Kate Lee is creating a niche for herself at International Creative Management: book deals for bloggers.

Lee spends the majority of her workday in the manner of any agent-to-be: reading manuscripts from the slush pile, vetting contracts, negotiating rights, checking her boss’s voice mail. But she spends approximately an hour each day reading blogs. She scans a dozen first thing in the morning and keeps tabs on another twenty-seven throughout the day, though any of these may lead her to countless others. Reading blogs on company time is hardly unheard of, but Lee does not so much read as prospect, sifting through sloppy thinking, bad grammar, and blind self-indulgence for moments of actual good writing. It’s too soon to say how this will pay off, but she represents writers from the first six blogs listed above and is in talks with writers from the rest [Hit & Run, The Black Table, Dong Resin, Zulkey, Low Culture, Lindsayism, Megnut, Maud Newton, MemeFirst, Old Hag, PressThink, I Keep a Diary, Buzz Machine, Engadget, and Eurotrash].

In the few days since I read the New Yorker article, I found this commentary at Gawker.com. His primary argument is this:

Now that a couple of losers have figured out how to get paid for writing weblogs, along comes someone with a smarter scheme: how can I get 15% of that? Today's New Yorker introduces us to Kate Lee, ICM agent and blog enthusiast. Avast, bloggers! Thar be agents, ready for their percentage.

I won't offer such cynicism, though I don't doubt that a potential agent's fee is a motivating force. This is America and commerce doesn't (can't) happen without money. That doesn't mean that money leads to disingenuous intentions. A published writer will have an agent, so why not seek an agent interested in your work. But I'm realistic and can agree with this comment about the sudden infatuation with bloggers:

Our prediction: first blogger book: $140K advance. Second blogger book: $700K advance. Third blogger book: $15K advance. None earn out, the shark gets jumped, and then it's contract publishing gigs for all, and some God-awful ghost-writing gigs, which results in yet more bitter alcoholic blather on weblogs. Enjoy the hype, little bloggers.

The most prominent current example is the nonsense surrounding the Washingtonienne. For two-and-a-half weeks, she wrote about her sex adventures with married men and men of influence. Washington loves a good sex scandal, but that it came to light on a "blog" was a new twist that the media couldn't believe. "The cool kids snubbed the establishment with sex and technology," they thought. "Let's tell middle America because they're stupid and we're smart. Those simpletons will know we're smart."

The Washingtonienne will probably get a book deal. Since there are already bloggers with the initial round of advances, she'll get Round 2 in the hundreds of thousand of dollars. The book will get the focus, until Washington stops caring, which will likely be before the book hits stores. It will not sell and she'll kill the hype for every blogger with a contract. As much as I'm annoyed by this, it'll be good to get the requisite Big Book out of the way. (It doesn't hurt that I think she's making it up, based on reading the blog.)

Does that mean that blogging won't produce published, successful authors? Of course not. Then the publishing world can get down to the business of unearthing legitimate writers.

Bloggers post their random, and sometimes not-so-random, thoughts for the world to see for a multitude of reasons. I can't speak for everyone, but I enjoy the process of blogging. I enjoy writing and this is a simple method for me to embrace the joy. My topics can be varied, with inspiration being long-held passions or the passing fancy of the present. No editor, other than the tiny little annoying one sitting on my shoulder, can prevent me from writing and posting what interests me.

Blogging has no rules, no requirement, just an inherent desire to express myself and that's the essence. If not a single person ever clicked their way to my little fortress on this landscape of ether, I'd still write. As much as I like having readers, both known and unknown, this is about me.

I don't write "I went to the grocery store today. They were out of lemons." because I barely care about that and I don't expect anyone else to care about it, either. I'm not an exhibitionist who needs the world to look at me every moment. If I want you to see any part of me, it's my mind... my evolving thoughts, my fleshy memories, my odd interactions with my world.

But, really, making you know me isn't a driving force. I don't need to change anyone's beliefs. For example, I didn't set out to write politics, but it's a topic possessing my intellect right now. Sometimes, I don't even know what I think before I'm paragraphs into an entry. But I learn and adapt and grow. My thoughts are expanded. My writing skills are more flexible. Ultimately, blogging is yoga for the mind.

Would I accept a book contract? Absolutely. Full-time writer is my expected career destination; RollingDoughnut.com is my training ground. I can make mistakes, but people might read it, so incentive to improve is inherent in the act of posting an entry.

I recently read Never Threaten to Eat Your Co-Workers: Best of Blogs, a summary of interesting writing by popular bloggers, after discovering the book thanks to Wil Wheaton's site. I knew I'd enjoy his entries in the book, but I wanted to learn something about other bloggers and how they write. The book contains many fascinating entries, but I've discovered blogs that I now read daily. I don't read them because the author is in a book. As much as I may like the celebrity culture, I read for the writing. Thanks to blogging, great writers are everywhere.

As with any new infatuation, there are "negative" aspects. Ms. Lee is finding out one of them, which is obvious but not insurmountable:

...she said she wanted to make it clear that, while she loves her bloggers, and has faith in them, it can be difficult to get them to be productive. “They all have day jobs,” she pointed out. Writing anything longer than a blog post is a commitment they don’t always seem up for. “Anyway, I’ve started working with a couple of graduates of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. It’s very exciting. They’re interesting writers—with training, and degrees to show for it.”

I've already said that RollingDoughnut.com is my training ground. To be a good writer, I don't need no stinkin' degree.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

We passed the Celebrity Commencement Speech Parade™ with little trouble. However, given the current political climate, some people felt compelled to use graduation for their own purposes. At George Washington University, President Stephen Trachtenberg entertained the gathered graduates with his Shecky Greene impersonation. Near the end of the commencement ceremony, he instructed the graduates:

"If anybody has a mortarboard, you can move your tassels from right to left, right to left, which is what I hope happened to your politics in the last four years," he said.

