such things. The British government is actually the worst - the secrecy of official budgets is both heinous and ridiculous.
Health care over here is going to be a mix of government regulation (particularly in the cost of care), private insurance - hopefully more fairly regulated - and publicly funded options of last resort.
What is needed is an incentive to move away from the current system that discourages preventive care, excessive testing to avoid lawsuits, and the ridiculous insurance system that rewards dramatic operations and cuts off life simply because the insurance company bureaucrat decides you're too expensive. Health care is going to be a battle-royale!
Thirdly, welfare and unemployment are administered at the State level. Each state sets its own rates, conditions (often confusing, and many are designed to ensure you can't collect, even as you're required to pay into the system) and then there are the Governors who are willing to trade unemployment benefits for national political pandering. This system has to change, but getting it to European style payments and conditions (Britain's measly and mediocre efforts notwithstanding) is simply not going to happen, over here. The Feds can't interfere too much with the State systems, despite being the biggest contributor!
Closing Guantanamo Bay is not a left-wing issue; it seems to be, because so few on the right are demanding it. Human rights are not a left or right wing issue; the treatment of prisoners is a human rights issue. Iraq is not a left-wing issue; no one has managed to articulate why America and Britain (and a few others) are fighting there, so that becomes more of a "stop fighting while we can" issue. I don't America will be leaving Iraq any time soon; the borders were arbitrarily drawn, and with no regard to political realities of the time. As such, America needs to be there - they bought the responsibility, whether they (or anyone else, for that matter) wanted it, or not.
Lastly, there's no evidence America is moving to the far left, politically. It's not the "right of center" nation these pundits claimed when Obama wasn't yet President, but it's certainly not the far-left horror they tell us it is. I think what is happening is that common-sense laws are being proposed, and in contrast to the past 8 or 10 years of fiscal and regulatory irresponsibility, anything that is politically centered seems to be far left. It's one of those contrast thingies!
The truth of the matter is that you can't rely on industries to act either their own best interest, or the best interests of their communities. You can rely on, for instance, strip mining owners to want to get rid of their waste in the most economical way possible. Even if that includes increasing mercury levels in the drinking water sources, or blocking Appalachian streams. You can rely on the auto industry to fight tooth and nail any real effort to improve the products. (I don't count new radios and vaguely more efficient engines as "real progress".) Heck, the auto-industry didn't want to include tire pressure monitors, seat belts or air bags.
Sure, there will be some swinging to the left - that's inevitable after the shoddy treatment the GOP dished out to the Democrats up to 2006. It's also inevitable that some over-correction of the neocon swing to the far, far right will happen. Once America is prosperous and growing, again, the unfairness of today will be forgotten; it's as likely to be revered as anything! (After all, many on the right still think the days of the Robber Barons as perfectly fair!) It's one reason why Obama has to move fast - his window of opportunity to make America a better place will all but vanish once people have money in their pockets, and fewer worries about their future. He has to get certain programs in so they become fait-accompli, and are dismantled by the right at their peril. His proposed changes do seem to be far reaching, and this is what has the right worried - they're more interested in tax cuts and maintaining the status quo. Change, even for the better, is not something they want to see. (Really!)
No, America is not moving to the far left. It's centering, and if that has the right wing upset, all I can say is: Good! :-)
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, February 28, 2009
There's gonna be a rumble...
Obama presented his budget - and I must say, it is quite the departure from past efforts!
For one thing, it looks 10 years into the future. Bush's looked 5 years into a fantasy. The numbers do seem credible - although that's not something I can really comment on. At $3.6 trillion, a number that's too big to comprehend, he's allocating quite a lot to his pet causes. Everything from green power to health insurance gets addressed; taxes are shoved back in the direction where the rich have to actually pay something into the Treasury. This has a lot of people upset. The GOP is probably salivating, and is (probably, as I write) pasting their old phrases onto new red, white and blue posters.
I liked this phrase:
Iraq is, for the first time, included in the overall budget. Also, veteran's health care is given a fair number. For all their shouting about "supporting the troops", the neocons of the Bush Administration were just about criminally negligent toward returning veterans. At first it was all about blaming Clinton, and then it was all about ignoring the problem of soldiers' pay, the hideous revelations that so many soldiers' families were on food stamps and the ridiculous lack of care provided for soldiers' once they left the army. All of this looks to change!
Education was always given short-thrift by Bush. The peculiar administration and management of American schools is not addressed, but that's probably not as much a priority as making the education system in this country actually work! It's been a bit of an embarrassment, of late. This is going to be one area where his supporters and detractors will be able to get together and cry "Foul!" More likely, they'll howl at the moon and expect that to change the system.
All in all, it's a believable budget. It's even readable, something that I've never particularly noted about other budgets. It's going to be attacked by those who benefit from the status quo, and not everyone will like what's in there. But I think Obama has the political capital to actually get through most of what he wants, and the nation needs.
The Republicans will be screeching about socialism and the welfare state (there's no socialism in the budget, and ridiculously little welfare state). They'll not make any original points, so we don't have to waste time listening to them. Some of the more left wing Democrats will shout about Iraq (they're doing that, already) and the lack of social services in the budget - but that' fine. They won't really offer anything new, either. It'll be left to the White House to get the budget through; it'll change from what's proposed and what's actually passed, but I don't think it thre will be too many changes. The arguments in the document(s) are just too compelling, and too reasonable!
The man is moving fast - and it is catching his opponents off guard. They're left flailing around, trying to figure out how to respond coherently, and Wham! There's another initiative! I must admit I'm not 100% happy with the budget - I'd prefer more social welfare, and a larger budget for advanced research efforts - but I do think it's a good budget.
Good luck on getting it passed, President Obama. We need it!
Carolyn Ann
PS Maybe Gordon Brown could be a little more dynamic. Instead of his current condition, which is best described as "comatose".
For one thing, it looks 10 years into the future. Bush's looked 5 years into a fantasy. The numbers do seem credible - although that's not something I can really comment on. At $3.6 trillion, a number that's too big to comprehend, he's allocating quite a lot to his pet causes. Everything from green power to health insurance gets addressed; taxes are shoved back in the direction where the rich have to actually pay something into the Treasury. This has a lot of people upset. The GOP is probably salivating, and is (probably, as I write) pasting their old phrases onto new red, white and blue posters.
I liked this phrase:
This is the legacy that we inherit—a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities, of missed opportunities and of deep, structural problems ignored for too long. It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change itNothing like stating the obvious, hmm? :-)
Iraq is, for the first time, included in the overall budget. Also, veteran's health care is given a fair number. For all their shouting about "supporting the troops", the neocons of the Bush Administration were just about criminally negligent toward returning veterans. At first it was all about blaming Clinton, and then it was all about ignoring the problem of soldiers' pay, the hideous revelations that so many soldiers' families were on food stamps and the ridiculous lack of care provided for soldiers' once they left the army. All of this looks to change!
Education was always given short-thrift by Bush. The peculiar administration and management of American schools is not addressed, but that's probably not as much a priority as making the education system in this country actually work! It's been a bit of an embarrassment, of late. This is going to be one area where his supporters and detractors will be able to get together and cry "Foul!" More likely, they'll howl at the moon and expect that to change the system.
All in all, it's a believable budget. It's even readable, something that I've never particularly noted about other budgets. It's going to be attacked by those who benefit from the status quo, and not everyone will like what's in there. But I think Obama has the political capital to actually get through most of what he wants, and the nation needs.
The Republicans will be screeching about socialism and the welfare state (there's no socialism in the budget, and ridiculously little welfare state). They'll not make any original points, so we don't have to waste time listening to them. Some of the more left wing Democrats will shout about Iraq (they're doing that, already) and the lack of social services in the budget - but that' fine. They won't really offer anything new, either. It'll be left to the White House to get the budget through; it'll change from what's proposed and what's actually passed, but I don't think it thre will be too many changes. The arguments in the document(s) are just too compelling, and too reasonable!
The man is moving fast - and it is catching his opponents off guard. They're left flailing around, trying to figure out how to respond coherently, and Wham! There's another initiative! I must admit I'm not 100% happy with the budget - I'd prefer more social welfare, and a larger budget for advanced research efforts - but I do think it's a good budget.
Good luck on getting it passed, President Obama. We need it!
Carolyn Ann
PS Maybe Gordon Brown could be a little more dynamic. Instead of his current condition, which is best described as "comatose".
Friday, February 27, 2009
Transgender Poetry (again?)
Lying in the tub, not long after a bike ride, and a bit of a think - the wide open spaces, and empty roads of southern New Jersey are great for a good thinking! - I finally figured out what's missing in transgendered poetry. Empathy.
Empathy for themselves, mostly.
I would pick individual poems, but that would be unfair to the writer: each is as bad as the last. There's a "woe is me" quality to many of the rhymes, but no empathy. No emotion. They're calculated, and condescending as a result.
I read a recent poem by a (fairly prominent) transgender blogger, and it started out well enough - but then veered into self pity. It took 2 or 3 syllables. That's all. Not much, when you think about it. What the hell happened to writing from the heart? Writing what you feel?
A poem can be many things, but a piece of self-indulgent tripe is not one of them.
Carolyn Ann
Empathy for themselves, mostly.
I would pick individual poems, but that would be unfair to the writer: each is as bad as the last. There's a "woe is me" quality to many of the rhymes, but no empathy. No emotion. They're calculated, and condescending as a result.
I read a recent poem by a (fairly prominent) transgender blogger, and it started out well enough - but then veered into self pity. It took 2 or 3 syllables. That's all. Not much, when you think about it. What the hell happened to writing from the heart? Writing what you feel?
A poem can be many things, but a piece of self-indulgent tripe is not one of them.
Carolyn Ann
Never adhered
old men go to war
and young men die
for principles untold
and principles held dear
but, somehow,
the principles of war
are never adhered
===
Carolyn Ann
and young men die
for principles untold
and principles held dear
but, somehow,
the principles of war
are never adhered
===
Carolyn Ann
5 months to save the world
The Battle of Britain, one of the most glorious moments of history, was the turning of the modern world. "The few" fought valiantly, without the nitpickings of any media and defeated a much larger, and much more experienced, air force. Some fought to defend freedom, but being young men - they often fought because they didn't want to let their mates down.
While Lord Halifax (the foreign secretary) was making defeatist overtures to Mussolini, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was appeasing Hitler, Air ChiefMarshallMarshal Sir Hugh Dowding was making sure Britain had enough fighter airplanes, of sufficient quality, and fighter pilots to defend the great islands. Brave young women delivered the fighters, and brave young men took them into battle. (This is not, by way of explanation to the pedants, a discourse on the role of women in combat, it was what actually happened.) Often enough, as Michael Korda's excellent "With Wings Like Eagles", makes clear - there wasn't enough time between ending school, getting trained to fly and fight and the letter to a distraught Mom and Dad for anyone to get to know the brave and unfortunate individuals. So many of those pilots got into their first fight within moments of arriving at their squadrons!
This wasn't the aerial combat of Desert Storm, or Desert Shield. It was up close and personal - you got within 200 yards, often as close as 3o yards, of the man you intended to kill, at speeds upward of 300MPH. It wasn't the valiant, hyped chivalry of misnamed Great War, either. This was kill, or be killed. If you survived the first mission, your odds of surviving the next four were better. After that, if you survived you first five comabt experiences - you could be assured of surviving the next 10. After 20 combat instances, you were not likely to survive the next one. Much has been made, over the years, of the fact that the pilots enjoyed their own beds, a mess that served good food and a decent amount of ale. What's a young man to do in the face of those odds? Be a good fellow, and not try to bed the women he comes across?
The fact is: a ground soldier, an infrantryman of the time had to call on his own courage, and that of his comrades time and again. They were in perpetual danger. The pilot could go back to his room, and have a neatly turned down bed to await him - after a night of revelry, celebrating that he was, really, still around to celebrate the fact that he could celebrate. (If you think the shorter "he could celebrate the fact he was alive" would have sufficed, you missed the point. I feel I need to point that out, and disturb the flow of this piece simply to comply with the demands of modern pedants.) These brave young men flew, at 300 miles per hour, into life-threatening danger - time and time again. At the height of the Battle of Britain, some of them had to do it 3 or 4 times day! Can you imagine the stress? (If you say "yes", you're lying.)
Since Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" was published, I've thought of that superb work as the last word on The Battle of Britain. Michael Korda has proved me wrong. He uses his high social status to advantage in this history - he knew some of the characters, and his father and grandfather were most certainly involved with them!
One of the greatest services Mr Korda (I am not presuming any title, for I know of none that he holds) provides is the balancing of the animosity between Churchill and Dowding. He also highlights something I'm not sure is otherwise acknowledged: the nightly discussions between Lord Beaverbrook, the head of Aircraft Production, and Hugh Dowding. Essentially, the fate of the free world came down to two men liking each other. We're fortunate they did!
Without the tools, Dowding's fighters couldn't fight. Without Lord Beaverbrook taking a liking to the eccentric and difficult AirMarshall, we wouldn't have the world we know. Thanks to their friendship, those brave young women could deliver the airplanes, and those brave young men could take the fight to the Luftwaffe.
It surely serves as an example that coherency at the top helps the troops in their battles and skirmishes. Dowding and Churchill may have disliked each other, but neither was ready to let Great Britain fall to some half-witted Austrian corporal. They defended England, Scotland and Wales in their own, inspiring, ways. It was a strange triumvirate; I doubt such a thing could exist, today - everyone being so particular about following ideologies and all! (Bloggers such as I see to that.) Dowding had the support of the Canadian Lord Beaverbrook; he, in turn, had an allegiance to the half-American Churchill that superseded rationality. Churchill and Dowding didn't get along - contrary to some commentaries, they didn't hate each other. Dowding was just unfortunate in being right where the Francophiliac Churchill was desperately wrong.
Mr Korda is a little kinder than most to Baldwin and Chamberlain. Baldwin, a famously incurious leader (doesn't this have a familiar tone?) did provide the funds for a radar system. Chamberlain did buy time for it be implemented. I don't buy the suggestion, as put by Mr Korda, that this was a strategic goal of either Prime Minister. There is too much other evidence that they were incompetent and uninterested in all but Conservative Party power. (This has such a ring to it... I've never though of it, before! Where was the contemporary Bob Woodward?)
I think if someone put it to the vote, Sir Hugh Dowding would be the favorite of the British people; Shakespeare would come in a close second. Indeed, a survey of "favored Midlanders" demonstrated just that! In America, you're more likely to get a confused "who?" Which is unfortunate.
If you need to understand the Battle of Britain - anyone interested in freedom must be interested in it - you need to read Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" and Michael Korda's contribution. The free world as we know it basically owes a debt to those three months, and the two, perhaps three, men who made it possible. Not denegrating the misfortune, idiotic and plainly stupid decisions the German High Command made, of course. But Britain would have won, in the end. (Why? They were better. Purely, and simply.)
Britain won because it had men like Air ChiefMarshallMarshal Sir Hugh Dowding, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Lord Beaverbrook, and Air Vice MarshallMarshal K. R. Parks, a New Zealander. But without the tools, the impetus and fortitude they gave those brave men young men, fighting over the southern, midland and northern counties of England - we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we enjoy.
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: Oops. For some reason I had "3 months" stuck in my noggin'; the Battle of Britain was actually 5 months long, give or take a few weeks. Sorry!
Plus I noticed some spelling errors, and a forgotten link. They're corrected, although I'm sure other spelling errors reside within... :-)
While Lord Halifax (the foreign secretary) was making defeatist overtures to Mussolini, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was appeasing Hitler, Air Chief
This wasn't the aerial combat of Desert Storm, or Desert Shield. It was up close and personal - you got within 200 yards, often as close as 3o yards, of the man you intended to kill, at speeds upward of 300MPH. It wasn't the valiant, hyped chivalry of misnamed Great War, either. This was kill, or be killed. If you survived the first mission, your odds of surviving the next four were better. After that, if you survived you first five comabt experiences - you could be assured of surviving the next 10. After 20 combat instances, you were not likely to survive the next one. Much has been made, over the years, of the fact that the pilots enjoyed their own beds, a mess that served good food and a decent amount of ale. What's a young man to do in the face of those odds? Be a good fellow, and not try to bed the women he comes across?
The fact is: a ground soldier, an infrantryman of the time had to call on his own courage, and that of his comrades time and again. They were in perpetual danger. The pilot could go back to his room, and have a neatly turned down bed to await him - after a night of revelry, celebrating that he was, really, still around to celebrate the fact that he could celebrate. (If you think the shorter "he could celebrate the fact he was alive" would have sufficed, you missed the point. I feel I need to point that out, and disturb the flow of this piece simply to comply with the demands of modern pedants.) These brave young men flew, at 300 miles per hour, into life-threatening danger - time and time again. At the height of the Battle of Britain, some of them had to do it 3 or 4 times day! Can you imagine the stress? (If you say "yes", you're lying.)