I don't want to make more of that than was really there. He went for the chuckle factor and got it from some. Political humor is fine, but it needs to be delivered in the right context. If it becomes the point of the speech, it's inexcusable.

E.L. Doctorow offered his commencement speech at Hofstra University on Sunday and received boos from the crowd for the political nature of the speech. He ventured to explain to the graduates that "simply because something was said by authority did not mean it shouldn't be questioned. I think it was entirely appropriate." His attempt failed because the truth he tried to impart was specific instead of general. His truth supported the stories instead of the stories supporting his truth. His explanation was a cop-out to excuse the fact that he made the speech about his agenda rather than what the graduates needed to hear to guide them into the future:

Of the response he received at the university, Doctorow said, "I thought we were all supposed to speak out? Isn't that what this country is about?"

Yes, this wonderful country is built around people speaking out. But the point of the speech should've been to encourage students to speak out for their beliefs, not an opportunity for Mr. Doctorow to speak out about his beliefs. This is a situation where leading by example is incorrect.

Better yet, my personal experience ws my undergraduate commencement from Virginia Tech on May 13, 1995. I'd worked 4 years to earn my degree. I'd paid my own way. Being at a major university, I hoped for someone of at least minor significance. Like other people I know, I can fall into moments of star-fucking. I didn't expect Bill Clinton, Helen Hunt, or Kurt Vonnegut. My entire senior year, I waited with giddy anticipation.

In late April 1995, I learned that Virginia's Secretary of Education, Beverly H. Sgro, would be the commencement speaker. I was disappointed, but not horribly shocked. I knew enough to know that sometimes the point of dreams is to temporarily enjoy the fantasy. I wondered what canned commencement speech she might offer, but assumed it would be passable since she'd been dean of students until January 1994.

"Since Dr. Sgro has worked so closely with so many students, we thought it appropriate that she address her students and wish them well on their way into their chosen careers," said [former] President Paul Torgersen.

How was I to know that it would be the worst possible speech anyone could offer? She spoke for 20 minutes, of which 19 minutes and 53 seconds contained a political commercial for then-Governor George Allen and his education agenda. She informed us that we should be thankful for Governor Allen's reforms because he'd increased education spending in Virginia by $73 million. That would've been wonderful news, however inappropriate for a commencement speech, if it had been the direct truth. Unfortunately, as far back as I can remember, I've been able to read, which is a wonderful skill when I have a newspaper in front of me. By doing that, I discovered that the net effect of Governor Allen's plan was a $73 million increase. The impact to Virginia Tech was different, since Governor Allen pulled $21 million from Virginia Tech to re-direct it to his alma mater as part of his plan.

I didn't applaud.

My friend Will got to enjoy former President George Bush at his William & Mary commencement a few days later. Since then, William & Mary hasn't changed it's tradition of attracting legitimate commencement speakers. This year's speaker was Jon Stewart. His speech is a prime example of how to give a proper commencement address: relevant, entertaining, and insightful. I'd like to quote his speech in its entirety, but it's longer than would be reasonable to quote here. Read the complete speech; it's worth the time.

Relevant:

I know there were some parents that were concerned about my speech here tonight, and I want to assure you that you will not hear any language that is not common at, say, a dock workers union meeting, or Tourrett’s convention, or profanity seminar. Rest assured.

Entertaining:

Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it earlier, and I…I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don’t really know to put this, so I’ll be blunt. We broke it.

Please don’t be mad. I know we were supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we were handed. So, sorry.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the news lately, but it just kinda got away from us. Somewhere between the gold rush of easy internet profits and an arrogant sense of endless empire, we heard kind of a pinging noise, and uh, then the damn thing just died on us. So I apologize.

But here’s the good news. You fix this thing, you’re the next greatest generation, people. You do this—and I believe you can—you win this war on terror, and Tom Brokaw’s kissing your ass from here to Tikrit, let me tell ya. And even if you don’t, you’re not gonna have much trouble surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a naked guy pile of enemy prisoners and don’t give the thumbs up you’ve outdid us.

Insightful:

When I left William & Mary I was shell-shocked. Because when you’re in college it’s very clear what you have to do to succeed. And I imagine here everybody knows exactly the number of credits they needed to graduate, where they had to buckle down, which introductory psychology class would pad out the schedule. You knew what you had to do to get to this college and to graduate from it. But the unfortunate, yet truly exciting thing about your life, is that there is no core curriculum. The entire place is an elective. The paths are infinite and the results uncertain. And it can be maddening to those that go here, especially here, because your strength has always been achievement. So if there’s any real advice I can give you it’s this.

College is something you complete. Life is something you experience. So don’t worry about your grade, or the results or success. Success is defined in myriad ways, and you will find it, and people will no longer be grading you, but it will come from your own internal sense of decency which I imagine, after going through the program here, is quite strong…although I’m sure downloading illegal files…but, nah, that’s a different story.

Love what you do. Get good at it. Competence is a rare commodity in this day and age. And let the chips fall where they may.

That's the way to give a commencement address. Know your audience. They worked hard for many years to get one day of ceremony that will stand as the exclamation point on that experience. They'll remember you so send them on to the next phase of their lives well.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

There are two points of interest in yesterday's White House press briefing. First, while there may be a liberal bias in the media, the reporter repeatedly referred to "Stern's obscenities", as if everyone should find Howard Stern obscene.

Second, we're moving to a paternal state with the emphasis on a lone father figure as the standard, both moral and practical. This is bad.