Since Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" was published, I've thought of that superb work as the last word on The Battle of Britain. Michael Korda has proved me wrong. He uses his high social status to advantage in this history - he knew some of the characters, and his father and grandfather were most certainly involved with them!
One of the greatest services Mr Korda (I am not presuming any title, for I know of none that he holds) provides is the balancing of the animosity between Churchill and Dowding. He also highlights something I'm not sure is otherwise acknowledged: the nightly discussions between Lord Beaverbrook, the head of Aircraft Production, and Hugh Dowding. Essentially, the fate of the free world came down to two men liking each other. We're fortunate they did!
Without the tools, Dowding's fighters couldn't fight. Without Lord Beaverbrook taking a liking to the eccentric and difficult Air
It surely serves as an example that coherency at the top helps the troops in their battles and skirmishes. Dowding and Churchill may have disliked each other, but neither was ready to let Great Britain fall to some half-witted Austrian corporal. They defended England, Scotland and Wales in their own, inspiring, ways. It was a strange triumvirate; I doubt such a thing could exist, today - everyone being so particular about following ideologies and all! (Bloggers such as I see to that.) Dowding had the support of the Canadian Lord Beaverbrook; he, in turn, had an allegiance to the half-American Churchill that superseded rationality. Churchill and Dowding didn't get along - contrary to some commentaries, they didn't hate each other. Dowding was just unfortunate in being right where the Francophiliac Churchill was desperately wrong.
Mr Korda is a little kinder than most to Baldwin and Chamberlain. Baldwin, a famously incurious leader (doesn't this have a familiar tone?) did provide the funds for a radar system. Chamberlain did buy time for it be implemented. I don't buy the suggestion, as put by Mr Korda, that this was a strategic goal of either Prime Minister. There is too much other evidence that they were incompetent and uninterested in all but Conservative Party power. (This has such a ring to it... I've never though of it, before! Where was the contemporary Bob Woodward?)
I think if someone put it to the vote, Sir Hugh Dowding would be the favorite of the British people; Shakespeare would come in a close second. Indeed, a survey of "favored Midlanders" demonstrated just that! In America, you're more likely to get a confused "who?" Which is unfortunate.
If you need to understand the Battle of Britain - anyone interested in freedom must be interested in it - you need to read Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" and Michael Korda's contribution. The free world as we know it basically owes a debt to those three months, and the two, perhaps three, men who made it possible. Not denegrating the misfortune, idiotic and plainly stupid decisions the German High Command made, of course. But Britain would have won, in the end. (Why? They were better. Purely, and simply.)
Britain won because it had men like Air Chief
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: Oops. For some reason I had "3 months" stuck in my noggin'; the Battle of Britain was actually 5 months long, give or take a few weeks. Sorry!
Plus I noticed some spelling errors, and a forgotten link. They're corrected, although I'm sure other spelling errors reside within... :-)
A Guide for Congressional Republicans
Hello and welcome to Congress!
You're a member of the Republican Caucus (please see the nearest Congressional Page for an explanation of that term, if you're not familiar with it) and as such you're expected to conform. To our guidelines, that is.
This is a two page document; please read the other side of the page - it contains information on what you like and don't like, as well what your opinion on policy matters will be.
These guidelines are very simple, and supersede any frivolous documents and intentions such as The Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment, your constituents, your conscience and/or any desire to be rational and willing to work with the White House.
To help you in your transition from libertarian or moderate positions, we have compiled a list of 10 principles, and 20 approved policy positions. We have provided some easy to "remember" tips: these are usually preceded by the word "Remember". Please note that these points are not presented in a coherent manner: that would be too much to ask, considering how haphazard and arbitrary some of our positions actually are. These principles are, on the other hand, simple to follow and are designed to help you avoid thinking. They are intended to prevent you from thinking at all.
1. Democrats BAD. Republicans, therefore: Good. Independents, we like if they're called Joe Lieberman, and not if they're not.
2. You will be instructed how to vote by the Chief Whip; it is rumored he receives his instructions from Rush Limbaugh (but we don't confirm or deny that to leave the Democrats guessing). Please note that there's a reason the Chief Whip is called the Chief Whip - he's the one with the whip. (Please note, the Democratic Chief Whip does not carry a whip. They are a party of freethinkers and losers, and as such they have to persuade their members to vote one way or the other. We, being more organized, will instruct you on how to vote before each vote.)
3. If you miss the instructions from the Chief Whip due to illicit and/or hypocritical affairs, hankering after page boys, or by being arrested trying to get "a gay quickie" in an airport restroom, please tune into Rush Limbaugh. He will instruct you, and provide you with talking points that you can reiterate in your chamber.
4. If you have something to do for a constituent, please submit a request to the Central Committee. You will receive notification that it is possible your inquiry will be raised at the next Committee meeting long after the need for any action has passed. This allows us to blame the Democrats for their inaction.
5. You may appear on Fox News without prior approval. You may not appear on any other television channel without prior approval. Upon receiving a request, and it being approved, you will be visited by a Party Official who will provide you with training on what you can and cannot say on the air. You can make a fool of yourself - indeed, we have found this to be the only possible way of handling a reporters' questions - but you may not stray from the Republican Central Committee guidelines.
You should note that if you do make a fool of yourself and keep a straight face, and we like you, we may look favorably upon you. Or push you under the nearest bus, depending upon our whim.
6. If you do vote against the wishes of the Central Committee we will make noises about pulling your re-election funding. We will do this shamelessly until you fess up, apologize and go on to Sean Hannity and beg forgiveness. If you persist, we will insist that you're a closet Democrat who wants the President to succeed.
7. If you're unsure about the Republican ideology in any particular instance, please tune into Fox News or listen to the Rush Limbaugh show. Please note: all televisions in your office must be tuned to either Nickelodeon or Fox News. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is mandatory (it's how we get to know our policy positions). Bill O'Reilly is strongly suggested, as is Sean Hannity and the reading of Ann Coulter. If you show any sign of having a brain left, you will be assigned additional reading by Dinesh D'Souza and others of his ilk.
8. If something important is happening, you must insist that tax cuts are the only way of solving the problem. It is not important if they have no bearing on the problem being discussed.
9. Republicans stand for individual responsibility and freedom. We can't do this if everyone acts freely. If someone does act freely, and especially if they hold a view that is not pre-approved, they are to be called "un-American". If you are accused of being "un-American", get all upset, stamp your feet and cry as you call Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity for support. Calling Ann Coulter, Bay Buchanan or that other Buchanan is okay if you don't want anyone to know you called.
10. Ridicule Democrats and their efforts to make the world a better place.
Remember these key policy positions:
1. Tax cuts good. This can be considered the default Republican policy on all financial matters.
1a. Deregulation: good
1b: Big bonuses: Good, especially when we get them.
2. Abortion bad.
2a. Sex education: really bad
3. Piety good. Christian piety: essential. Please note, it is not important if you understand what you're being pious about.
3a. Quoting scripture to support your point: good. (Please note, it doesn't matter if the quote has anything to do with the matter at hand)
4. Gays: evil. Lesbians are kinky, but only when they don't want anything like civil rights.
4a. Gay Marriage: Evil. Part of the Gay Agenda.
4b. Bill Clinton: The Devil Incarnate.
5. Husband: all powerful. Wife: subservient
6. Children: seen and not heard, and preferably not seen. Definitely not insured.
7. Privatize everything: good
8. Tax payer paying for privatizing: good.
8a. Tax payer guaranteeing profits for privatized company: good.
9. Pork barrel spending: bad, unless it's for something we want in which case it's good. (Please note, that it is not necessary to spend the money on the intended project. Please ask Sarah Palin about the "Bridge to Nowhere" money if you need additional guidance on that)
10. Progress, especially social progress: awful
11. Court decisions that favor the individual: they come from "activist judges" and are bad. Please tone down your criticisms when dealing with such reliable Republican judges as the Supreme Court ones. They have bad days. Democrat "activist" judges are just plain evil.
12. Evolution: bad.
12a. Evolutionists: Representatives of the anti-Christ
13. Global warming: bad, unless one of our donors is making money from it. Then it's not so bad.
13a. Oil and coal company pronouncements on global warming: accurate. (Please note there is no requirement for these companies, or your reiteration of their statements to be scientifically accurate.)
14. Civil Rights: Bad. Civil rights are part of the Gay Agenda, and as such are despised.
14a. Criminals do not enjoy any rights, and are guilty upon being accused by the police, looked at funny by the police, or the media. Unless they're good Republicans, in which case they are innocent victims even when found guilty.
14b. Flag burners. Really bad. It is vital that you support an Amendment to ban flag burning. This is not a free speech issue; we've found it too useful as a way of attacking our enemies. Opponents. I mean opponents. Remember: the symbol is more important than what it stands for.
15. Newt Gingrich, Tom de Lay, and other fallen Republican heroes: victims of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy to hold Republicans to the same standard we hold everyone else. Please note, we will notify you when it is acceptable to say "President Bush" again.
16. Media: Bad. Unless it's Fox News, in which case it's Good.
17. Christianity: Good. Unless you're a religious Democrat, in which case it's bad. Democrats are all pinko gay-loving unborn baby-murdering atheists, anyway.
17b. Other religions: They don't exist, unless they're Muslims, in which case they're all terrorists and Saddam lovers.
17c. Jews. They exist and a precondition of the Rapture is that they all go to Israel.
17d.. Atheists: Misguided Christians at best, Devil worshippers at worst. These will be shipped to any available Muslim country (or France) as soon as we can enact the laws that allow this.
18. Foreigners: Bad. They're all illegal aliens, and are bad. Unless our donors are employing them at well-below poverty rates, in which case "they keep America going". But they're still bad.
18a. Mexicans. They're all illegal immigrants, and need to be kept out of the country by a big fence.
18b. Mexicans. Useful for cheaply doing the jobs we can't find anyone else to do. Especially useful to the building trades and big farming conglomerates.
19. School prayer. Wonderful. Every child should pray in school - your local Evangelist or Fundamentalist Minister can provide a suitable prayer.
19a. Those who object to the prayer: anti-American. Even if they claim to be Christian, if they object to Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical Christian prayer, they are anti-American.
20. Middle class Americans: Not too bad, I guess. Prone to voting in Democrats when times are tough.
Other groups: listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or someone like that for your opinion. Or watch Fox News.
Please remember that all televisions in your home and/or office must be tuned to Fox News. CNN is run by Democratic pinko gay loving unborn baby murdering atheists and as such, viewing it is not acceptable to good, God-fearing Republicans.
Follow our rules and you will receive financial assistance for your re-election. You will also receive laudatory statements from Fox News anchors and reporters. You may also be eminently employable when we get rid of the pesky lobbyist ethics rules enacted by the Democrats. If you don't follow our rules, we will find someone more willing to adhere to our positions, and fund them instead. Remember: we don't care what your constituents think. Neither do you.
Republicans have a long history of independent thought and action. The only way we can maintain this tradition is to ensure that you adhere to the opinions we provide to you! Remember: we're the party of rugged, Reaganite individualists; we can't be that if everyone goes off being individualist.
Remember: you don't have an opinion until we give it to you!
That's it! Simple, easy and memorable. We hope you enjoy your stay in Washington.
Remember: we're not in this for America or Americans, we're in it for ourselves and our wealthy sponsors.
===
Carolyn Ann
You're a member of the Republican Caucus (please see the nearest Congressional Page for an explanation of that term, if you're not familiar with it) and as such you're expected to conform. To our guidelines, that is.
This is a two page document; please read the other side of the page - it contains information on what you like and don't like, as well what your opinion on policy matters will be.
These guidelines are very simple, and supersede any frivolous documents and intentions such as The Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment, your constituents, your conscience and/or any desire to be rational and willing to work with the White House.
To help you in your transition from libertarian or moderate positions, we have compiled a list of 10 principles, and 20 approved policy positions. We have provided some easy to "remember" tips: these are usually preceded by the word "Remember". Please note that these points are not presented in a coherent manner: that would be too much to ask, considering how haphazard and arbitrary some of our positions actually are. These principles are, on the other hand, simple to follow and are designed to help you avoid thinking. They are intended to prevent you from thinking at all.
1. Democrats BAD. Republicans, therefore: Good. Independents, we like if they're called Joe Lieberman, and not if they're not.
2. You will be instructed how to vote by the Chief Whip; it is rumored he receives his instructions from Rush Limbaugh (but we don't confirm or deny that to leave the Democrats guessing). Please note that there's a reason the Chief Whip is called the Chief Whip - he's the one with the whip. (Please note, the Democratic Chief Whip does not carry a whip. They are a party of freethinkers and losers, and as such they have to persuade their members to vote one way or the other. We, being more organized, will instruct you on how to vote before each vote.)
3. If you miss the instructions from the Chief Whip due to illicit and/or hypocritical affairs, hankering after page boys, or by being arrested trying to get "a gay quickie" in an airport restroom, please tune into Rush Limbaugh. He will instruct you, and provide you with talking points that you can reiterate in your chamber.
4. If you have something to do for a constituent, please submit a request to the Central Committee. You will receive notification that it is possible your inquiry will be raised at the next Committee meeting long after the need for any action has passed. This allows us to blame the Democrats for their inaction.
5. You may appear on Fox News without prior approval. You may not appear on any other television channel without prior approval. Upon receiving a request, and it being approved, you will be visited by a Party Official who will provide you with training on what you can and cannot say on the air. You can make a fool of yourself - indeed, we have found this to be the only possible way of handling a reporters' questions - but you may not stray from the Republican Central Committee guidelines.
You should note that if you do make a fool of yourself and keep a straight face, and we like you, we may look favorably upon you. Or push you under the nearest bus, depending upon our whim.
6. If you do vote against the wishes of the Central Committee we will make noises about pulling your re-election funding. We will do this shamelessly until you fess up, apologize and go on to Sean Hannity and beg forgiveness. If you persist, we will insist that you're a closet Democrat who wants the President to succeed.
7. If you're unsure about the Republican ideology in any particular instance, please tune into Fox News or listen to the Rush Limbaugh show. Please note: all televisions in your office must be tuned to either Nickelodeon or Fox News. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is mandatory (it's how we get to know our policy positions). Bill O'Reilly is strongly suggested, as is Sean Hannity and the reading of Ann Coulter. If you show any sign of having a brain left, you will be assigned additional reading by Dinesh D'Souza and others of his ilk.
8. If something important is happening, you must insist that tax cuts are the only way of solving the problem. It is not important if they have no bearing on the problem being discussed.
9. Republicans stand for individual responsibility and freedom. We can't do this if everyone acts freely. If someone does act freely, and especially if they hold a view that is not pre-approved, they are to be called "un-American". If you are accused of being "un-American", get all upset, stamp your feet and cry as you call Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity for support. Calling Ann Coulter, Bay Buchanan or that other Buchanan is okay if you don't want anyone to know you called.
10. Ridicule Democrats and their efforts to make the world a better place.
Remember these key policy positions:
1. Tax cuts good. This can be considered the default Republican policy on all financial matters.
1a. Deregulation: good
1b: Big bonuses: Good, especially when we get them.
2. Abortion bad.
2a. Sex education: really bad
3. Piety good. Christian piety: essential. Please note, it is not important if you understand what you're being pious about.
3a. Quoting scripture to support your point: good. (Please note, it doesn't matter if the quote has anything to do with the matter at hand)
4. Gays: evil. Lesbians are kinky, but only when they don't want anything like civil rights.
4a. Gay Marriage: Evil. Part of the Gay Agenda.
4b. Bill Clinton: The Devil Incarnate.
5. Husband: all powerful. Wife: subservient
6. Children: seen and not heard, and preferably not seen. Definitely not insured.
7. Privatize everything: good
8. Tax payer paying for privatizing: good.
8a. Tax payer guaranteeing profits for privatized company: good.
9. Pork barrel spending: bad, unless it's for something we want in which case it's good. (Please note, that it is not necessary to spend the money on the intended project. Please ask Sarah Palin about the "Bridge to Nowhere" money if you need additional guidance on that)
10. Progress, especially social progress: awful
11. Court decisions that favor the individual: they come from "activist judges" and are bad. Please tone down your criticisms when dealing with such reliable Republican judges as the Supreme Court ones. They have bad days. Democrat "activist" judges are just plain evil.