Consider:

QUESTION: Thank you. Andrew Card impressively addressed this weekend's annual gathering in New York of 250 talk radio hosts, where there was considerable debate over the possibility that if Howard Stern is driven off the air for his many obscenities by the FCC fines, all of us could be driven off the air by the government for our political opinions. And my question: Can the White House give us assurance that our expressed political opinions, liberal or conservative, will never be treated like Stern's obscenities by any organization in the Bush administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I'm not going to try to speculate on something that's so -- so broad as what you're bringing up. Obviously, the President believes that there are certain standards of decency that should be adhered to.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. McCLELLAN: And we all have a responsibility to adhere to those standards.

QUESTION: But he would never let the FCC --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that if people violate those standards, they should be held accountable. And there are measures in place to hold people accountable.

QUESTION: Of course. But he would never allow the FCC to take action against any of us in talk radio for our political opinions, would he?

MR. McCLELLAN: In a general sense, no. But, again, you phrase that in a context of some standards that apparently violated some of the -- our standards of decency.

I don't have the warm fuzzies from this.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

My morning commute to the Metro is short. Out of the sub-division, turn right, turn right, turn right, turn left, turn left and I'm there. It takes approximately 7 minutes. 420 seconds. I thought that not much could happen in such a short time, but I learn something new every day.

To the driver of the SUV... I know your SUV proves that you don't care about the price of a gallon of gasoline, but you don't have to prove that you don't care about time. Green lights mean "Go". When I'm waiting behind your SUV in the future, please don't sit at the light until it turns yellow and then decide to drive off. I don't have your carefree attitude.

To the driver of the sports car... I know the light was only a green circle and not a green arrow, but "Yield" means to give way when there are cars zooming by in the other direction. No cars whizzing by is an indication that you can turn. Since I'm behind you in the same lane, I'm trying to turn as well. Please don't impede my way because you're afraid of cicadas buzzing by your window.

To the driver of the minivan... There is a speed limit in the parking garage and you're nowhere near it. Please consider pushing harder on the gas pedal, it'll help us all. As for your turn signal, have you ever seen a NASCAR driver use a turn signal during a race? I didn't think so. Do you know why? Because they're driving in a circle, just like we were this morning. The line of cars and the wall blocking left turns are solid indications that you'll be turning right. I don't need extra hints, but since you have a New York Mets license plate frame, I understand that you might.

Thank you.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Devin Balkcom taught a robot to fold paper. Better than just folding paper, the robot can do origami. This amazing feat will carry Devin Balkcom from Mister to Doctor upon his graduation from Carnegie Mellon University in August. It's a great accomplishment for him. Blah, blah, blah.

I'd like to focus on the brilliant writing in the news story. Apparently, the robot is smarter than anyone could've hoped. Read and comprehend:

Matthew Mason, a professor of computer science and robotics, thought building such a robot would be so daunting that he didn't encourage Devin Balkcom's plans to do so in January 2003. But today, Balkcom has a robot that can make paper airplanes and hats and is scheduled to earn his doctorate with the project in August.

Perhaps it's not a good idea to explain the achievements of a Really Smart Guy™ with an unclear sentence. Without deciphering to derive the intended meaning, the structure of the second sentence implies that the robot can do origami and, as a side note, will be earning a doctorate because of it. Pretty language and complex sentences are ideal for a novelist, but an Associated Press writer should not try to be a novelist before clarifying the facts. I would never discourage interesting writing, but it's journalism, so closer to Ernest Hemingway than Stephen King should be the goal. I'm just saying...

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

After a three week wait, last night was the season finale of Alias. As I've mentioned before, Alias is The Greatest Television Show Ever™. About last night's superb episode, consider this review from USA Today:

Fans may not get everything they want in the Alias season finale, but what they get, they'll like.

Alias lovers have learned to live with that compromise. No one episode will give all the answers to the show's multiple open questions — and even when we do get answers, they lead to more questions.

It's precisely that frustrating conundrum that makes Alias so spectacular. Unlike self-contained dramas that complete their storyline in 44 minutes every week, Alias is not afraid to engage the viewer's intellect, at the same time trusting in the delicious ecstasy of posing new questions at the end of an episode. For suspending disbelief, the viewer is rewarded. I could pose my own flowery language here, but the USA Today review says it perfectly:

...there's pleasure to be had in the overly layered plots, in the talented cast, and in the silly, old-fashioned joy the show takes in dressing star Jennifer Garner in outrageous outfits.

Last night did not disappoint. Besides the normal quotient of explosions, chaos, and misdirection, last night's episode set the stage for Season 4 with the same level of "Wait, what happened, I'm confused" that preceded Season 3. We're left hanging as the now hopefully deceased Lauren inflicts her last emotional wound upon Sydney. Sydney, sitting in a bank vault in Wittenberg, reads a Top Secret CIA folder implicating her father in some horrible secret. Jack walks into the room as she's beginning to cry. We aren't told what the horrible secret is, but we have enough confusion to leave us pondering until September.

If only it were that simple. I'd expected to spend the next four months re-watching Season 1, Season 2, and Season 3 on DVD in anticipation of the inevitable late-September premiere of Season 4. It was a good plan.

ABC is delaying the start of Season 4 until January. The only consolation is that the entire season will run over consecutive weeks. This is a significant improvement over the random off-weeks caused by such event worthy television as The Crappy World of Disney. But still... January? I have to wait eight months? Eight months? Feck, feck, feck, feck, feck. Unlike delicious ecstasy, that is a blunt trauma to my patience.

Of course, ABC knows it has me. It could delay Season 4 until January 2048 and I would tune in. But this does nothing to attract me to the rest of the ABC primetime lineup, particularly the early season fill-in that will occupy the 9pm slot on Sundays.

I guess Jim Belushi kicked Julian Sark's ass in a Disney cafeteria grudge match.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Explaining why the American judicial system is forcing renegade agendas upon America, Cal Thomas states his theory:

Cultural tsunamis, like those that begin under oceans, are caused by something deep within. When high water hits the shore, it is the result of a subterranean earthquake. When the state of Massachusetts last Monday (May 17) began offering marriage to people of the same sex, this "wave" was preceded by a seismic shift in the moral tectonic plates.