12. Evolution: bad.
12a. Evolutionists: Representatives of the anti-Christ
13. Global warming: bad, unless one of our donors is making money from it. Then it's not so bad.
13a. Oil and coal company pronouncements on global warming: accurate. (Please note there is no requirement for these companies, or your reiteration of their statements to be scientifically accurate.)
14. Civil Rights: Bad. Civil rights are part of the Gay Agenda, and as such are despised.
14a. Criminals do not enjoy any rights, and are guilty upon being accused by the police, looked at funny by the police, or the media. Unless they're good Republicans, in which case they are innocent victims even when found guilty.
14b. Flag burners. Really bad. It is vital that you support an Amendment to ban flag burning. This is not a free speech issue; we've found it too useful as a way of attacking our enemies. Opponents. I mean opponents. Remember: the symbol is more important than what it stands for.
15. Newt Gingrich, Tom de Lay, and other fallen Republican heroes: victims of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy to hold Republicans to the same standard we hold everyone else. Please note, we will notify you when it is acceptable to say "President Bush" again.
16. Media: Bad. Unless it's Fox News, in which case it's Good.
17. Christianity: Good. Unless you're a religious Democrat, in which case it's bad. Democrats are all pinko gay-loving unborn baby-murdering atheists, anyway.
17b. Other religions: They don't exist, unless they're Muslims, in which case they're all terrorists and Saddam lovers.
17c. Jews. They exist and a precondition of the Rapture is that they all go to Israel.
17d.. Atheists: Misguided Christians at best, Devil worshippers at worst. These will be shipped to any available Muslim country (or France) as soon as we can enact the laws that allow this.
18. Foreigners: Bad. They're all illegal aliens, and are bad. Unless our donors are employing them at well-below poverty rates, in which case "they keep America going". But they're still bad.
18a. Mexicans. They're all illegal immigrants, and need to be kept out of the country by a big fence.
18b. Mexicans. Useful for cheaply doing the jobs we can't find anyone else to do. Especially useful to the building trades and big farming conglomerates.
19. School prayer. Wonderful. Every child should pray in school - your local Evangelist or Fundamentalist Minister can provide a suitable prayer.
19a. Those who object to the prayer: anti-American. Even if they claim to be Christian, if they object to Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical Christian prayer, they are anti-American.
20. Middle class Americans: Not too bad, I guess. Prone to voting in Democrats when times are tough.
Other groups: listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or someone like that for your opinion. Or watch Fox News.
Please remember that all televisions in your home and/or office must be tuned to Fox News. CNN is run by Democratic pinko gay loving unborn baby murdering atheists and as such, viewing it is not acceptable to good, God-fearing Republicans.
Follow our rules and you will receive financial assistance for your re-election. You will also receive laudatory statements from Fox News anchors and reporters. You may also be eminently employable when we get rid of the pesky lobbyist ethics rules enacted by the Democrats. If you don't follow our rules, we will find someone more willing to adhere to our positions, and fund them instead. Remember: we don't care what your constituents think. Neither do you.
Republicans have a long history of independent thought and action. The only way we can maintain this tradition is to ensure that you adhere to the opinions we provide to you! Remember: we're the party of rugged, Reaganite individualists; we can't be that if everyone goes off being individualist.
Remember: you don't have an opinion until we give it to you!
That's it! Simple, easy and memorable. We hope you enjoy your stay in Washington.
Remember: we're not in this for America or Americans, we're in it for ourselves and our wealthy sponsors.
===
Carolyn Ann
Congressional Republicans to wear uniforms
Leading Congressional Republicans today said that they will now require Republicans in the House and Senate to wear uniforms. "Rank badges will be issued, but the actual design hasn't been finalized, yet" said a source close to Uniform Design Committee. He continued "Republicans in the House and Senate are expected to tow the party line, anyone not towing that line will be punished. Individual thought is suppressed and banned for Republicans in Congress. After we decided that, it was logical to ensure that Republicans can identify themselves when they are in the House or Senate chambers. We do not want a repeat of last Tuesday night when 3 Republicans applauded President Obama. That cause confusion among our members as the 3 are supposed to be Republicans, although they aren't real Republicans because they're moderates."
A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi laughed when asked about the Republican plan: "Where do they think they are? China? The Soviet Union? ... You're not serious are you? You are? Holy smokes! You are serious!" Harry Reid, when asked, didn't respond, but just looked at us, dumbfounded.
Bobby Jindal, upon being told of the plan, said "The Democrats forced us into this". He then excused himself as he "had to ensure Louisiania got all of the Katrina it was owed by the Federal government". He explained "we're the second biggest taker of Federal money - Alaska is the first - and I'm against Federal aid except when I'm for it."
The Congressional Republicans complained that the Democrats were holding up discussion of who would pay for the uniforms "we want more money for our Congressional efforts, even though we lost the last election, but the Democrats refuse to negotiate in good faith. Without the Congressional funding, our members will have to pay for the uniforms themselves!" Democratic sources said "what uniforms? You're kidding? Good one... You're not kidding? Good grief!"
A few Congressional Republicans - all speaking off the record, as they hadn't been authorized to speak by Rush Limbaugh - said "we're all uniform in our opinions. Really - you can't tell the difference between one Republican and the next, so we're homogenu... conformist. Why shouldn't we wear uniforms? We'll look smart, and people will finally be able to tell what we really stand for!" Three Congressional Republicans said they would not be wearing the uniforms.
Reporting to you, live (as opposed to comatose or napping), from nowhere near Washington DC,
Carolyn Ann :-)
A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi laughed when asked about the Republican plan: "Where do they think they are? China? The Soviet Union? ... You're not serious are you? You are? Holy smokes! You are serious!" Harry Reid, when asked, didn't respond, but just looked at us, dumbfounded.
Bobby Jindal, upon being told of the plan, said "The Democrats forced us into this". He then excused himself as he "had to ensure Louisiania got all of the Katrina it was owed by the Federal government". He explained "we're the second biggest taker of Federal money - Alaska is the first - and I'm against Federal aid except when I'm for it."
The Congressional Republicans complained that the Democrats were holding up discussion of who would pay for the uniforms "we want more money for our Congressional efforts, even though we lost the last election, but the Democrats refuse to negotiate in good faith. Without the Congressional funding, our members will have to pay for the uniforms themselves!" Democratic sources said "what uniforms? You're kidding? Good one... You're not kidding? Good grief!"
A few Congressional Republicans - all speaking off the record, as they hadn't been authorized to speak by Rush Limbaugh - said "we're all uniform in our opinions. Really - you can't tell the difference between one Republican and the next, so we're homogenu... conformist. Why shouldn't we wear uniforms? We'll look smart, and people will finally be able to tell what we really stand for!" Three Congressional Republicans said they would not be wearing the uniforms.
Reporting to you, live (as opposed to comatose or napping), from nowhere near Washington DC,
Carolyn Ann :-)
Oops
I need a new cell phone. Not that anyone calls me (as previously noted, I don't know that many people). Anyway, I forgot to take the damn thing out of my jacket pocket before I put the jacket in the wash...
Oh well. I wasn't that keen on it, anyway.
Still, it's an expense we could do without, right now. Perhaps I'll just manage without one for a bit? (But I'll still have to pay the damn phone company. Ah well. I'll get one. The wife wants me to have one for when I'm noodling around on my bikes.)
Carolyn Ann
Oh well. I wasn't that keen on it, anyway.
Still, it's an expense we could do without, right now. Perhaps I'll just manage without one for a bit? (But I'll still have to pay the damn phone company. Ah well. I'll get one. The wife wants me to have one for when I'm noodling around on my bikes.)
Carolyn Ann
Passport control?
So I have to renew my passport, and I decided to see what the process is. My initial reaction? "They have got to be kidding!"
You don't renew a British passport - you get a new one.
Which introduces a small wrinkle, and I'm not entirely sure I know how to solve it. Considering that they also charge $2.60 per minute to ask questions, I foresee a trip to DC to ask. Here's the wrinkle: I need the form countersigned by a British citizen (we're subjects of the Crown, not citizens, by the way) "in good standing", has known me for 2 years and is either a Member of Parliament, a Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, Civil Servant, or a "professionally qualified person" such as a Lawyer, Engineer, Doctor, Teacher, Cop or "a person of similar standing".
If I don't know a British citizen with one of those requirements - I can ask someone else to countersign, as long as they are of similar standing...
Right. Should be a piece of cake. Except... I don't know anyone! I don't any MP's, lawyers, doctors, cops, civil servants, and so on. I certainly don't know any preachers, imams, rabbis, pastors, vicars or whatever else religious leaders are supposed to be. I'm a damn hermit, for crying out loud!
While I would trust some bureaucrats to come up with a suitable alternative, I can never imagine the British government being that competent. Especially as theyabdicated all responsibility for the process outsourced the passport process to some firm called "Abtran".
This is going to be fun. One thing I know about immigration and passport handling bureaucrats, regardless of nation, is that they are petty deities. With (much) more emphasis on "petty" than "deity".
It's a wonder they don't ask for aliases (hang on a minute... No, they don't. Amazingly) - I'd be forced to put "Carolyn Ann" down, and they would no doubt deny me the passport because I was rude to them in this post. Considering the state of free speech and societal monitoring in Britain, I have little doubt they know all about me, anyway.
This is going to take some patience. Not a trait I've been noted to possess in abundance. Especially when it comes toidiots bureaucrats. (Officialdom and I have very allergic reactions to each other...)
Oh, this is going to be fun...
Carolyn Ann
PSTo be honest, renewing my Green Card was easier! No it wasn't.
You don't renew a British passport - you get a new one.
Which introduces a small wrinkle, and I'm not entirely sure I know how to solve it. Considering that they also charge $2.60 per minute to ask questions, I foresee a trip to DC to ask. Here's the wrinkle: I need the form countersigned by a British citizen (we're subjects of the Crown, not citizens, by the way) "in good standing", has known me for 2 years and is either a Member of Parliament, a Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, Civil Servant, or a "professionally qualified person" such as a Lawyer, Engineer, Doctor, Teacher, Cop or "a person of similar standing".
If I don't know a British citizen with one of those requirements - I can ask someone else to countersign, as long as they are of similar standing...
Right. Should be a piece of cake. Except... I don't know anyone! I don't any MP's, lawyers, doctors, cops, civil servants, and so on. I certainly don't know any preachers, imams, rabbis, pastors, vicars or whatever else religious leaders are supposed to be. I'm a damn hermit, for crying out loud!
While I would trust some bureaucrats to come up with a suitable alternative, I can never imagine the British government being that competent. Especially as they
This is going to be fun. One thing I know about immigration and passport handling bureaucrats, regardless of nation, is that they are petty deities. With (much) more emphasis on "petty" than "deity".
It's a wonder they don't ask for aliases (hang on a minute... No, they don't. Amazingly) - I'd be forced to put "Carolyn Ann" down, and they would no doubt deny me the passport because I was rude to them in this post. Considering the state of free speech and societal monitoring in Britain, I have little doubt they know all about me, anyway.
This is going to take some patience. Not a trait I've been noted to possess in abundance. Especially when it comes to
Oh, this is going to be fun...
Carolyn Ann
PS
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Microsoft hates gays?
A few stories are circulating about Microsoft's Xbox live - they're banning names that have "gay", and they're banning people who identify as gay or lesbian. Goodness know what they'd do if you said "transgendered", "intersexed" or "don't rightly know"! How about me? I'm male, but go by "Carolyn" - would they ban me? (I'm not about to find out; I don't own an Xbox.)
First we have Facebook saying they pretty much own our online identities, and now we have Microsoft dictating what those identities can be!
If you want something to protest - this is a good issue!
Microsoft: stop siding with the homophobes! Get into the real world - people are gay, lesbian, straight, bi, transgendered and a whole host of things. Get over yourselves, and stop being so immature. And discriminatory!
Idiots.
Carolyn Ann
First we have Facebook saying they pretty much own our online identities, and now we have Microsoft dictating what those identities can be!
If you want something to protest - this is a good issue!
Microsoft: stop siding with the homophobes! Get into the real world - people are gay, lesbian, straight, bi, transgendered and a whole host of things. Get over yourselves, and stop being so immature. And discriminatory!
Idiots.
Carolyn Ann
Mr Simms gets hanged
I feel I need to add a warning to this one, as well. It's not a pretty post - read at your own discretion.
====
Mr Simms gets hanged
A (mercifully) short play in one act.
Scene 1
The scene: A morning in the late 18th century Caribbean. We're in a jail; it's dark, dank and musty. Stone walls surround us and big heavy bars cross the few openings. We're standing in front of one of the cells. There's a barred opening at the top of the wall, letting in a measly light. In the cell, a man (Simms), scruffy but not defeated, sits on a harsh wooden bench; he's shackled to the wall. Outside is a well-dressed Marine Captain, in a red coat with white sashes. He's holding his hat.
Captain: Mr Simms! My we have come a long way! You used to be a good man, and now look at you! Piracy on the high seas, eh? You'll hang for that!
Simms: I'm still a good man, Captain
Captain: Why piracy? Of all things?
Simms: It were better than dying
Captain: You could have done so much better
Simms: You were the one that left me on that island, to die.
A messenger arrives, salutes the Captain, and hands him a note. He reads it.
Captain: Well, you're going to hang, within the hour I believe. Do you want a priest?
Simms: Don't do me no favors, Captain. There's no god so I won't be needing a holy man!
The Captain suddenly feels very uncomfortable, unclean. He's horrified, but makes an effort to hide it; he's almost successful.
Captain: No God? Apostasy to be added to your list of crimes?
Simms shakes his head: I'll be dying anyway, Captain. I might as well die for the truth as a lie!
Captain: You can tell that to God when you get your audience with him! No doubt you'll be visiting the Devil before this day is through! (The Captain gives a short, nervous, barking laugh)
Simms: There's no god, and I'll be on the noose afor' too long, so what you think don't matter, does it?
Scene 2
Ourside the jail. A scruffy cobblestoned street. A busy port can be seen just down the road, with lots of ships in it, and much activity. The Captain walks down the street, feeling unclean and disturbed. He shakes his head. Turning to the dock, he sees a waterfront bar, and he enters it. It's busy inside, and he doesn't notice a small group of men, sitting at a round wooden table, perk up at his entry. They stop their conversation, and watch the Captain, but not too closely.
Captain: A mug of ale!
The barkeep delivers the mug, the Captain throws a coin on the bar.
The Captain, feeling more and more uncomfortable, decides he feels dirty - raped, almost. He goes to the edge of the dock, looks at the water and falls in. He makes no effort to stop his fall.
Scene 3.
The Captain, still wearing all his paraphernalia - sword, pistol, heavy coat, and so on - sinks. He's not aware he's drowning. Looking up, we see people gathering at the dockside, their voices muffled and distorted by the water. He continues to sink, but he feels cleansed. He smiles. A Franciscan Monk drifts by; mouth agape, hands held in prayer and drifting, he looks serene. Or dead. The Captain continues sinking. He drowns.
Scene 4.
Looking out over the sunset, we see a ship. The sun silhouettes the ship, its masts and its rigging; there's a body hanging from a yardarm. As we pull closer, we see it's body of Mr Simms.
===
Carolyn Ann
====
Mr Simms gets hanged
A (mercifully) short play in one act.
Scene 1
The scene: A morning in the late 18th century Caribbean. We're in a jail; it's dark, dank and musty. Stone walls surround us and big heavy bars cross the few openings. We're standing in front of one of the cells. There's a barred opening at the top of the wall, letting in a measly light. In the cell, a man (Simms), scruffy but not defeated, sits on a harsh wooden bench; he's shackled to the wall. Outside is a well-dressed Marine Captain, in a red coat with white sashes. He's holding his hat.
Captain: Mr Simms! My we have come a long way! You used to be a good man, and now look at you! Piracy on the high seas, eh? You'll hang for that!
Simms: I'm still a good man, Captain
Captain: Why piracy? Of all things?
Simms: It were better than dying
Captain: You could have done so much better
Simms: You were the one that left me on that island, to die.
A messenger arrives, salutes the Captain, and hands him a note. He reads it.
Captain: Well, you're going to hang, within the hour I believe. Do you want a priest?
Simms: Don't do me no favors, Captain. There's no god so I won't be needing a holy man!
The Captain suddenly feels very uncomfortable, unclean. He's horrified, but makes an effort to hide it; he's almost successful.
Captain: No God? Apostasy to be added to your list of crimes?
Simms shakes his head: I'll be dying anyway, Captain. I might as well die for the truth as a lie!