I doubt there's anyone who will disagree with that. A "seismic shift in the moral tectonic plates" is a straight-forward observation free of any judgment as to what those moral tectonic plates should be. His explanation is more interesting.

The shift from personal responsibility, accountability, putting the greater good before personal pleasure, affluence and "feelings," and what once was known as "the fear of God" began following World War II. Consumption and pleasure replaced self-control and acting on behalf of the general welfare.

How is denying same-sex marriage an issue of "putting the greater good before personal pleasure"? That statement from Mr. Thomas sounds like socialist propaganda. Because my neighbor doesn't like it, I shouldn't do something that will make me happy, something that does no harm? I know he's not making such a broad argument, but that's the way he's framed it. That's not democratic.

Equating Americans putting the greater good before personal pleasure is the same as "the fear of God"? America may be a "God-fearing" nation, but it can't be governed by "the fear of God". Civil law and religious law may cross paths, but it can't be by design. Some religious principles are stricter than any democratic society can demand.

America must adopt civil equality where necessary, but that doesn't mean everyone must partake of the new, renegade rights. As Mr. Thomas concludes, sometimes self-reflection is more appropriate than enforcing personal limitations on others.

"Pro family" groups have given it their best shot, but this debate is over. They would do better to spend their energy and resources building up their side of the cultural divide and demonstrating how their own precepts are supposed to work. Divorce remains a great threat to family stability, and there are far more heterosexuals divorcing and cohabiting than homosexuals wishing to "marry." If conservative religious people wish to exert maximum influence on culture, they will redirect their attention to repairing their own cracked foundation. An improved heterosexual family structure will do more for those families and the greater good than attempts to halt the inevitable. A topical solution does not cure a skin disease whose source is far deeper.

While I don't understand Mr. Thomas's use of quotations for the word "marry", since the same-sex marriages occurring in Massachusetts are as legal as heterosexual marriages, his desire for focusing on family stability rather than stopping what is going to continue happening is correct.

The beauty of America is that we can experiment with new public policy ideas. Some will fail, some will succeed, but the imperative and ability to improve is what makes our nation unique. Self-examination never hurt that endeavor.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

This just in from the presidential campaign:

John Kerry is considering delaying his acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination at the party's July convention so that he can keep spending the millions of dollars that he raised during the primaries...

When I read the headline, I figured that Kerry's campaign is setting itself up to be hammered by the media. After reading the facts, I still think his campaign will get hammered, but the facts reflect an election situation much different.

The Democratic Convention to nominate Kerry is scheduled for late July, with the Republican Convention occurring five weeks later. The implication is simple. President Bush can spend private funds for an extra five weeks. His $75 million in matching funds would only have to last for slightly more than two months. Kerry would need to make his $75 million last for three-and-a-half months. Delaying his official acceptance is reasonable. Consider:

"We are looking at this and many other options very seriously because we won't fight with one hand behind our back," Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Friday.

Cutter said other options being considered include having the Democratic National Committee or local and state Democratic parties raise money to support Kerry's candidacy. However, Kerry would not have control of much of the money raised by the party. By law, the DNC cannot coordinate more than roughly $16 million of spending with Kerry's campaign in the general election.

Time can change the money factor in this election, but less money could also lead to creative thinking for the Kerry campaign. Either way, it's an interesting development in this election.

I like the idea of being obvious in this decision. Play it correctly and it can lead the national debate into the influence of money in elections. Trying to hide the fact will lead to mistakes and negative public perceptions. Make the right decision, then explain it. That should make it into a non-issue.

Given what we expect from Senator Kerry, he'll make no decision until the end, then try to pretend like he didn't make a decision. This is going to be fucked up in some way. Thus, I link you to this: johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm old enough to be a Representative or a Senator. Nervous?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

If politics is the battle between parties, what is the battle within a party?

On Tuesday, Senator John McCain made the following comments, which may be the next step in driving him to be the V.P. choice on the Democratic ticket:

Lately more and more comment about how Republicans and Democrats can’t find any common ground and I myself have lamented on how nasty and partisan Washington has become. Well, I stand corrected, because there is one thing which unites Republicans and Democrats: Fiscal irresponsibility has become the great unifier of late, and for that we should all be ashamed.

I am a proud Republican. I’m a Barry Goldwater Republican. I revere Ronald Reagan and his party of limited government. Sadly, that party is no longer. The current version of the Republican party is engaged in an outrageous spending binge and they’re being steadied and encouraged by the Democrats. It used to be understood that no one ever voted for a Democrat to be a champion of fiscal responsibility. But at this point, is there a party to take up that worthy cause?

And...

My friends, we are at war. Throughout our history, wartime has been a time of sacrifice. At the beginning of the war I said it would be long and difficult, and would require a great deal of sacrifice on everyone’s part. But about the only sacrifice taking place is that by the brave men and women fighting to defend and protect the liberties we hold so dear, and that of their families.

It is time for others to step up and start sacrificing.

And...

The party that was long known to be the guardian of the treasury is now its routine raider.

I agree with him. We need to move past the idea of political party allegiance as the determiner of correct ideas. What Senator McCain is saying is that we need to rise above that. This isn't a call for rampant taxes, but a challenge to govern responsibly. It's a call for leadership.

In response to that, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert made the following comment:

If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure that they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong not only militarily but economically. We want to be able to have the flexibility to do it. That's my reply to John McCain.

The North Vietnamese held John McCain in a POW camp during the Vietnam War. I'm willing to give him a free pass on understanding sacrifice. I commend Senator McCain for his reply to Representative Hastert. He could've taken the bait to defend his military service, but he kept the debate on the true crux of the issue. Consider:

The speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops. All we are called upon to do is to not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility.