Captain: You can tell that to God when you get your audience with him! No doubt you'll be visiting the Devil before this day is through! (The Captain gives a short, nervous, barking laugh)
Simms: There's no god, and I'll be on the noose afor' too long, so what you think don't matter, does it?
Scene 2
Ourside the jail. A scruffy cobblestoned street. A busy port can be seen just down the road, with lots of ships in it, and much activity. The Captain walks down the street, feeling unclean and disturbed. He shakes his head. Turning to the dock, he sees a waterfront bar, and he enters it. It's busy inside, and he doesn't notice a small group of men, sitting at a round wooden table, perk up at his entry. They stop their conversation, and watch the Captain, but not too closely.
Captain: A mug of ale!
The barkeep delivers the mug, the Captain throws a coin on the bar.
The Captain, feeling more and more uncomfortable, decides he feels dirty - raped, almost. He goes to the edge of the dock, looks at the water and falls in. He makes no effort to stop his fall.
Scene 3.
The Captain, still wearing all his paraphernalia - sword, pistol, heavy coat, and so on - sinks. He's not aware he's drowning. Looking up, we see people gathering at the dockside, their voices muffled and distorted by the water. He continues to sink, but he feels cleansed. He smiles. A Franciscan Monk drifts by; mouth agape, hands held in prayer and drifting, he looks serene. Or dead. The Captain continues sinking. He drowns.
Scene 4.
Looking out over the sunset, we see a ship. The sun silhouettes the ship, its masts and its rigging; there's a body hanging from a yardarm. As we pull closer, we see it's body of Mr Simms.
===
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The cold day
WARNING. This post contains some very disturbing imagery.
====
My oh my, it was a cold day. A big Lockheed Constellation sat at the end of the runway, its engines lazily turning over. A couple of soldiers, in those high-collared Russian uniforms stood at attention at the bottom of the gangway stairs. The airplane was a dirty white, which matched the low-hanging grey clouds, and the snow, thinly covering the surrounding fields. She finally arrived, resplendent in her grey uniform, small shots of red adorning her at the collar and cuffs. As we approached the airplane, the five of us, I ran ahead, boarding the machine in order to have someone salute them as they boarded. The men at the bottom of the stairs saluted the party, and slowly died as the party climbed the stairs. By the time they climbed the stairs, the two men on the ground were dead. The stairs were taken away. The airplane took off.
I helped bury 3 bodies in roadside planters; they were by a tall, wide shiny white brick wall. We were among tall, desolate apartment blocks, and fresh fields waiting to be plowed. The wall had Alan Ginsburg's "Howl" written on it, but oddly. A line on the vertical here, a partial line there, a complete line over here, but not really. The entire poem was there, but in indecipherable scraps. John Turtorro was reciting it; the Brooklyn Bridge was behind him. A sketched portrait of Alan resided in the bottom right hand corner, he was looking up at the poem, written chaotically on the wall. I scraped away the mulch on a planter, and started digging.
I laid in the desert sun, he was hammering the final stake in - my left hand, which he then proceeded to break with his hammer. Each finger was hammered; I refused to scream. The pain was too much; screaming wouldn't help. Spread-eagled, I simply watched as he cut off my eyelids. I knew death would be a long time coming; I hoped madness would arrive swiftly.
Digging ever deeper, I finally reached the bottom of the planter; fetching a body, I tipped it into the hole.
The Navy decided they needed new ships; the ones they had wouldn't sink deep enough. So they tried an experiment, and the ship sank with all on her. As she descended, a shark was awakened. As she hit the bottom, a crash reverberated , and the front of an old U-boat, long covered with silt, was briefly shown. The water was blue, and yellow and white.
I lay there, in the desert, the jackdaws - those hideous glossy black beasts! - awaited their feast. I prayed they would be kind, but to whom could I pray? To them, I supposed. I implored them to be quick. I hoped that would be enough to bring the madness on. Why hadn't he cut my scrotum, so that scorpions and ants could feast on my innards, and bring the madness all the quicker? He was truly sadistic. I hoped madness would come soon. I could take refuge in madness.
I started to bury the next body, but someone turned up in a small motorcycle sidecar; it was equipped with an engine, and ran noisily. I tried to see inside it, but he wouldn't get out; and when he did, I could see the sidecar could make us millions! All those people, needing transport, and using the sidecar for the task. It was exciting.
The jackdaws hopped closer. The sun burned. Grit was in my eyes, and I prayed that would bring madness. Nothing seemed to bring the damned madness! Maybe the desperation of needing the madness would help?
Children were playing, right by the body I was trying to bury. It was wrapped in cotton, and was ready. I lifted it up - it was heavy! - and I heaved it into the hole in the planter. A cop showed up, and I ran. I ran and ran and ran. I made it across the street, and entered a building that encompassed the sidewalk; it was a scruffy building. Scruffy, unkempt children played in the foyer with scruffy, unkempt toys. A tricycle with a big front wheel, a big yellow front wheel, a scruffy kid I couldn't see on it. The cop had gone away. My eyelids were cut out. It didn't hurt nearly as much as I thought it would. I watched the man do it - he cut my damn eyelids out! I was staked down in the desert, and he hammered in the last stake, for my left hand. He then broke every finger, individually. And then he hammered my hand. "To stop you trying to undo the knot" he said. Who? Who the hell? He cut my eyelids off - and I watched. I hoped the madness would come soon; it was sure to arrive before death. He was careful not to put my face in shadow; he wanted me to see the sun.
I buried the wood-poisoned body; it was the second body I'd buried that day. The sun beat down, but it was cold. "Howl" was on the wall, but it was written oddly. A line would be here, and a bit of a line would be there, and the rest of it next to it, but not really. And I laid the body in the hole I'd dug in the planter. And I laid there in the hot desert sun, hoping madness would take me.
===
Carolyn Ann
====
My oh my, it was a cold day. A big Lockheed Constellation sat at the end of the runway, its engines lazily turning over. A couple of soldiers, in those high-collared Russian uniforms stood at attention at the bottom of the gangway stairs. The airplane was a dirty white, which matched the low-hanging grey clouds, and the snow, thinly covering the surrounding fields. She finally arrived, resplendent in her grey uniform, small shots of red adorning her at the collar and cuffs. As we approached the airplane, the five of us, I ran ahead, boarding the machine in order to have someone salute them as they boarded. The men at the bottom of the stairs saluted the party, and slowly died as the party climbed the stairs. By the time they climbed the stairs, the two men on the ground were dead. The stairs were taken away. The airplane took off.
I helped bury 3 bodies in roadside planters; they were by a tall, wide shiny white brick wall. We were among tall, desolate apartment blocks, and fresh fields waiting to be plowed. The wall had Alan Ginsburg's "Howl" written on it, but oddly. A line on the vertical here, a partial line there, a complete line over here, but not really. The entire poem was there, but in indecipherable scraps. John Turtorro was reciting it; the Brooklyn Bridge was behind him. A sketched portrait of Alan resided in the bottom right hand corner, he was looking up at the poem, written chaotically on the wall. I scraped away the mulch on a planter, and started digging.
I laid in the desert sun, he was hammering the final stake in - my left hand, which he then proceeded to break with his hammer. Each finger was hammered; I refused to scream. The pain was too much; screaming wouldn't help. Spread-eagled, I simply watched as he cut off my eyelids. I knew death would be a long time coming; I hoped madness would arrive swiftly.
Digging ever deeper, I finally reached the bottom of the planter; fetching a body, I tipped it into the hole.
The Navy decided they needed new ships; the ones they had wouldn't sink deep enough. So they tried an experiment, and the ship sank with all on her. As she descended, a shark was awakened. As she hit the bottom, a crash reverberated , and the front of an old U-boat, long covered with silt, was briefly shown. The water was blue, and yellow and white.
I lay there, in the desert, the jackdaws - those hideous glossy black beasts! - awaited their feast. I prayed they would be kind, but to whom could I pray? To them, I supposed. I implored them to be quick. I hoped that would be enough to bring the madness on. Why hadn't he cut my scrotum, so that scorpions and ants could feast on my innards, and bring the madness all the quicker? He was truly sadistic. I hoped madness would come soon. I could take refuge in madness.
I started to bury the next body, but someone turned up in a small motorcycle sidecar; it was equipped with an engine, and ran noisily. I tried to see inside it, but he wouldn't get out; and when he did, I could see the sidecar could make us millions! All those people, needing transport, and using the sidecar for the task. It was exciting.
The jackdaws hopped closer. The sun burned. Grit was in my eyes, and I prayed that would bring madness. Nothing seemed to bring the damned madness! Maybe the desperation of needing the madness would help?
Children were playing, right by the body I was trying to bury. It was wrapped in cotton, and was ready. I lifted it up - it was heavy! - and I heaved it into the hole in the planter. A cop showed up, and I ran. I ran and ran and ran. I made it across the street, and entered a building that encompassed the sidewalk; it was a scruffy building. Scruffy, unkempt children played in the foyer with scruffy, unkempt toys. A tricycle with a big front wheel, a big yellow front wheel, a scruffy kid I couldn't see on it. The cop had gone away. My eyelids were cut out. It didn't hurt nearly as much as I thought it would. I watched the man do it - he cut my damn eyelids out! I was staked down in the desert, and he hammered in the last stake, for my left hand. He then broke every finger, individually. And then he hammered my hand. "To stop you trying to undo the knot" he said. Who? Who the hell? He cut my eyelids off - and I watched. I hoped the madness would come soon; it was sure to arrive before death. He was careful not to put my face in shadow; he wanted me to see the sun.
I buried the wood-poisoned body; it was the second body I'd buried that day. The sun beat down, but it was cold. "Howl" was on the wall, but it was written oddly. A line would be here, and a bit of a line would be there, and the rest of it next to it, but not really. And I laid the body in the hole I'd dug in the planter. And I laid there in the hot desert sun, hoping madness would take me.
===
Carolyn Ann
OpenProfile
While I was thinking about open source, it occurred to me that user profiles are ripe for openness. Even considering the few Internet services I'm on, I still have (er, Blogger, Flickr, Facebook, Friendfeed, Digg, and I'm sure there are one or two others) 5, 6 or 7 profiles to think about. It would be nice if they all matched in some way. I think they do, but I'm not sure.
There's an opening: if someone took over managing a users' profile information, and provided an open (and I mean open) API to it, other companies could take advantage of their largesse. And probably write to that particular API and platform.
Friendfeed is a pathetic effort at that - but it misses the important point, it's not my contacts that are important (I only have 1 on Friendfeed), it's me and my contacts! Friendfeed tries to control what I see about the interactions of others; considering that most of it is Twitter stuff, I'm left feeling like I'm listening to one half of a phone conversation.
(An amusing (to me, at least) anecdote occurs to me. My brother and I were in a nightclub one time, and we communicated with an abbreviated sign language. He'd taught me some - his job required knowing sign language - but not quite enough. So I spent the evening, to the puzzlement of our friends insisting on some arbitrary concept. I have no idea what, I was drunk at the time. He, being sober, tried having a reasonable conversation over a distance wth me. I think he was saying "she has a boyfriend who is much bigger than you", which I sort of interpreted as "she is bigger than you" She was about 5 foot tall, and quite slim - which confused the heck out of me (I really was drunk, and probably stoned, too. I often was, back then). So I retorted something. And I ended up walking home. Alone. Dammit! (Her boyfriend wasn't that much bigger than me, anyway.)) What that had to do with the topic at hand, I have no idea.
Anyway, something I'll call "OpenProfile" seems to be perfect for the occasion. In it, I can manage my logins (OpenID being a bit of a flop), and my profile information. It can list my interests, profession, sexual preference, fashion preference, musical interests and so on. The firm holding the information gets access to a ton of information they can, with a little imagination, turn into lots of money (can I have some, please?) and I get to "experience" new social web sites with ease. I don't have to think about a zillion different things, and try and keep my answers consistent between sites. (I don't try and do that for the benefit of others. I do it because it's less confusing for me.)
If you use the name "OpenProfile" please credit me with the idea. :-) (Some money would be nice, but living in a capitalistic system, I might just trademark the darned thing.)
Carolyn Ann
There's an opening: if someone took over managing a users' profile information, and provided an open (and I mean open) API to it, other companies could take advantage of their largesse. And probably write to that particular API and platform.
Friendfeed is a pathetic effort at that - but it misses the important point, it's not my contacts that are important (I only have 1 on Friendfeed), it's me and my contacts! Friendfeed tries to control what I see about the interactions of others; considering that most of it is Twitter stuff, I'm left feeling like I'm listening to one half of a phone conversation.
(An amusing (to me, at least) anecdote occurs to me. My brother and I were in a nightclub one time, and we communicated with an abbreviated sign language. He'd taught me some - his job required knowing sign language - but not quite enough. So I spent the evening, to the puzzlement of our friends insisting on some arbitrary concept. I have no idea what, I was drunk at the time. He, being sober, tried having a reasonable conversation over a distance wth me. I think he was saying "she has a boyfriend who is much bigger than you", which I sort of interpreted as "she is bigger than you" She was about 5 foot tall, and quite slim - which confused the heck out of me (I really was drunk, and probably stoned, too. I often was, back then). So I retorted something. And I ended up walking home. Alone. Dammit! (Her boyfriend wasn't that much bigger than me, anyway.)) What that had to do with the topic at hand, I have no idea.
Anyway, something I'll call "OpenProfile" seems to be perfect for the occasion. In it, I can manage my logins (OpenID being a bit of a flop), and my profile information. It can list my interests, profession, sexual preference, fashion preference, musical interests and so on. The firm holding the information gets access to a ton of information they can, with a little imagination, turn into lots of money (can I have some, please?) and I get to "experience" new social web sites with ease. I don't have to think about a zillion different things, and try and keep my answers consistent between sites. (I don't try and do that for the benefit of others. I do it because it's less confusing for me.)
If you use the name "OpenProfile" please credit me with the idea. :-) (Some money would be nice, but living in a capitalistic system, I might just trademark the darned thing.)
Carolyn Ann
There's something wrong here...
My thinking about open source software is, well, morally correct and commercially wrong.
I was sitting in the bathtub, soaking in some really hot water, sans bubble bath - I ran out. :-( And I was thinking "there's something wrong with how I'm thinking about open source software." I'm not quite ready to put my finger on it (I have a clear idea, but I don't have a clear way of communicating it), but I did spot the error.
Like I said: I'm morally correct, but commercially wrong.
Carolyn Ann
I was sitting in the bathtub, soaking in some really hot water, sans bubble bath - I ran out. :-( And I was thinking "there's something wrong with how I'm thinking about open source software." I'm not quite ready to put my finger on it (I have a clear idea, but I don't have a clear way of communicating it), but I did spot the error.
Like I said: I'm morally correct, but commercially wrong.
Carolyn Ann
Obama became the President, last night
Up to last night, President Obama was learning his job. He's a quick study. Last night, he demonstrated and proved that he is the President of the United States - not just in title, but also in his attitude, his character, his expectations for himself and everyone else, and in being the national cheerleader, and it's most fervent salesman.
He's a preacher alright - and he's what the world needs, right now. Especially after Bush and Cheney! He actively delegates - something that was missing from the previous White House. Considering the revelations in Woodward's many tomes on the Bush White house, it was more of a "someone will do it" place. Obama also advocates for people to pitch in, and do something. The Republicans are more of a "trust us, it's going to be alright if you just trust us" - but they offer no reason for anyone to trust them. Especially when they don't offer anything new, or when their leadership promises to "punish" those who don't get in line with the ideologues. We can trust Obama - he's not looking for perfect - he's looking, we're all looking for someone to do something! We'll understand if a couple of things aren't working; too many and he'll lose the trust, but at least we've got something to look to. Not just tax cuts for some, and an ever deepening spiral of malaise and vicious contempt.
Obama is about hope, about doing. He's about helping you find your bootstraps, so you can pull yourself up. He definitely became the President, last night.
I think that light at the end of the tunnel just got a little clearer.
(Can you tell I was impressed?) :-)
Carolyn Ann
He's a preacher alright - and he's what the world needs, right now. Especially after Bush and Cheney! He actively delegates - something that was missing from the previous White House. Considering the revelations in Woodward's many tomes on the Bush White house, it was more of a "someone will do it" place. Obama also advocates for people to pitch in, and do something. The Republicans are more of a "trust us, it's going to be alright if you just trust us" - but they offer no reason for anyone to trust them. Especially when they don't offer anything new, or when their leadership promises to "punish" those who don't get in line with the ideologues. We can trust Obama - he's not looking for perfect - he's looking, we're all looking for someone to do something! We'll understand if a couple of things aren't working; too many and he'll lose the trust, but at least we've got something to look to. Not just tax cuts for some, and an ever deepening spiral of malaise and vicious contempt.