America needs leadership. We need someone who will stand up and take charge, someone willing to guide the national debate forward towards resolution. That resolution needs to be legitimate, real, and lasting. Instead, we have President Bush.

At a time when there is scandal and chaos, President Bush has been woefully absent from the public debate. He takes no public responsibility for the mistakes of his administration. He continues offering rhetoric on less important issues. He pretends that the world is fine amid a downward spiral of public opinion. None of this is leadership. What we get is a president who journeys to Capitol Hill to evoke the party line.

The hurriedly scheduled trip was designed to assuage the trepidation of lawmakers as they head back to their states and districts for the Memorial Day break.

"Our guys need this," a House Republican aide said. "They can go home and say, 'We met with the president. He has a vision. We know where he's going. We trust him. Don't believe what the media's telling you.'"

We shouldn't believe what the media tells us, but that's not because they're lying. We need to get past the "liberal bias" rhetoric that's incessant. The easiest way to do that is to think for ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't do that in America. It's too easy to see partisan lines and check our minds at the door of debate. Consider statements from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay about the acrimony over the current proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year:

"I can't believe that those three or four senators are going to bring down one of the best budgets we've ever seen over an issue that makes it difficult for Republicans to get tax relief."

Massive deficits and tax cuts aren't consistent with "one of the best budgets we've ever seen". Fiscal irresponsibility is painful. Republicans need to acknowledge that. For his refusal to bow to pressure from Republican heavyweights on an issue of national importance, he earns my applause.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Walking around in CVS yesterday, I searched for envelopes. Expecting to find nothing abnormal, I did a double take when I saw the sign in aisle 3.

I wonder what's for sale in aisle 6.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Verizon is a dinosaur in need of extinction.

Back in February, I was peeved at Sprint PCS for a bad policy that cost me money, so I switched. Figuring the service would be good, I decided on Verizon. After three days, realizing that it wasn't, I canceled my service and returned to Sprint. I had no idea what a challenge this would cause.

Shortly after I returned to Sprint, I received a "final" bill from Verizon. Besides the extra time I'd used beyond the rationed minutes I received, the bill included a $175 termination fee. I called Verizon to inform them that they needed to remove this because I'd had their service for three days, well under the 15 day limit to cancel. The representatives I spoke with agreed and said it would be removed. I agreed to pay the legitimate balance once I received a revised bill, adding a caveat that I wouldn't pay late fees because this was their mistake. They agreed.

Thirty days later, I received my revised bill. Amusingly, the amount due was the exact same value from the first bill. Another call was necessary, so I wasted time to correct their mistake. Again. The supervisor informed me that the representative noted the incorrect termination fee but failed to initiate the request to remove it from my account. No big deal. The supervisor and I agreed that the deal from thirty days earlier would carry forward for another month.

In April, guess what happened. Another bill arrived, with the same mistake repeated. Again I called Verizon. The representative I spoke with, Angela, acknowledged that the previous request had gone through, but that it would take 1 or 2 billing cycles.

I told her I understood, but only after I confirmed that my previous agreement was noted in my account. She said yes, that I didn't have to pay until I received my revised bill. Once again, I confirmed that no late fees would apply to my account. She said yes.

Sooooooooooo... This month, I didn't receive a bill. I received a letter that Verizon disconnected my cellular service for nonpayment. I laughed and set the letter aside for a few days. Last night, I called to clear up the matter. Forty-five minutes later, I knew the truth about Verizon. Verizon hates its customers.

The $175 termination fee was gone, but two $5 late fees were added. The financial account representative explained that the late fees were added because Verizon hasn't received payment from me. Duh. This started a vicious cycle, from which we never escaped.

I explained the last three months, which was useless because I gave the facts and spoke them intelligently. After much verbal sparring, the representative asked if he'd resolved my issue.

"Nope."

We repeated this cycle several more times. In the course of this waste of time, he informed me that the representatives I'd spoken with over the previous two months indicated in the notes to my account that I was told that my bill would include late fees. This is a lie.

Allow me to repeat that: two representatives of Verizon blatantly lied on my account. I made the obvious argument that I couldn't prove they were lying, until I came upon the wonderful strategy of tangling them in their inaccuracies. I commented that I had a piece of paper indicating that my account was terminated for nonpayment. That is an obvious fabrication, since I have Sprint bills confirming that I've had Sprint service with my number since February 11th. Verizon's response: I should "disregard that notice".

How convenient. When the data represents their position, ignoring the difference between data and facts, it counts. When it contradicts their position, I should disregard the information. Somehow I missed the lesson in business school that instructed me to abuse customers by patronizing them, lying on their accounts, and stealing their money whenever possible.

That explains why a customer is charged a $175 termination fee, regardless of how long they had service before canceling. Being a computer programmer, I know how simple it is to code software to prevent incorrect termination fees. The pseudo code would look something like this:

If (Termination Date - Activation Date) <= 15 Then

Termination Fee = 0

Else

Termination Fee = 175

End-if

That code would take approximately 4 nanoseconds to process each time an account is closed. But that didn't happen. There are inevitably customers who don't understand how the termination fee works and will pay it. They may mutter and curse the outrageous cost, but they'll pay it. Verizon earns an easy $175. That's the only explanation I can believe, given everything else I've learned about them from our conversations.

I now understand this to be Verizon's reality. Searching the Verizon website, I was amused when I found this speech. From Bob Stott, New England Region President for Verizon had a few interesting customer service ideas:

For example, a customer service representative might find that by entering customer information into the company's billing system in a certain way allows for a quicker transaction and more accurate information on the customer's bill.

"A certain way", indeed, Mr. Stott. But I don't want that to overshadow this nugget:

We are dedicated to first call resolution. That means when one of our customers calls with an issue it becomes our issue and we aim to satisfy the customer in that same call.