Obama is about hope, about doing. He's about helping you find your bootstraps, so you can pull yourself up. He definitely became the President, last night.
I think that light at the end of the tunnel just got a little clearer.
(Can you tell I was impressed?) :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Congress Held An Old-Fashioned Big Tent Revival!
And the preacher preached his religion: America! :-D
More later, but my! What a speech! JFK, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and Bill - all channeled into one, inspiring hour! Amazing!
Congressman and women acting like star-struck teens, getting his autograph and eagerly pushing to shake his hand.
It was, quite frankly, one of the State of the Union speeches ever given. Except it wasn't a State of the Union!And now Bobby Jindal has to respond. After Obama's effort - Jindal's career now lies on his response. Heck, after his idiocy about the stimulus, his next job might be in the private sector if he doesn't do a good job! (He was terrible.)
Carolyn Ann
More later, but my! What a speech! JFK, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and Bill - all channeled into one, inspiring hour! Amazing!
Congressman and women acting like star-struck teens, getting his autograph and eagerly pushing to shake his hand.
It was, quite frankly, one of the State of the Union speeches ever given. Except it wasn't a State of the Union!
Carolyn Ann
Disappearing followers
I've been seeing a lot of complaints about 'disappearing followers', of late. I couldn't figure out what the heck was being complained about... Until I noticed/remembered there's a feature in Blogger where you can "follow" someone's blog. I still don't know what that means, but disappearing followers sounds like a positive; why are so many complaining?
And then it dawned on me: followers are people who have said they read your blog! It's that little widget that has indistinguishable faces, all in a grid, on the side of a blog. Aha! It reminds me of suburbia... Which is not a positive, by the way. Anyway, I can be a bit slow at times. It did take me a few moments to make all the necessary connections.
For myself, I have no problem with anyone reading my mumblings (I rather like it, especially when they leave a comment, agreeing or not). But please don't follow me: I haven't a clue where I am.
Carolyn Ann
PS Besides, I never look behind me. So I don't know who's lost with me...
And then it dawned on me: followers are people who have said they read your blog! It's that little widget that has indistinguishable faces, all in a grid, on the side of a blog. Aha! It reminds me of suburbia... Which is not a positive, by the way. Anyway, I can be a bit slow at times. It did take me a few moments to make all the necessary connections.
For myself, I have no problem with anyone reading my mumblings (I rather like it, especially when they leave a comment, agreeing or not). But please don't follow me: I haven't a clue where I am.
Carolyn Ann
PS Besides, I never look behind me. So I don't know who's lost with me...
More thoughts on Open Source programming
The more I think about open source programming, the less I like it.
There are three ways to look at it: altruism and benevolence, moral obligation and it's a rip-off.
The image put forth by the open source advocates is that of altruism and benevolence. You contribute your efforts; you're not expected to gain much, if anything, in return. Perhaps an accolade or two, but that's about it.
This is reasonable if you're writing software for a hobby, and quite enjoy sharing your work with others. It's only feasible if you've got some other way to pay the mortgage.
Then there's moral obligation. You use a piece of software, a Java library perhaps, and you're obligated through license conditions to make the rest of your software free, and open. The GPL uses this model, with the moral exhortation for altruistic benevolence. This moral obligation is backed up by a legal obligation, but it's mostly a moral obligation.
And then there's "it's a rip off". Authors get paid for their work. Songwriters, too. Artists don't generally give their work out to whomever, and they generally claim absolute say over who can copy it, photograph it and so on. Of all the intellectual ways of earning a penny, the software programmer stands alone: if you work with certain products, you're obligated to provide your expertise and ideas for free.
I don't get it.
The farmer has a product, which he sells to a middleman. The processor (middleman) than pays someone to distribute their product, and then the store enforces the requirement that you pay them. A builder will build you a house, or a factory, or a store - but they want the assurance that they will receive payment for their labor. The materials have to be paid for, and the builder usually puts a markup on those materials - he can provide value to you, the customer, by handling the shipping, storing and so on of the building products. He wants compensation for that effort. Sounds fair to me. You want a doctor to treat whatever ails you. The doctor has to work out of an office of some sort, and that requires a staff to handle the paperwork, the appointment book, the nurse to take your blood pressure and do a brief triage. The basic stuff all doctors offices' do when you visit. The doctor needs to pay for her education - it didn't come free, by the way - and she also needs to pay for the office. She needs to pay the staff, and so on. She collects fees from the patients, and the insurance companies, and uses those to pay her expenses. Real goods and services, being exchanged for real currency. There's a value associated with each item, transaction or service.
If you buy an item of art, you probably will not barely cover the artists' expenses. You'll probably pay for their skill in producing that item. Purchase the work of an author, and the author is perfectly reasonable in expecting a royalty. Download a song from the Internet - one that the songwriter and performer have decreed has value to them - and you're stealing. (I've often found it peculiar how people get upset about others using their work, but think little of downloading the latest album from some hot pop group.) Or, as happened to me, someone appropriates your work. She took it from my blog, used it in her own, and provided no credit, and didn't seek permission for that use. (I wouldn't have given it.) Free software writers are expected to provide their skills and time in the pursuit of something that is not intended to provide anything of value in return.
Now, Web 2.0 products and services operate on a similar basis. Flickr and Blogger, for example, both rely on users' providing their content; in fact, Flickr has a different level of service where you provide them their content (the product that has value) and pay them $25 or so per year for the privilege of giving them a better product! Google will pay youvast sums if you agree to provide them space for advertising; otherwise, they simply provide you some disk space, some bandwidth and a series of widgets that you can use to enhance your free service - the one where you extoll your thoughts for others to consume. Facebook has an interesting model: it's basically a user-driven content system, but not quite. They provide a service that allows you to interact, in a fairly mediocre way, with other users of their system. Payment for this service is by a combination of wishful thinking (aka venture capitalists hoping someone will figure out how to make money with Facebook) and some advertising. The other Web 2.0 /social web services all have similar models. Twitter is the exception - it's based entirely on altruism, and wishful thinking.
Basically, people demand Internet-based information and services for free. Which is great if you're the BBC, and not so hot if you're anyone else. The business models possible are not ones that will advance the state of the art, nor are they viable long term propositions. If Facebook can't figure out how to make money by providing their service for free, they'll either fold or end up charging for it. (Why they haven't cottoned onto the Flickr model is anyone's guess.) In days gone by, the public didn't expect much of anything for free. The perception was that the cost reflected the value - pay 75c for your daily newspaper, and you expected serious commentary and accurate, unbiased news. Pay 50c and you expected gossip, excellent sports coverage and not much commentary. Now, we all want it free - and it had better be as good as a $1/day paper.
It's not a model that can sustain itself. The basic flaw is that people need to be paid. The bank holding their mortgage is not going to suddenly develop a fit of altruism and forgive anyone's mortgage because they work for an Internet news provider. (If you need evidence of this, please go read the freely available, and dubiously futured, NY Times.) Services have to be paid for, somehow. The capitalist system we all live in (except, perhaps, the failed states of North Korea, Burma, and a couple of other places, including the failing state of Venezuala) demands that services be paid for. You don't get something for nothing, you never have, and never will. The chronic failure of communism proved that people don't work because "it's fair", or for the benefit of society. We all need to eat, and we all need some sort of shelter. But mostly we need to eat - and farmers and butchers have never been noted for their unending generosity. They have bills to pay, too.
Open source programming flies in the face of this capitalistic model. High quality software is provided at no charge. Due to a sociological quirk, the biggest benefit of this is to the largest corporations! The people who write the software are hired by the corporations, and as a result, they develop a toolkit of pre-written pieces. These get turned into frameworks, and the ones who benefit the most are the ones who best able to pay! Sure, some small businesses do benefit, but a High St butcher is not going to be interested in free software unless it addresses a need he has. Likewise, the sewing store owner will not able to indulge in a rewrite of a financial spreadsheet because the spreadheet software is free; it's not worth her time. Buying the latest version of Excel is a business expense charged against taxes.
But why should I, for example, be willing to provide the local plumbing firm my expertise in software - for free? Should I not be able to charge for the services I provide, in the same way they charge their customers? If it's a direct service, installing software for instance, I can legitimately charge them a fee for my time; they would expect it, and be mightily suspicious if I said "oh, no charge! I do this because it's fun!" I could, legitimately, provide a charity with my services and tell them "I am donating my time and skills to you". But when it comes to an advanced bit of software that answers a need only large corporations have? Why should I provide them with my time and expertise for no charge? After all, they are usually only too willing to charge me for whatever services I derive from them!
If my bank, from whom I get free checking because of a special offer they had when I opened the account, were to ask me for my services, I think they would expect to pay me for them. There's no obligation to reciprocate on their offer. They have access to my money to make loans, pay staff and so on, after all. All they are doing is neglecting to charge me for the privilege of using my money!
But I am perplexed, increasingly perplexed, why anyone would ask me to provide considerable time and expertise in order to satisfy the demands of a large corporation that is perfectly able to pay! Or why anyone would expect high quality work in return for nothing.
Commercial television might provide a window into the cost of providing a quality product. Advertising pays for most of the content on television. Some shows also rely on the profits of DVD sales; these recordings are offered to fans at some cost, and then there's continued syndication and its advertising revenues. (Law and Order, House, and a few others are perfect examples of this: you can buy a DVD of all but the current season of L&O; and yet old episodes are on the TV so much that there are times when you can, by channel hopping, watch L&O and its derivatives, for 24 hours a day!) But open source software doesn't have a fundamental feature for this to work. There's no advertising revenue to tap into.
The open source magazines, such as the Linux magazines, do benefit from open source. They get to charge a fee for space in the magazine. In turn, they pay their writers and their staff, and charge you for the content. The magazine is priced to make up for the loss of direct revenue that is inevitable. The people (such as I) sipping coffee, reading the magazine, but not paying for it and taking it home enjoy the product for no cost (I'm not counting the coffee). But I still read the odd advert, and I still read the content. And someone still has to pay the paper maker, and the printer and so on. So the cost of the ads rises to anticipate this. The advertized products, in turn, have their prices adjusted to encompass the cost of the advertising.
Okay, TV doens't provide a model. What about Eclipse, that amazingly powerful editor? IBM is rumored to have taken a $40M charge against making this software free. Well, for one thing, if IBM did charge the cost of development against something, it was probably against something else, such as profits, dividends or is reflected as loss of some sort, and so the taxpayer is funding it. Either way, someone paid for the software; a business decision was made to make the software freely available, and to enhance it with various features such as a highly professional website, paid support offerings, and so on. IBM's customers indirectly support the software through the purchase of IBM services and products. So it's not really free - the cost of the original work and of maintaining it simply shifted. It's a bit like national health systems: someone still has to pay the doctors and hospitals, but the beneficiary sees it all as "free". The cost has simply been shifted to others. It doesn't go away, in other words.
IBM can afford to do all of that. A smaller company, or a lone programmer is not as likely to be in such a position.
I've heard mention that this recession/depression will be good for open source software. It very well might be, but it does shine a light on its most serious deficiency: it provides value for nothing in return! A good open source system is a valuable product; it has a value, a very real value, to the people and entities that use it. That value might be measured in the savings over a similar commercial product, or it might be that previously unavailable services can be offered. Either way, there's a real value to the product or service.
I'm still not clear on why the programmer can't derive benefit, though.
Carolyn Ann
There are three ways to look at it: altruism and benevolence, moral obligation and it's a rip-off.
The image put forth by the open source advocates is that of altruism and benevolence. You contribute your efforts; you're not expected to gain much, if anything, in return. Perhaps an accolade or two, but that's about it.
This is reasonable if you're writing software for a hobby, and quite enjoy sharing your work with others. It's only feasible if you've got some other way to pay the mortgage.
Then there's moral obligation. You use a piece of software, a Java library perhaps, and you're obligated through license conditions to make the rest of your software free, and open. The GPL uses this model, with the moral exhortation for altruistic benevolence. This moral obligation is backed up by a legal obligation, but it's mostly a moral obligation.
And then there's "it's a rip off". Authors get paid for their work. Songwriters, too. Artists don't generally give their work out to whomever, and they generally claim absolute say over who can copy it, photograph it and so on. Of all the intellectual ways of earning a penny, the software programmer stands alone: if you work with certain products, you're obligated to provide your expertise and ideas for free.
I don't get it.
The farmer has a product, which he sells to a middleman. The processor (middleman) than pays someone to distribute their product, and then the store enforces the requirement that you pay them. A builder will build you a house, or a factory, or a store - but they want the assurance that they will receive payment for their labor. The materials have to be paid for, and the builder usually puts a markup on those materials - he can provide value to you, the customer, by handling the shipping, storing and so on of the building products. He wants compensation for that effort. Sounds fair to me. You want a doctor to treat whatever ails you. The doctor has to work out of an office of some sort, and that requires a staff to handle the paperwork, the appointment book, the nurse to take your blood pressure and do a brief triage. The basic stuff all doctors offices' do when you visit. The doctor needs to pay for her education - it didn't come free, by the way - and she also needs to pay for the office. She needs to pay the staff, and so on. She collects fees from the patients, and the insurance companies, and uses those to pay her expenses. Real goods and services, being exchanged for real currency. There's a value associated with each item, transaction or service.
If you buy an item of art, you probably will not barely cover the artists' expenses. You'll probably pay for their skill in producing that item. Purchase the work of an author, and the author is perfectly reasonable in expecting a royalty. Download a song from the Internet - one that the songwriter and performer have decreed has value to them - and you're stealing. (I've often found it peculiar how people get upset about others using their work, but think little of downloading the latest album from some hot pop group.) Or, as happened to me, someone appropriates your work. She took it from my blog, used it in her own, and provided no credit, and didn't seek permission for that use. (I wouldn't have given it.) Free software writers are expected to provide their skills and time in the pursuit of something that is not intended to provide anything of value in return.
Now, Web 2.0 products and services operate on a similar basis. Flickr and Blogger, for example, both rely on users' providing their content; in fact, Flickr has a different level of service where you provide them their content (the product that has value) and pay them $25 or so per year for the privilege of giving them a better product! Google will pay you
Basically, people demand Internet-based information and services for free. Which is great if you're the BBC, and not so hot if you're anyone else. The business models possible are not ones that will advance the state of the art, nor are they viable long term propositions. If Facebook can't figure out how to make money by providing their service for free, they'll either fold or end up charging for it. (Why they haven't cottoned onto the Flickr model is anyone's guess.) In days gone by, the public didn't expect much of anything for free. The perception was that the cost reflected the value - pay 75c for your daily newspaper, and you expected serious commentary and accurate, unbiased news. Pay 50c and you expected gossip, excellent sports coverage and not much commentary. Now, we all want it free - and it had better be as good as a $1/day paper.
It's not a model that can sustain itself. The basic flaw is that people need to be paid. The bank holding their mortgage is not going to suddenly develop a fit of altruism and forgive anyone's mortgage because they work for an Internet news provider. (If you need evidence of this, please go read the freely available, and dubiously futured, NY Times.) Services have to be paid for, somehow. The capitalist system we all live in (except, perhaps, the failed states of North Korea, Burma, and a couple of other places, including the failing state of Venezuala) demands that services be paid for. You don't get something for nothing, you never have, and never will. The chronic failure of communism proved that people don't work because "it's fair", or for the benefit of society. We all need to eat, and we all need some sort of shelter. But mostly we need to eat - and farmers and butchers have never been noted for their unending generosity. They have bills to pay, too.
Open source programming flies in the face of this capitalistic model. High quality software is provided at no charge. Due to a sociological quirk, the biggest benefit of this is to the largest corporations! The people who write the software are hired by the corporations, and as a result, they develop a toolkit of pre-written pieces. These get turned into frameworks, and the ones who benefit the most are the ones who best able to pay! Sure, some small businesses do benefit, but a High St butcher is not going to be interested in free software unless it addresses a need he has. Likewise, the sewing store owner will not able to indulge in a rewrite of a financial spreadsheet because the spreadheet software is free; it's not worth her time. Buying the latest version of Excel is a business expense charged against taxes.
But why should I, for example, be willing to provide the local plumbing firm my expertise in software - for free? Should I not be able to charge for the services I provide, in the same way they charge their customers? If it's a direct service, installing software for instance, I can legitimately charge them a fee for my time; they would expect it, and be mightily suspicious if I said "oh, no charge! I do this because it's fun!" I could, legitimately, provide a charity with my services and tell them "I am donating my time and skills to you". But when it comes to an advanced bit of software that answers a need only large corporations have? Why should I provide them with my time and expertise for no charge? After all, they are usually only too willing to charge me for whatever services I derive from them!