Forty-five minutes into my 4th call to Verizon, I knew I wouldn't get fair treatment, so I decided that I was done. Based on the termination for nonpayment letter and the honesty angle, I knew I'd won. The representative knew I'd won. That was enough for the call. Besides, I was hungry.

I'm going to pay the bill when it arrives, including the late fees. Even though I'm right, I'm not stupid enough to wreck my credit rating for this. However, Verizon will never receive another penny from me. I hope that's worth $10.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've written about the joy of the cuddlefeast. Whenever there is brief span of time without a cuddlefeast, my roommates take appropriate measures to compensate for the lack of entertaining. I appreciate this because it offers me minutes upon minutes of endless joy.

Seeing that my house had been without a cuddlefeast for many weeks, and seeing the joy that is this rare spring time on the East Coast, a cuddlefeast captured my imagination on Saturday night. I returned home around 9pm, after a sojourn to the movies to enjoy Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock's magnificent documentary about the atrocious food lifestyle Americans have embraced. As a vegan, I don't eat a McDiet. Yet, I don't believe McDonald's is solely responsible for fattening up Americans. They're definitely complicit in the task, but they're a business offering consumers a food choice. Many Americans are actively pursuing that choice. I didn't need a documentary to present the incredibly interesting foods that people will eat.

Cuddlefeasts almost always confirm this for me, since they're generally a five hour director's cut of Iron Chef. Saturday night elevated the art form to a new height. The highlight of the menu: cicadas.

Upon revealing this, one attendee asked if I'd care to join them. I declined. I've never participated in a cuddlefeast as anything other than an observer from the fringes since they're crowded and filled with meat. I should be more social, yet, even when I ate meat, I would never have joined in this one. That's foul.

Upon reaching my bedroom, I called Danielle. She has a rational hatred of all things cicada, so I knew she'd need to know. (As luck would have it, I had not yet been introduced to the nasty little fuckers, so my distaste for the idea of eating cicadas was merely intellectual. Sunday's gardening foray would unfortunately remedy that beyond repair.) She wanted me to ask many questions, but I knew that I didn't want to know the answers. I'm inquisitive, yet sometimes happily ignorant.

Ignorance is bliss. Sunday morning, I noticed something interesting in our refrigerator. I dared not ask what it might be, but I was compelled to take a picture. Just in case. Last night, I gathered my courage, against my better instinct, and asked. Sure enough, three layers of chocolate-cocooned cicadas.

What is wrong with these people? Don't they know that cicadas kill?!?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (6)

Yesterday, homosexuals legally married for the first time in Massachusetts. Just like heterosexual marriage, views of how to get hitched vary from couple to couple:

Many of the couples who obtained marriage licenses paid a fee to waive the normal three-day waiting period, and exchanged vows as quickly as feasible. Ceremonies ranged from brisk city-hall procedures to elaborate church weddings, complete with champagne, cake and bridesmaids.

Naturally, not everyone could keep quiet, even for one day, to wait for the impact of the weddings on society.

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges," said President Bush, renewing his support for a proposed constitutional ban that has been introduced in Congress.

And...

"The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage," said James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian lobbying group Focus on the Family.

At least President Bush and Dr. Dobson acknowledge their agenda. Fox News offers a wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach. Consider this article posted on its site, specifically the stunning way it zigs from here:

Some of Canada's religious leaders are worried about the recent passage of a national law that makes it illegal to advocate violence against gays and lesbians.

to here:

The definition of marriage — and whether to include same-sex couples — is exactly what Canada's Supreme Court will examine this fall.

in 222 words.

While I believe the idea of a mass liberal bias in "The Media" is ludicrous, I accept that some institutions have that. It's even fine in the editorial departments of media outlets. But responding to perceived liberal bias with conservative bias is equally absurd. The only way to defeat such a bias is with unbiased reporting. Fox News didn't write such an article; that article doesn't even adhere to coherence. Its author had an agenda and a 225 word limit.

Now that same-sex marriage is legal, pontificating on the validity of the marriages in Massachusetts is a waste. Nothing will change until at least 2006. Even then, if an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution passes, I suspect that the courts will be loathe to reverse existing marriages over fears that invalidating marriages would do more to damage America than same-sex marriage could ever do. As for a federal amendment, public opinion has already revealed that such a drastic constitutional change has no consensus.

In closing, I offer proof that faith in the administration will pay off. It's inconceivable, but consider Bono's quote while giving the commencement speech at the University of Pennsylvania:

"The FCC has taught me a lesson," the 44-year-old rocker said Monday, referring to the Federal Communications Commission's declaration that an expletive he used on last year's Golden Globe Awards broadcast was indecent and profane.

God bless America.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Saturday, I decided it was finally time to hack up the overgrowth of plant life in my back yard. With this in mind, I went to Smith & Hawken and bought a very cool Folding Saw to make my job easier. This morning, when I attacked my back yard, the Folding Saw worked beautifully.

What I'd forgotten, since I haven't "gardened" in a long time, is the emotional benefit of industrious work's solitude. I was able to relax and forget the world for a few hours, which was tremendous. Communing with nature made me feel almost as if I went to church today.

Looking for information for this post, I cam across the concept of Pantheism, which is defined as:

Any doctrine, philosophy, or religious practice that holds universe [cosmos], taken or conceived of as the totality of forces and/or matter, is synonymous with the theological principle of God.

I'm not prescribing this as a concept, nor am I going to adopt this and and become weird. Veganism is all the weirdness the world needs from me. But I think it's fascinating that there are people compelled to slap a label on communing with nature. As a concept, it's great, but a label? Fascinating.

Assuming a predisposition to wrap myself in this label, this would be my altar.

After my experience, I do believe there is validity to the concept. Throughout my life, I've always thought the idea of Satan to be utterly ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I base my beliefs on what makes sense to me and that concept does violence to my intellect.