If my bank, from whom I get free checking because of a special offer they had when I opened the account, were to ask me for my services, I think they would expect to pay me for them. There's no obligation to reciprocate on their offer. They have access to my money to make loans, pay staff and so on, after all. All they are doing is neglecting to charge me for the privilege of using my money!
But I am perplexed, increasingly perplexed, why anyone would ask me to provide considerable time and expertise in order to satisfy the demands of a large corporation that is perfectly able to pay! Or why anyone would expect high quality work in return for nothing.
Commercial television might provide a window into the cost of providing a quality product. Advertising pays for most of the content on television. Some shows also rely on the profits of DVD sales; these recordings are offered to fans at some cost, and then there's continued syndication and its advertising revenues. (Law and Order, House, and a few others are perfect examples of this: you can buy a DVD of all but the current season of L&O; and yet old episodes are on the TV so much that there are times when you can, by channel hopping, watch L&O and its derivatives, for 24 hours a day!) But open source software doesn't have a fundamental feature for this to work. There's no advertising revenue to tap into.
The open source magazines, such as the Linux magazines, do benefit from open source. They get to charge a fee for space in the magazine. In turn, they pay their writers and their staff, and charge you for the content. The magazine is priced to make up for the loss of direct revenue that is inevitable. The people (such as I) sipping coffee, reading the magazine, but not paying for it and taking it home enjoy the product for no cost (I'm not counting the coffee). But I still read the odd advert, and I still read the content. And someone still has to pay the paper maker, and the printer and so on. So the cost of the ads rises to anticipate this. The advertized products, in turn, have their prices adjusted to encompass the cost of the advertising.
Okay, TV doens't provide a model. What about Eclipse, that amazingly powerful editor? IBM is rumored to have taken a $40M charge against making this software free. Well, for one thing, if IBM did charge the cost of development against something, it was probably against something else, such as profits, dividends or is reflected as loss of some sort, and so the taxpayer is funding it. Either way, someone paid for the software; a business decision was made to make the software freely available, and to enhance it with various features such as a highly professional website, paid support offerings, and so on. IBM's customers indirectly support the software through the purchase of IBM services and products. So it's not really free - the cost of the original work and of maintaining it simply shifted. It's a bit like national health systems: someone still has to pay the doctors and hospitals, but the beneficiary sees it all as "free". The cost has simply been shifted to others. It doesn't go away, in other words.
IBM can afford to do all of that. A smaller company, or a lone programmer is not as likely to be in such a position.
I've heard mention that this recession/depression will be good for open source software. It very well might be, but it does shine a light on its most serious deficiency: it provides value for nothing in return! A good open source system is a valuable product; it has a value, a very real value, to the people and entities that use it. That value might be measured in the savings over a similar commercial product, or it might be that previously unavailable services can be offered. Either way, there's a real value to the product or service.
I'm still not clear on why the programmer can't derive benefit, though.
Carolyn Ann
Thinking about open source
I've been thinking a lot about open source software, lately. It's quite a neat concept - you download something from the 'net, and you have a product that should fulfill a computing need you have. If it doesn't, you can go into the code and change it so it does, or write a new product that does address your need. Quite simple, really.
Until you try it.
I recently disputed the idea that "information wants to be free". This is the basic mantra of the open source movement; coupled with Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (Wikipedia), you have the basic premise of open source software. I asserted that information doesn't want to be free - people just don't want to pay for it. Information is not sentient, it can't can't want anything.
Raymond's model is quite a neat idea, really. The idea is that the stuff you buy from a corporation is, by necessity, closed - you can't read the software code, you're allowed to change it only through approved methods, usually macro languages or payment for specific things. You can also lobby the company, and hope that the corporate managers agree to include your feature request in the next release.
The bazaar, on the other hand, is a marketplace - the chaos of the venue is the strength of the model. People provide products, alterations to products and so on altruistically. The idea is that reciprocation ensures, well, I'm not actually sure what it provides. This is where the entire idea goes awry. It's two disparate ideas, duct-taped together.
Open source software has a couple of features in common with closed source software. The first is variable quality; you don't know how good an application is until you've installed it, and used it. The second is all about those additional features: if you want some feature or other, your options are either write it, or lobby the maintainers to write it for you. Open source feature requests do not have a good reputation: they are fraught with condescension, ridicule and exhortations to "do it yourself!" Presumably, in the "true" open source style. If you do write a new feature, it than has to run a gauntlet of approval committees, benevolent dictators and who knows what else.
Let's think about the owner of a small crafts store. They know crafts and art, they know that most of their business is based on relationships with artists, and on providing the couple walking into the store a valuable and happy experience. They do not want to be bothered with the intricacies of figuring out which open source product fits their needs. Let's face it: marketing has a value in explaining why "this" product fits a need. They aren't likely to know how to go about requesting a feature, or figuring out if this or that product fits their needs or knowing where to get support if they need it. They have a need, they want an easy to use solution, and perhaps a book from the bookstore to help them use the product.
Big business, on the other hand, can easily afford to hire a programmer, or an administrator, to manage a product. Many CIO's also want to hold someone accountable if things go wrong; the legal guys want someone to be liable if the software blows up and destroys the payroll. And the people being paid want to know that the software that calculates and prints their paycheck is backed by a commitment to that product. Open source lacks all of that. If the originator of an open source product decides he's more interested in skydiving - well, there's not a lot anyone can do. Hence, open source software only gets a look-in if there's a place to go for support. The old "the support forums provide better support" doesn't sway anyone when their high-paying job depends on them guaranteeing support when things go wrong.
But, and this paradoxical, much of the software that big business uses is open source! All those Java libraries, that Apache webserver, the Linux server running the web server and so on - all open source. Granted, large companies also buy plenty of services that aren't open source. It's not always (rarely?) the best solution that wins the contract, it's often the best sales presentation, or whether the boss has shares in such a such a company. It's also the business model of open source software. There isn't one.
Purchase software from a company like Microsoft, and you know what you're getting. Leaving aside the derogatory comments, it's generally a piece of software that works in a fairly consistent manner, and on a known and popular platform. It's a comfortable decision, and you're not likely to get fired for buying a Microsoft product. If things do go drastically awry, there are plenty of options for support; some are expensive, some aren't but take longer. Open source software doesn't have anything like that; a few have tried to put something together, but they're always hampered by the variable quality of the software, the arcane nature of much of it, and the suspicion and distrust all of this engenders.
A few companies have figured out business models that work. Wordpress, for instance, sells support and space on their servers; the blogging software is the inducement, not the main product. IBM sells services around their open source products. Apple and Sun have had notably less success: they have open source components, but nothing that can support a paid staff. They derive their revenue streams from other products; Sun continues to get it wrong, and Apple has a business model that confuses everyone, but seems to work amazingly well. Apple does not make any money from its Open BSD base; its appeal is in the user interface - which is closed source. (They also make tons of money from other sources, but I'll ignore those; they are as far from open source as possibly can imagined!) SugarCRM, a customer management system, has an intriguing business model: they offer the product as open source, but also have a commercial version that offers some proprietary features, and a commercially acceptable support system. Basically, they are selling the support; the additional features are simply an added enticement. It would appear, then, that the only way to make money from open source software is by offering support services.
Which is fine if you have enough money to pay people to work for you. If you're the lone programmer, trying to figure out if you can make some money from an original idea - you're a bit stuck. You could try for venture capital, but there's no guarantee that you'll get it. You could try to get a small business loan, but banks aren't exactly happy to give money out, right now. If your business plan includes "we're giving away our main, only, product" the loan officers are not going to be tripping over themselves to give you money. Social Web services notwithstanding. (None of those have loans, they either have deep-pocketed owners, or investors willing to wait years for the dubious chance of any sort of payoff.) The other avenue - write a cool product, and hope someone gives you a job because of it - well, that's pie in the sky. Unless your product has years of acceptance, and you're famous in the programming circles. JBoss employs the IBM model; it seems to work for them, but they're in that perviously mentioned paradoxical corporate space where they can charge a lot for their services, and offer the software for free.
Basically, open source software is in direct conflict with capitalism! You give your efforts away, but you still have to pay the mortgage. Commercial software has the advantage of fitting in with the capitalist system.Various, short-lived, efforts to transform the music industry have some appeal for the open source software writer. There, a musician gives away a product (their song) in the hopes that people will pay for their other songs. What generally happens is that people download the freebie, and ignore the rest of it. Sometimes a singer makes it big this way, but the odds are fantastically against them. (Not that that should stop anyone from trying it!) But in open source software, you don't even the advantage of having additional software you can charge for! SugarCRM has a model that appears to work, but it has paying customers, too - and eough resources to make the leap. Most programmers, trying to create a business, don't have the resources to offer more than one version of their idea. If they do, they then have the problem of balancing their time between paid support or keeping their open source user base happy. This is not conducive to a stress-free life, or product development. And that's without the problem of bug fixes: if the bug is discovered by a paying customer, who gets the benefit of the fix? Everyone? That forces the paying customer to be generous; perhaps they are, perhaps they're not. This immediately removes any incentive for the paying customer to actually pay for their support. Which leaves the programmer with either a lack of funds to pay the support staff, or wondering how they can pay their mortgage.
This is not a problem that the open source community has addressed. There have been efforts, half-hearted efforts, but considering that the problem falls into the philosophical arena of ethics - I have strong doubts there is a solution!
Basically, open source software has the problem that no one is paid for their intellectual efforts. Authors, musicians, artists, directors and so on are all paid for their intellectual efforts. Unless someone pirates their work, but that's another problem altogether. Theft is theft, after all. Programmers are exhorted to work for the benefit of mankind; or at least the accolades of their fellow programmers. Which has little influence with the guy holding your mortgage. Its difficult to figure out how to make money when you give away your product, and it's all but impossible to reconcile significant ethical issues. Eric Raymond's Bazaar forgets one simple fact of bazaars: vendors get paid in currency. Not scrip, not favor and they are definitely not altruistic. Even the taxman has a say! (He doesn't care how you got paid, he just wants his share of your profits, in hard currency, please.) I think it wise to be suspicious of analogies that break so easily.
Of all the business models, SugarCRM seems to have the best idea for making money in open source software. Considering that making money is very important, it's a business model that bears consideration. But it does rely on some factors that an individual might not have; it also relies on the willingness of someone to do the support - not always the most glamorous or stress free job out there. People usually want paying for doing that job, too. Developing a support infrastructure usually costs money, which leads straight back to the start of the problem.
Making money is essential. Open source software is at odds with that idea. That's probably why there's no real solution to the problem, only duct-taped concepts that sort of work, and sort of don't.
So why am I working on a large open source project of my own? Because I can, and want to. But I still wonder how I can turn it into something I need: money.
Carolyn Ann
Until you try it.
I recently disputed the idea that "information wants to be free". This is the basic mantra of the open source movement; coupled with Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (Wikipedia), you have the basic premise of open source software. I asserted that information doesn't want to be free - people just don't want to pay for it. Information is not sentient, it can't can't want anything.
Raymond's model is quite a neat idea, really. The idea is that the stuff you buy from a corporation is, by necessity, closed - you can't read the software code, you're allowed to change it only through approved methods, usually macro languages or payment for specific things. You can also lobby the company, and hope that the corporate managers agree to include your feature request in the next release.
The bazaar, on the other hand, is a marketplace - the chaos of the venue is the strength of the model. People provide products, alterations to products and so on altruistically. The idea is that reciprocation ensures, well, I'm not actually sure what it provides. This is where the entire idea goes awry. It's two disparate ideas, duct-taped together.
Open source software has a couple of features in common with closed source software. The first is variable quality; you don't know how good an application is until you've installed it, and used it. The second is all about those additional features: if you want some feature or other, your options are either write it, or lobby the maintainers to write it for you. Open source feature requests do not have a good reputation: they are fraught with condescension, ridicule and exhortations to "do it yourself!" Presumably, in the "true" open source style. If you do write a new feature, it than has to run a gauntlet of approval committees, benevolent dictators and who knows what else.
Let's think about the owner of a small crafts store. They know crafts and art, they know that most of their business is based on relationships with artists, and on providing the couple walking into the store a valuable and happy experience. They do not want to be bothered with the intricacies of figuring out which open source product fits their needs. Let's face it: marketing has a value in explaining why "this" product fits a need. They aren't likely to know how to go about requesting a feature, or figuring out if this or that product fits their needs or knowing where to get support if they need it. They have a need, they want an easy to use solution, and perhaps a book from the bookstore to help them use the product.
Big business, on the other hand, can easily afford to hire a programmer, or an administrator, to manage a product. Many CIO's also want to hold someone accountable if things go wrong; the legal guys want someone to be liable if the software blows up and destroys the payroll. And the people being paid want to know that the software that calculates and prints their paycheck is backed by a commitment to that product. Open source lacks all of that. If the originator of an open source product decides he's more interested in skydiving - well, there's not a lot anyone can do. Hence, open source software only gets a look-in if there's a place to go for support. The old "the support forums provide better support" doesn't sway anyone when their high-paying job depends on them guaranteeing support when things go wrong.
But, and this paradoxical, much of the software that big business uses is open source! All those Java libraries, that Apache webserver, the Linux server running the web server and so on - all open source. Granted, large companies also buy plenty of services that aren't open source. It's not always (rarely?) the best solution that wins the contract, it's often the best sales presentation, or whether the boss has shares in such a such a company. It's also the business model of open source software. There isn't one.
Purchase software from a company like Microsoft, and you know what you're getting. Leaving aside the derogatory comments, it's generally a piece of software that works in a fairly consistent manner, and on a known and popular platform. It's a comfortable decision, and you're not likely to get fired for buying a Microsoft product. If things do go drastically awry, there are plenty of options for support; some are expensive, some aren't but take longer. Open source software doesn't have anything like that; a few have tried to put something together, but they're always hampered by the variable quality of the software, the arcane nature of much of it, and the suspicion and distrust all of this engenders.
A few companies have figured out business models that work. Wordpress, for instance, sells support and space on their servers; the blogging software is the inducement, not the main product. IBM sells services around their open source products. Apple and Sun have had notably less success: they have open source components, but nothing that can support a paid staff. They derive their revenue streams from other products; Sun continues to get it wrong, and Apple has a business model that confuses everyone, but seems to work amazingly well. Apple does not make any money from its Open BSD base; its appeal is in the user interface - which is closed source. (They also make tons of money from other sources, but I'll ignore those; they are as far from open source as possibly can imagined!) SugarCRM, a customer management system, has an intriguing business model: they offer the product as open source, but also have a commercial version that offers some proprietary features, and a commercially acceptable support system. Basically, they are selling the support; the additional features are simply an added enticement. It would appear, then, that the only way to make money from open source software is by offering support services.
Which is fine if you have enough money to pay people to work for you. If you're the lone programmer, trying to figure out if you can make some money from an original idea - you're a bit stuck. You could try for venture capital, but there's no guarantee that you'll get it. You could try to get a small business loan, but banks aren't exactly happy to give money out, right now. If your business plan includes "we're giving away our main, only, product" the loan officers are not going to be tripping over themselves to give you money. Social Web services notwithstanding. (None of those have loans, they either have deep-pocketed owners, or investors willing to wait years for the dubious chance of any sort of payoff.) The other avenue - write a cool product, and hope someone gives you a job because of it - well, that's pie in the sky. Unless your product has years of acceptance, and you're famous in the programming circles. JBoss employs the IBM model; it seems to work for them, but they're in that perviously mentioned paradoxical corporate space where they can charge a lot for their services, and offer the software for free.
Basically, open source software is in direct conflict with capitalism! You give your efforts away, but you still have to pay the mortgage. Commercial software has the advantage of fitting in with the capitalist system.Various, short-lived, efforts to transform the music industry have some appeal for the open source software writer. There, a musician gives away a product (their song) in the hopes that people will pay for their other songs. What generally happens is that people download the freebie, and ignore the rest of it. Sometimes a singer makes it big this way, but the odds are fantastically against them. (Not that that should stop anyone from trying it!) But in open source software, you don't even the advantage of having additional software you can charge for! SugarCRM has a model that appears to work, but it has paying customers, too - and eough resources to make the leap. Most programmers, trying to create a business, don't have the resources to offer more than one version of their idea. If they do, they then have the problem of balancing their time between paid support or keeping their open source user base happy. This is not conducive to a stress-free life, or product development. And that's without the problem of bug fixes: if the bug is discovered by a paying customer, who gets the benefit of the fix? Everyone? That forces the paying customer to be generous; perhaps they are, perhaps they're not. This immediately removes any incentive for the paying customer to actually pay for their support. Which leaves the programmer with either a lack of funds to pay the support staff, or wondering how they can pay their mortgage.