Yet, two hours of yardwork convinced me that I'm wrong. Why, you may ask? It's simple. I saw my first cicadas today and only Satan could create something as vile and evil.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

According to this article, police in Garland, Texas arrested 34 people and charged them with "riot participation/aggravated assault/serious bodily injury, a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison." The fight was organized on the internet and subsequently videotaped.

I obviously haven't seen the fight, so I don't care about the details. My focus of entertainment here is two-fold. First, criminals are stupid. It's almost universally understood that when two or more suspects commit a crime, they will videotape it. Note to criminals: your ego is not your best friend.

Second, I could not pass up this gem. I had to read it more than once to fully comprehend the essence of the statement.

Diana Rodriguez said her husband, Garland High senior Daniel Moncilla, didn't hit anyone.

No explanation needed, that's outstanding.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

In interesting technology/business news today, Yahoo announced that it plans to increase to 100 megabytes the amount of free e-mail storage it offers to its consumers. This comes at a time of great strategic advances by Yahoo in the face of competition. From Yesterday's meeting with Wall Street analysts:

And throughout the daylong meeting, set a self-assured Yahoo CEO Terry Semel tone by insisting the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company feeds on competitive threats.

Without mentioning names, Semel made veiled references to longtime rivals Microsoft and AOL, as well as "one or two" upcoming companies.

After acknowledging that these companies have become major players in some Internet segments, Semel cautioned Yahoo's foes.

"My advice is to beware," Semel said. "All we want to do is win. It's the only thing that excites us."

Define winning. Is it offering extra e-mail storage? Is it having the most consumers? I know... perhaps it's STEALING THE MOST MONEY FROM IT'S CONSUMERS! I've said "consumer" throughout this post because Yahoo does not treat people as customers. If it did, then it wouldn't have stolen $14.85 from me. If it did, it would have returned more than $4.95 when I proved that it stole from me. If it did, its consumers wouldn't have to call three times to have only one-third of the heist returned.

Focusing on the main point that Yahoo had to offer, this is the fact that should be highlighted:

The change, which will become effective this summer, is being made six weeks after Google unveiled an e-mail service that will offer each account 1,000 megabytes of free storage.

Now consider this statement:

"We will continue to lead and not follow," said Dan Rosensweig, Yahoo's chief operating officer. "We know where the Internet is going."

I love that new definition of leading. Provide 10% of your competitor's offer six weeks later and the industry will cower. "Bow before us, oh ye gods of competition, we are leaders! We are Yahoo!"

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

1. I hate war.
2. War is rarely justified.
3. When justified, it must be undertaken.
4. When undertaken, it is a necessary evil.
5. Because it's a necessary evil, only victory will suffice.
6. Victory is measured by permanently stopping the instigators.
7. Stopping the instigators must be viewed through the eyes of justice.
8. The eyes of justice do not seek vengeance.
9. Vengeance creates mistakes.
10. Mistakes transform victory into failure.
11. Failure is unacceptable.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Over the last week, I've been trying to sort out my thoughts on the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. It clearly hurts our self-imposed image as "the good guys". While I don't feel obliged to discuss the abuse directly, since the evidence speaks for itself, it's abhorrent to our national values and ideals. No "moral" society would allow this to happen. But I'm realistic enough to understand that no society will proceed in any significant endeavor without mistakes. The true nature of a society is its response to its mistakes. In this we're failing miserably.

Specifically, our president is failing. He's reacting to this situation as if we should be content that the abuse was uncovered and the guilty will be prosecuted. That is part of the solution, but pretending like this isn't a big issue is wrong.

If President Bush or others in his administration permitted the abuse, they are responsible and vile. If no one in President Bush's administration knew of the abuse, they are responsible and incompetent. Neither truth is comforting. While President Bush will continue to push the war on terror forward, we have no evidence to believe that he can change his style of governing.

Despite this scandal, we should not capitulate to terrorists. Some will say we are no better than the terrorists we claim to fight. They are wrong. Terrorists will continue to use any reason available, no matter how twisted, to justify their agenda. However, until we prove that we are willing to admit and correct our mistakes, we make it more difficult for our allies to support us unconditionally. This is a pivotal moment in our fight for the world's freedom. We must act honorably.

Based on this need, I do not believe that this administration is the right one to lead us into the future. I don't base my opinion on the Republican vs. Democrat difference because it is beyond party differences. This is a leadership issue. President Bush and officials in his administration are demonstrating their fundamental lack of leadership skills in the world of 2004. Sometimes forceful, unilateral action is appropriate. When it's not, that leaves diplomacy. This administration has shown that it lacks diplomacy, which is why the Republican Party must rid itself of the Bush-Cheney re-election ticket.

I'm intelligent enough to know that such a reversal will never happen. After the 13 nanoseconds it took me to come to that conclusion, I shifted to what might be a workable solution. As I've written before, the best possibility for America is a Kerry-McCain ticket for the presidency.

My opinion hasn't changed, I still think this is a brilliant solution. Yet, I know my ideas do not usually gel with everyone else. Much to my surprise, though, Andrew Sullivan reiterated this same idea in an article for The National Review. I'm not sure I agree with the loss of confidence in the Kerry candidacy that Mr. Sullivan claims, but he's following the campaign closer than I am, so I'm willing to give him some slack on this for now. Rather than try to write my own version of why this is a great idea, I'll offer a few highlights from the article. He clarifies everything I've been thinking, but haven't put into words. Rather than waste time re-writing what's already written, I'll let the idea stand in place of my originality.