This is not a problem that the open source community has addressed. There have been efforts, half-hearted efforts, but considering that the problem falls into the philosophical arena of ethics - I have strong doubts there is a solution!
Basically, open source software has the problem that no one is paid for their intellectual efforts. Authors, musicians, artists, directors and so on are all paid for their intellectual efforts. Unless someone pirates their work, but that's another problem altogether. Theft is theft, after all. Programmers are exhorted to work for the benefit of mankind; or at least the accolades of their fellow programmers. Which has little influence with the guy holding your mortgage. Its difficult to figure out how to make money when you give away your product, and it's all but impossible to reconcile significant ethical issues. Eric Raymond's Bazaar forgets one simple fact of bazaars: vendors get paid in currency. Not scrip, not favor and they are definitely not altruistic. Even the taxman has a say! (He doesn't care how you got paid, he just wants his share of your profits, in hard currency, please.) I think it wise to be suspicious of analogies that break so easily.
Of all the business models, SugarCRM seems to have the best idea for making money in open source software. Considering that making money is very important, it's a business model that bears consideration. But it does rely on some factors that an individual might not have; it also relies on the willingness of someone to do the support - not always the most glamorous or stress free job out there. People usually want paying for doing that job, too. Developing a support infrastructure usually costs money, which leads straight back to the start of the problem.
Making money is essential. Open source software is at odds with that idea. That's probably why there's no real solution to the problem, only duct-taped concepts that sort of work, and sort of don't.
So why am I working on a large open source project of my own? Because I can, and want to. But I still wonder how I can turn it into something I need: money.
Carolyn Ann
Memo to drug companies
To: Big Pharma & Big Pharma Lawyers
From: Me
Subject: Tactics in Medicare Payment lawsuits
Dear Big Pharma Lawyers,
Please don't tell juries that their government officials "don't get it". Or that it's "too complicated". Or any other condescending argument like that. Juries don't like being told they're too stupid to understand stuff - which is what you do when you use arguments such as saying the government doesn't get the pricing structure. That just tells the jury (who, by the way, are voters, too) that your pricing structure is intended to obfuscate. And that tells people you're simply out to screw them and their Granny out of their hard earned money.
No one trusts big pharmaceutical companies, so you're already down one strike. Being arrogant makes it two, and you're out when you are condescending. Make your pricing simple and clear and fair - and you won't get sued, and you won't have to pay lots of money to the very same people you tried to screw. It's quite easy, really.
Thank you for your attention.
Carolyn Ann
From: Me
Subject: Tactics in Medicare Payment lawsuits
Dear Big Pharma Lawyers,
Please don't tell juries that their government officials "don't get it". Or that it's "too complicated". Or any other condescending argument like that. Juries don't like being told they're too stupid to understand stuff - which is what you do when you use arguments such as saying the government doesn't get the pricing structure. That just tells the jury (who, by the way, are voters, too) that your pricing structure is intended to obfuscate. And that tells people you're simply out to screw them and their Granny out of their hard earned money.
No one trusts big pharmaceutical companies, so you're already down one strike. Being arrogant makes it two, and you're out when you are condescending. Make your pricing simple and clear and fair - and you won't get sued, and you won't have to pay lots of money to the very same people you tried to screw. It's quite easy, really.
Thank you for your attention.
Carolyn Ann
Conspiracy theorists - you have a new conspiracy! :-)
Calling all conspiracy theorists! Calling all conspiracy theorists!
You now have a new conspiracy!
The satellite that would measure the global warming gas, carbon dioxide, failed to reach orbit! (NY Times) Apparently the nose cone of the rocket failed to come off, and the machine then fell into the ocean around Antarctica. That's so convenient! :-)
That can't possibly be a simple mechanical failure, or shoddy manufacture (after all, it's only the second rocket to fail from the same company!) - no, something more nefarious has to be afoot. It has to be a conspiracy between big business and the government! It just does! I mean - look at the facts (these will be edited for clarity).
So, conspiracy theorists: get those word processors working! Get those web sites up! Quote each other in authoritative ways! Cherry pick official press releases! Provide the investigators with a conclusion - you could save the taxpayer some money! Be selective in your use of quotes! Who will notice if you make one or two up? Who's to figure that they're out of context? It's the actual words that count? (By the way: make sure the word count is reasonable. Too many and no one will believe you. Too few and you can't prove the conspiracy!) And most of all: ignore those official distortions - they're simply covering up the conspiracy. Besides, the official press releases and statements prove there's a conspiracy - if there wasn't a conspiracy, what could have gone wrong?
Have at it - conspiracy theorists, anti-global warming forces are salivating and celebrating!
Carolyn Ann
You now have a new conspiracy!
The satellite that would measure the global warming gas, carbon dioxide, failed to reach orbit! (NY Times) Apparently the nose cone of the rocket failed to come off, and the machine then fell into the ocean around Antarctica. That's so convenient! :-)
That can't possibly be a simple mechanical failure, or shoddy manufacture (after all, it's only the second rocket to fail from the same company!) - no, something more nefarious has to be afoot. It has to be a conspiracy between big business and the government! It just does! I mean - look at the facts (these will be edited for clarity).
So, conspiracy theorists: get those word processors working! Get those web sites up! Quote each other in authoritative ways! Cherry pick official press releases! Provide the investigators with a conclusion - you could save the taxpayer some money! Be selective in your use of quotes! Who will notice if you make one or two up? Who's to figure that they're out of context? It's the actual words that count? (By the way: make sure the word count is reasonable. Too many and no one will believe you. Too few and you can't prove the conspiracy!) And most of all: ignore those official distortions - they're simply covering up the conspiracy. Besides, the official press releases and statements prove there's a conspiracy - if there wasn't a conspiracy, what could have gone wrong?
Have at it - conspiracy theorists, anti-global warming forces are salivating and celebrating!
Carolyn Ann
Back on Facebook
I'm not sure why, but I'm back on Facebook.
I'm quite sure the entire world, not just Facebook users, were wondering when this would happen... :-) (No one noticed I'd left? Oh... :-D )
Carolyn Ann
I'm quite sure the entire world, not just Facebook users, were wondering when this would happen... :-) (No one noticed I'd left? Oh... :-D )
Carolyn Ann
A bit of silliness
A silly bit of nonsense. I found it on Pandora’s Hideaway, and have been wondering if it was worth doing. I'm watching the Metallica movie, and decided to waste some time with it. :-)
Here are the rules:
Things you’ve already done: bold
Things you want to do: italicize
Things you haven’t done and don’t want to - leave in plain font.
1. Started your own blog. You're reading it.
2. Slept under the stars. Yep.
3. Played in a band. And a brass band. :-)
4. Visited Hawaii.
5. Watched a meteor shower. At least two. They are quite impressive!
6. Given more than you can afford to charity.
7. Been to Disneyland/world. Oh yeah! I've got some memories of that trip!
8. Climbed a mountain. Yup - in Scotland and Wales
9. Held a praying mantis.
10. Sang a solo.
11. Bungee jumped.
12. Visited Paris. Honeymoon
13. Watched a lightning storm at sea.
14. Taught yourself an art from scratch. Woodwork.
15. Adopted a child.
16. Had food poisoning.
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty. Can you still do that?
18. Grown your own vegetables. Yup - we had some good tomatoes, lettuce and a few others
19. Seen the Mona Lisa in France.
20. Slept on an overnight train.
21. Had a pillow fight.
22. Hitch hiked. Across Scotland
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill.
24. Built a snow fort.
25. Held a lamb.
26. Gone skinny dipping.
27. Run a marathon.
28. Ridden a gondola in Venice.
29. Seen a total eclipse. Partial eclipse only
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset. Erm, yeah?
31. Hit a home run. Came close in a pickup game , once :-)
32. Been on a cruise.
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person.
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors. Scotland, Holland and I grew up in England.
35. Seen an Amish community. I live within a few hundred miles of one or two.
36. Taught yourself a new language.
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied.
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person.
39. Gone rock climbing. Quite a few times, actually. :-)
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David in person.
41. Sung Karaoke.
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt... Yes, it was quite a sight!
43. Bought a stranger a meal in a restaurant. I bought a homeless guy a meal - in a restaurant, one time.
44. Visited Africa.
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight. Oh, yeah... :-)
46. Been transported in an ambulance. Once or twice... (Three times, actually)
47. Had your portrait painted. My brother did one, years ago
48. Gone deep sea fishing.
49. Seen the Sistine chapel in person.
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling.
52. Kissed in the rain.
53. Played in the mud.
54. Gone to a drive-in theater. I should; there's one not that far from me!
55. Been in a movie. No, but I held up the filming of one, once.
56. Visited the Great Wall of China.
57. Started a business. Yup. Two, actually.
58. Taken a martial arts class.
59. Visited Russia.
60. Served at a soup kitchen.
61. Sold Girl Scout cookies. Erm, no.
62. Gone whale watching.
63. Been given flowers for no reason. The Mrs gave me some for no reason, once. :-)
64. Donated blood. I did a couple of times, but can't now.
65. Gone sky diving.
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp.
67. Bounced a cheque. Inadvertently.
68. Flown in a helicopter. And landed at the Wall St Heliport.
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy.
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial. One of my favorite places in DC
71. Eaten Caviar. Yeah, I don't like it.
72. Pieced a quilt. I can sew, but quilts aren't my thing.
73. Stood in Times Square.
74. Toured the Everglades.
75. Been fired from a job. Came close, once.
76. Seen the Changing of the Guard in London.
77. Broken a bone.
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle. Far, far too often
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person.Yup. Stood right on the edge, too.
80. Published a book.
81. Visited the Vatican.
82. Bought a brand new car. And some motorcycles. :-)
83. Walked in Jerusalem.
84. Had your picture in the newspaper. Not a pleasant experience.
85. Read the entire Bible. Not a chance.
86. Visited the White House. Been there a couple of times; the tour is good! :-)
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating. Yup.
88. Had chickenpox
89. Saved someone’s life. I'm trained to do so. Does that count?
90. Sat on a jury.
91. Met someone famous. Quite a few famous folk.
92. Joined a book club. Tried starting one, once.
93. Lost a loved one.
94. Had a baby.
95. Seen the Alamo in person. Next time I'm in Texas.
96. Swum in the Great Salt Lake. Camped on Antelope Island.
97. Been involved in a law suit. Not a good experience.
98. Owned a mobile phone. Quite a few.
99. Been stung by a bee. Yup.
The Stimulus
Bobby Jindal is doing his best to be the best thing to happen to the GOP since Sarah Palin. His arguments make as much sense as hers, but are expressed in English.
Overall, the plan isn't perfect. Its got some odd things in it, but in general it's definitely something. Which is a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Jindal, et al. (Have they actually offered anything?)
I think one of the biggest problems is not going to be getting the money out; it will be buying the loans to provide the bulk of the cash! The Treasury will probably increase the money supply, but the bulk of it will come from new debt. The US taxpayer will be paying these debts off for years. There will have to be changes - some unwelcome, some desired - changes to the social welfare in the future. The trick will be paying for sturdy pensions, medical care and the debt as well. Taxes will, by necessity, go up a bit. I don't think it will be a huge increase; although it will be enough to send Republicans into a fit. Percentage wise, it won't be so great - the inevitable increase in wages will help counter the pain of the debt repayment. The US economy will continue to be robust, and it will still have staggering wealth. (The Republicans like to portray it as going to the dogs. But then again, they think all is well when it is going to the dogs.)
Overall, the stimulus is expensive and it's needed. Obama reached across to the Grand Old Party. They didn't reciprocate, and were childish about it. The light at the end of the tunnel just got a bit brighter.
Carolyn Ann
Overall, the plan isn't perfect. Its got some odd things in it, but in general it's definitely something. Which is a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Jindal, et al. (Have they actually offered anything?)
I think one of the biggest problems is not going to be getting the money out; it will be buying the loans to provide the bulk of the cash! The Treasury will probably increase the money supply, but the bulk of it will come from new debt. The US taxpayer will be paying these debts off for years. There will have to be changes - some unwelcome, some desired - changes to the social welfare in the future. The trick will be paying for sturdy pensions, medical care and the debt as well. Taxes will, by necessity, go up a bit. I don't think it will be a huge increase; although it will be enough to send Republicans into a fit. Percentage wise, it won't be so great - the inevitable increase in wages will help counter the pain of the debt repayment. The US economy will continue to be robust, and it will still have staggering wealth. (The Republicans like to portray it as going to the dogs. But then again, they think all is well when it is going to the dogs.)
Overall, the stimulus is expensive and it's needed. Obama reached across to the Grand Old Party. They didn't reciprocate, and were childish about it. The light at the end of the tunnel just got a bit brighter.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, February 23, 2009
Feeling equine
The Mrs calls. As I answer, she says "You don't sound as hoarse!"
"No, I feel a lot less equine..." I reply.
(She groaned...)
Carolyn Ann
"No, I feel a lot less equine..." I reply.
(She groaned...)
Carolyn Ann
Feeling maligned
I feel maligned I do
I wrote a comment
to a post
on a blog
and added it
to a list
of others
who do
not agree
with me
(or themselves
for that matter!)
and it didn't
appear
not at all
no siree
no comment
no list
no 15 minutes
do I exist?
===
Carolyn Ann
I wrote a comment
to a post
on a blog
and added it
to a list
of others
who do
not agree
with me
(or themselves
for that matter!)
and it didn't
appear
not at all
no siree
no comment
no list
no 15 minutes
do I exist?
===
Carolyn Ann
The Oscars
I liked the show - although it appears I'm one of the few who did!
Hugh Jackman was good - he definitely gave it all a Broadway feel, and the organization was efficient, and everything moved along quite well. Lots of enthusiasm, which always helps make the thing so much better.
Ben Stiller's rendition of Joaquin Phoenix was hilarious! Robert De Nero's little speech to Sean Penn was good; I liked the bit about "all these years, playing straight men!" (or something like that).
The gowns were lovely - Kate Winslet's was beautiful, as was Penelope Cruz's. I kind of liked Sarah Jessica Parker's, and Queen Latifah's. Anne Hathawat looked great - but as The Devil Wears Prada demonstrated, she can look good in a sack-cloth. (She can also make the sack-cloth look good!) Tina Fey looked heavenly; she even managed a small Sarah Palin gesture, which was fun.
All in all, it was quite a show. I enjoyed it. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Hugh Jackman was good - he definitely gave it all a Broadway feel, and the organization was efficient, and everything moved along quite well. Lots of enthusiasm, which always helps make the thing so much better.
Ben Stiller's rendition of Joaquin Phoenix was hilarious! Robert De Nero's little speech to Sean Penn was good; I liked the bit about "all these years, playing straight men!" (or something like that).
The gowns were lovely - Kate Winslet's was beautiful, as was Penelope Cruz's. I kind of liked Sarah Jessica Parker's, and Queen Latifah's. Anne Hathawat looked great - but as The Devil Wears Prada demonstrated, she can look good in a sack-cloth. (She can also make the sack-cloth look good!) Tina Fey looked heavenly; she even managed a small Sarah Palin gesture, which was fun.
All in all, it was quite a show. I enjoyed it. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Sodding bug
Just a quick whine - that bug didn't go away. It came back - with reinforcements. Darned thing.
Ah well. Time for more Advil.
Carolyn Ann
Ah well. Time for more Advil.
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Great Sushi!
So we've found a wonderful Sushi place! :-)
It's Sagami, on Rt 130 South, in Collingswood, NJ.
It's extremely busy - make a reservation!
We didn't, and we were lucky to get a couple of seats at the sushi bar. And oh, what sushi it is! :-)
I had one of my favorites - octopus sashimi - and it was divine! The texture of the octopus was contrasted perfectly by the wasabi, and mediated by the rice; the seaweed wrapper didn't give up in its task of keeping it all together. (Something that happens - a lot!)
Along with the octopus, I had the California, the Philadelphia (salmon and cream cheese; not exactly traditional, but I like it!) and the tuna and avocado. We started with negamaki (oh! divine!) and the gyoza (mitza-mitza).
[Added] I don't know, I just find it amusing that my first taste of the Philadelphia roll was in a small San Francisco sushi place, I think it was in the Heights, about 18 years ago.)
Getting to the restaurant is a challenge - the directions provided by both Google and Yahoo were wrong; the recent roadworks ensured that. (The traffic circle has gone; it's been replaced by 130, with jughandles in place of circle/roundabout exits.) Once you're there, you have to strive fro a parking place; there are more spaces just down the alley that runs behind the building. Don't bring a really wide 1960's car - it won't fit down the alley. And the place is busy, busy, busy.
If you don't have a reservation, and it's early - you might get a seat at the Sushi bar. Make a reservation, in other words.
Mind you, sitting at the bar was a great experience. The chefs are not just knowledgeable - they truly produce works of art! One dinner we saw was a cascade of pinks; it seemed a shame it had to be consumed. Another dinner was a veritable feast of sashimi - the colors, the freshness of the fish and the layout were just amazing. I wanted to frame the dinner; alas, the waitress took it to its diner.
One thing we both noted was the predominance of Japanese individuals in the restaurant. I also noted that the language used was akin to some teens on the NY subway: a mix of one language, and english. Whichever language happened to be best suited was used by both the customers and the staff. Quite a heady experience, indeed.
It's a BYOB, and all the better for it. So many places serve reasonable food, and make their money on the booze; this place provides bottle openers, and glasses. I brought my favorite Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA. That is *not* a good beer for sushi. Sodding awful, in fact. It's not so much a contrast, as trying to have two entirely disparate experiences at the same time. Think of it like this: experiencing the biggest roller-coaster you can think of, and a quiet drink in a pub. Doesn't work. Not at all! (I'll know better next time...)
All in all, if you're looking for a good sushi restaurant within hailing distance of Center City, Philadelphia, Sagami is the place to go. If you have a reservation.
Carolyn Ann
It's Sagami, on Rt 130 South, in Collingswood, NJ.
It's extremely busy - make a reservation!
We didn't, and we were lucky to get a couple of seats at the sushi bar. And oh, what sushi it is! :-)
I had one of my favorites - octopus sashimi - and it was divine! The texture of the octopus was contrasted perfectly by the wasabi, and mediated by the rice; the seaweed wrapper didn't give up in its task of keeping it all together. (Something that happens - a lot!)
Along with the octopus, I had the California, the Philadelphia (salmon and cream cheese; not exactly traditional, but I like it!) and the tuna and avocado. We started with negamaki (oh! divine!) and the gyoza (mitza-mitza).
[Added] I don't know, I just find it amusing that my first taste of the Philadelphia roll was in a small San Francisco sushi place, I think it was in the Heights, about 18 years ago.)
Getting to the restaurant is a challenge - the directions provided by both Google and Yahoo were wrong; the recent roadworks ensured that. (The traffic circle has gone; it's been replaced by 130, with jughandles in place of circle/roundabout exits.) Once you're there, you have to strive fro a parking place; there are more spaces just down the alley that runs behind the building. Don't bring a really wide 1960's car - it won't fit down the alley. And the place is busy, busy, busy.
If you don't have a reservation, and it's early - you might get a seat at the Sushi bar. Make a reservation, in other words.
Mind you, sitting at the bar was a great experience. The chefs are not just knowledgeable - they truly produce works of art! One dinner we saw was a cascade of pinks; it seemed a shame it had to be consumed. Another dinner was a veritable feast of sashimi - the colors, the freshness of the fish and the layout were just amazing. I wanted to frame the dinner; alas, the waitress took it to its diner.
One thing we both noted was the predominance of Japanese individuals in the restaurant. I also noted that the language used was akin to some teens on the NY subway: a mix of one language, and english. Whichever language happened to be best suited was used by both the customers and the staff. Quite a heady experience, indeed.
It's a BYOB, and all the better for it. So many places serve reasonable food, and make their money on the booze; this place provides bottle openers, and glasses. I brought my favorite Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA. That is *not* a good beer for sushi. Sodding awful, in fact. It's not so much a contrast, as trying to have two entirely disparate experiences at the same time. Think of it like this: experiencing the biggest roller-coaster you can think of, and a quiet drink in a pub. Doesn't work. Not at all! (I'll know better next time...)
All in all, if you're looking for a good sushi restaurant within hailing distance of Center City, Philadelphia, Sagami is the place to go. If you have a reservation.
Carolyn Ann
This, this is America
Bill has a wonderful YouTube video of what America is. (It's disturbingly called "to kill an American", but the title is pertinent.)
It got me - this is why I love America. All you have to do is - get what Americans stand for. It's easy, and it's hard.
I love America.
Carolyn Ann
It got me - this is why I love America. All you have to do is - get what Americans stand for. It's easy, and it's hard.
I love America.
Carolyn Ann
Stephen Sondheim chatted with Frank Rich
At the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia, this evening.
Stephen Sondheim, one of the premier songwriters' and composers of the late 20th century, was chatting with Frank Rich - the man who was the NY Times Theater critic for about 20,000 years through the 1990's. Between Mr Rich's knowledge, and Mr Sondheim's experiences and anecdotes, we were transported to a different time and place.
To be perfectly honest, I've only ever seen one performer reduce an auditorium to a fireside event - Lou Reed, back in the mid 80's. Mr Rich and Mr Sondheim turned the amphitheater of the Verizon Center (it's in the Kimmel), into a fireside chat. It was quite magical.
Mr Sondheim, internationally famous for "Send In The Clowns" (a song that he spoke of first), Gypsy, Sweeney Todd, the lyrics of West Side Story, A Funny thing Happened On The Way To The Forum, and so many other musicals, told us of his education with Oscar Hammerstein, and even a moment with Cole Porter, his experiences with dancers, singers, composers, playwrights and other nefarious creatures. His anecdote about Elaine Stritch was priceless! He was recounting how he couldn't get into the character he needed to write a song for - Elaine Stritch had been cast for it, and he needed something for her. So he called the producer of the play and asked - the producer told of a night on the town with Ms Stritch. Apparently they entered a bar not long before closing time - somewhere about a quarter to four (bars close at 4AM in NYC), and Ms Stritch told the barkeep "a bottle of vodka and a floorplan!"
(Sorry. I guess you had to be there. I'm not doing a very god job, here, am I?)
"Send in the clowns", a song made amazingly famous by Barbara, was written specifically for a singer (unforgivably, I forget who. Sorry!) who couldn't sustain a note! That's why it's so staccato. (Staccato appears to be one of my favorite words!) The song was a written as a foil; the original scene it was written for had the male lead as the antagonist, the main part of the scene. But the producer of the show turned it around - without changing the words, and asked Mr Sondheim to write a song for that scene.
His anecdotes about Gypsy were amusing; the famous scene where Rose does her grand number, where she has the nervous breakdown, wasn't supposed to be as incredible as it is. Having seen the show a couple of times, I can tell you it's pivotal - Rose, has a breakdown, but you don't realize it until she's well into the bows the audience willing embrace. Heck, when Patty LuPone did that number, she got a standing ovation - but it's not her singing, it's Rose. This leads (deliberately) to the final scene - the one where she and her daughter confront each other.
I sure wish the Mrs wasn't in bed. I could ask her all sorts of questions and make this a meaningful review of a chat with a great man. Sorry. Damn, I'm not used to feeling so inadequate!
One moment caught my attention: his 3 principles of songwriting. I can remember two of them...
Clarity, "God is in the details" and less is more. I guess I remember all three! :-)
He actually related these to poetry - when we read a poet, we get a chance to go back and review thigns we might have missed. When you're in the audience of a Broadway musical - you get one chance. If the singer flubs, the songwriter is not clear, the audeince doesn't get the reference - you've lost the song. I think some contemporary songwriters would do well to heed that advice...
Later in the chat, he said a little more about the art of songwriting, and its role within the musical. Hammerstein was a proponent of the idea that the song needs to advance the story - it needs to be a one act play, unto itself. The character needs to have advanced, having sung the song. Musicals of the 1930's and 1950's were not like that - the songs were sprinkled into the play simply as fillers. Often quite good fillers, but they didn't need to adhere to the plot itself. (Oddly enough, the Rogers and Hart hit "Blue Moon" was like that. It didn't work in one musical, so it was dropped into another - and became a hit!) Hammerstein, and his student (Sondheim describes Hammerstein as a "father", which tells either of his relationship with Hammerstein, and/or his relationship with his actual father! He didn't go into any of that, and Frank Rich didn't dare explore it. Probably a wise decision...) Well, Mr Sondheim's musical numbers advanced the stories, the characters and his reputation! :-)
It was fascinating to find out how some songs - such "Bring in the clowns" came about. It was also fascinating to hear him tell of how he foxed Cole Porter! He was producing a musical, and Cole Porter was feeling down, having just had his other leg amputated. A mutual friend asked Mr Sondheim to perform for Cole Porter, and he did a number that was a replica of the first song he'd sung for Mr Porter. (That was a satire, for a college musical, and Cole Porter helped him finish it!) Anyway, Mr Sondheim sang his song, and Cole Porter gasped at the lyricism! It was a direct satire, a reverential satire, to one the truly great composers of modern music.
Mr Rich and Mr Sondheim even managed to cover such controversies as the recent "Rent" one. "Rent" is a Broadway musical, I believe it's recently closed but I might be wrong about that, that has been cleaned up and a license and lease provided for it to be a performed in high schools. (For British and British dominion, readers: American high schools have a long tradition of putting on "sanitized" Broadway musicals. The sanitization can include shortening the production, tearing out some of the language and even altering some of the songs to make them easier for the ambitious, but not-quite-there-yet singer. The plots aren't altered, nor are the characters.) Apparently Mr Sondheim is familiar with the censorship of the prudish school administrator, the powerful parent and the nervous teacher. "Forum" has, it appears, been banned from schools because it's central word is "virgin". If you've ever seen the show, you'll know it's impossible to have the show without that word. So, it's barred from some schools. "Rent", likewise, is barred because it has a homosexual, and deals with drugs and AIDS. Let's not real life get in the way of fairy tale, right? You could tell, without Mr Sondheim explicitly stating it, what he thought of all this nonsense!
That, I have to tell you, was a refreshing change! So many need things spelling out; allegory and metaphor are not lost on these people: they're a different language. I blame it on the needs of Twitter; Mr Sondheim apparently has other opinions, but he didn't espouse them. Many of Mr Sondheim's lyrics are allegorical, or metaphorical - if "Send in the clowns" isn't metaphor, I'm not sure we have a common language.
Mr Sondheim, in response to a question from the audience, revealed that he's writing a "collected lyrics", with anecdotes and reasoning behind some of the lyrics.
The evening - an hour and half of chat that passed far too rapidly - was a delight. I'm not sure, but I think the show is going to some other cities. If it's going to one near you - go see it!
And at this point, I do have to apologize for such an inane review! It truly was one of those special evenings. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Stephen Sondheim, one of the premier songwriters' and composers of the late 20th century, was chatting with Frank Rich - the man who was the NY Times Theater critic for about 20,000 years through the 1990's. Between Mr Rich's knowledge, and Mr Sondheim's experiences and anecdotes, we were transported to a different time and place.
To be perfectly honest, I've only ever seen one performer reduce an auditorium to a fireside event - Lou Reed, back in the mid 80's. Mr Rich and Mr Sondheim turned the amphitheater of the Verizon Center (it's in the Kimmel), into a fireside chat. It was quite magical.
Mr Sondheim, internationally famous for "Send In The Clowns" (a song that he spoke of first), Gypsy, Sweeney Todd, the lyrics of West Side Story, A Funny thing Happened On The Way To The Forum, and so many other musicals, told us of his education with Oscar Hammerstein, and even a moment with Cole Porter, his experiences with dancers, singers, composers, playwrights and other nefarious creatures. His anecdote about Elaine Stritch was priceless! He was recounting how he couldn't get into the character he needed to write a song for - Elaine Stritch had been cast for it, and he needed something for her. So he called the producer of the play and asked - the producer told of a night on the town with Ms Stritch. Apparently they entered a bar not long before closing time - somewhere about a quarter to four (bars close at 4AM in NYC), and Ms Stritch told the barkeep "a bottle of vodka and a floorplan!"
(Sorry. I guess you had to be there. I'm not doing a very god job, here, am I?)
"Send in the clowns", a song made amazingly famous by Barbara, was written specifically for a singer (unforgivably, I forget who. Sorry!) who couldn't sustain a note! That's why it's so staccato. (Staccato appears to be one of my favorite words!) The song was a written as a foil; the original scene it was written for had the male lead as the antagonist, the main part of the scene. But the producer of the show turned it around - without changing the words, and asked Mr Sondheim to write a song for that scene.
His anecdotes about Gypsy were amusing; the famous scene where Rose does her grand number, where she has the nervous breakdown, wasn't supposed to be as incredible as it is. Having seen the show a couple of times, I can tell you it's pivotal - Rose, has a breakdown, but you don't realize it until she's well into the bows the audience willing embrace. Heck, when Patty LuPone did that number, she got a standing ovation - but it's not her singing, it's Rose. This leads (deliberately) to the final scene - the one where she and her daughter confront each other.
I sure wish the Mrs wasn't in bed. I could ask her all sorts of questions and make this a meaningful review of a chat with a great man. Sorry. Damn, I'm not used to feeling so inadequate!
One moment caught my attention: his 3 principles of songwriting. I can remember two of them...
Clarity, "God is in the details" and less is more. I guess I remember all three! :-)
He actually related these to poetry - when we read a poet, we get a chance to go back and review thigns we might have missed. When you're in the audience of a Broadway musical - you get one chance. If the singer flubs, the songwriter is not clear, the audeince doesn't get the reference - you've lost the song. I think some contemporary songwriters would do well to heed that advice...
Later in the chat, he said a little more about the art of songwriting, and its role within the musical. Hammerstein was a proponent of the idea that the song needs to advance the story - it needs to be a one act play, unto itself. The character needs to have advanced, having sung the song. Musicals of the 1930's and 1950's were not like that - the songs were sprinkled into the play simply as fillers. Often quite good fillers, but they didn't need to adhere to the plot itself. (Oddly enough, the Rogers and Hart hit "Blue Moon" was like that. It didn't work in one musical, so it was dropped into another - and became a hit!) Hammerstein, and his student (Sondheim describes Hammerstein as a "father", which tells either of his relationship with Hammerstein, and/or his relationship with his actual father! He didn't go into any of that, and Frank Rich didn't dare explore it. Probably a wise decision...) Well, Mr Sondheim's musical numbers advanced the stories, the characters and his reputation! :-)
It was fascinating to find out how some songs - such "Bring in the clowns" came about. It was also fascinating to hear him tell of how he foxed Cole Porter! He was producing a musical, and Cole Porter was feeling down, having just had his other leg amputated. A mutual friend asked Mr Sondheim to perform for Cole Porter, and he did a number that was a replica of the first song he'd sung for Mr Porter. (That was a satire, for a college musical, and Cole Porter helped him finish it!) Anyway, Mr Sondheim sang his song, and Cole Porter gasped at the lyricism! It was a direct satire, a reverential satire, to one the truly great composers of modern music.
Mr Rich and Mr Sondheim even managed to cover such controversies as the recent "Rent" one. "Rent" is a Broadway musical, I believe it's recently closed but I might be wrong about that, that has been cleaned up and a license and lease provided for it to be a performed in high schools. (For British and British dominion, readers: American high schools have a long tradition of putting on "sanitized" Broadway musicals. The sanitization can include shortening the production, tearing out some of the language and even altering some of the songs to make them easier for the ambitious, but not-quite-there-yet singer. The plots aren't altered, nor are the characters.) Apparently Mr Sondheim is familiar with the censorship of the prudish school administrator, the powerful parent and the nervous teacher. "Forum" has, it appears, been banned from schools because it's central word is "virgin". If you've ever seen the show, you'll know it's impossible to have the show without that word. So, it's barred from some schools. "Rent", likewise, is barred because it has a homosexual, and deals with drugs and AIDS. Let's not real life get in the way of fairy tale, right? You could tell, without Mr Sondheim explicitly stating it, what he thought of all this nonsense!
That, I have to tell you, was a refreshing change! So many need things spelling out; allegory and metaphor are not lost on these people: they're a different language. I blame it on the needs of Twitter; Mr Sondheim apparently has other opinions, but he didn't espouse them. Many of Mr Sondheim's lyrics are allegorical, or metaphorical - if "Send in the clowns" isn't metaphor, I'm not sure we have a common language.
Mr Sondheim, in response to a question from the audience, revealed that he's writing a "collected lyrics", with anecdotes and reasoning behind some of the lyrics.
The evening - an hour and half of chat that passed far too rapidly - was a delight. I'm not sure, but I think the show is going to some other cities. If it's going to one near you - go see it!
And at this point, I do have to apologize for such an inane review! It truly was one of those special evenings. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)