Mr. Sullivan's main argument:

Here's why. There is no one better suited in the country to tackle a difficult war where the United States is credibly accused of abusing prisoners than John McCain. He was, after all, a victim of the worst kind of prisoner torture imaginable in the Hanoi Hilton. His military credentials are impeccable but so are his moral scruples and backbone; that's a rare combination. As a vice-presidential candidate, he would allow Kerry to criticize the conduct of the war and occupation, but also to pursue them credibly. He would give Kerry credibility on national defense, removing the taint of an "antiwar" candidacy headed by a man who helped pioneer the antiwar forces during Vietnam. He would ensure that a Kerry victory would not be interpreted by America's allies or enemies as a decision to cut and run from Iraq.

In office, McCain could be given real authority as a war-manager, providing a counterweight to Kerry's penchant for U.N.-style non-solutions. There's a precedent for such a powerful vice-president who could not credibly be believed to have designs on the Oval Office himself: Dick Cheney. Why no credible ambitions for the presidency himself? If McCain agreed to run with Kerry, he would also have to agree to support Kerry for possible reelection. There's no way that McCain could credibly run for president in eight years' time--as a Democrat or as a Republican. So he could become for Kerry what Cheney has been for Bush: a confidant, a manager, a strategic mind, a guide through the thicket of war-management. But he could also be more for Kerry: He could be a unifying force in the country in the dark days ahead.

Whatever your opinion, read the article in its entirety. Mr. Sullivan offers an interesting perspective on the "national government" idea, commonly found in times of crisis in parliamentary democracies. It's an important, unique approach to our election at this critical moment and worth your consideration.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Saturday afternoon, I attended my 11-year-old brother's baseball game. Few people knew at the time, but the first base umpire experienced chest pains during the game. He chose to continue in spite of the pain. In the bottom of the second inning, he had a heart attack.

I did not see him collapse. I'd walked away from my seat for a few moments, since my brother had already batted in the top of the second. I walked no more than 15 feet to join my mom in conversation. Looking back at the field, I noticed the umpire on the ground. At the same time, the coaches were beginning to recognize the situation. Several people rushed to his side and immediately realized the grave nature of his condition. Frantic attempts to reach 911 began. One parent in the crowd is a cardiac nurse, so she ran to his aide. Everyone else stood, dazed and frozen.

Not being near him, the rest of the crowd didn't know what was happening. Within moments, the nurse began CPR on him.

One of the parents and I ran to the field. As he raced to the umpire's side to help, I gathered the remaining kids still on the field and instructed them to go to the dugout. A few walked slowly, still gazing in mortified curiosity. I turned them toward the dugout and ordered them to go. I followed behind them. Once they were in, I blocked the entrance to the field. Later, when the ambulance arrived, some of the kids wanted to look and started for the dugout exit. I blocked their exit.

I don't tell this story to gain admiration. I don't have CPR skills, so I was no direct help to the umpire. I regret my one failure to act. I had the notion that we should get the kids out of the dugout and away from the scene. They didn't need to see what was happening, but I didn't act quickly enough and those kids saw what they didn't need to see. My brother was one of those kids, so that regret will linger with me.

I tell this story because I want to highlight something wonderful. In the midst of tragedy, regular people stepped up to help a man in trouble. No one overstepped their skills because a man's life was involved, but everyone did what they could to give him his best chance to live. No one wasted time delegating authority. No one asked permission to help. People saw a need and did what was necessary. Even when some in the crowd exhibited callous behavior during the crisis, the greater will stopped it with a stern look of intent.

Before the paramedics could take him from the field to a hospital, he died.

...

I've accepted the reality that I watched a man die. Though the change is small, I will never be the same.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

A month ago, I wrote about Lemonade Stories, a new documentary airing at 9pm tonight on CNNfn. Thanks to a generous gift from Ms. Mazzio, I watched the film last night. My original anticipation was rewarded.

The film is broken into segments with each entrepreneur and his or her mother spotlighted. I expected to sit through the early segments, hoping the film would get to Richard Branson quicker. During the opening segment with Arthur Blank, the co-founder of The Home Depot, I forgot that Richard Branson was in the film.

The concept is simple, straightforward, and worthwhile. Ultimately, the lesson each of these entrepreneurs has learned from mom is the inner spark we should all yearn to grasp: the unyielding longing to be themselves and the willingness to accept nothing else. But here's the shocking revelation that I think defines why they're successful. They're willing to fight through the times when they don't know who they are. And who is there to support them? You guessed it... mom.

This is particularly true of the stories of Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic and Tom Scott, co-founder of Nantucket Nectars. I'm not going to tell those stories here because you should watch the film. But there is an important lesson for every would-be and budding entrepreneur, offered by Mr. Scott. From the film, here is the lesson in his words:

"We do our case study at Harvard Business School and by the end they'll say, 'Well, these guys are really smart because they didn't focus on supermarkets, they flew under the radar of Coke and Pepsi'. But it's all B.S. cause I was there and I know what happened. Everything that they said that we did intelligently, we tried the other way and failed."

My guess is that there are very few entrepreneurs who willingly strike out to break every rule. Entrepreneurs don't try new businesses if they don't intend to break some rules. That's the nature of entrepreneurship. But it's the rare lunatic who sets out to make the task as hard as possible.

Success seems logical in hindsight, but in the moment, the decisions aren't easy. Mr. Scott and Mr. First knew that distribution would be the key to their business. The obvious answer is to sell to supermarkets and let them worry about distribution to the final location. Safeway, Piggly Wiggly, and Kroger are the experts, so that's the way to go. But Nantucket Nectars isn't Coke and Pepsi. This next quote from Paul Hawken's book Growing a Business describes what I suspect Nantucket Nectars discovered when they couldn't get into supermarkets:

The unpredicted is the gap between perception and reality. The unpredicted is your best toehold on reality because it is from these events that don't "go right" that you can discover what is really happening with your business.

Coke and Pepsi are commodity beverages. Nantucket Nectars' products aren't commodity beverages now. They would only discover this through actions and mistakes. And the company is wildy successful because of their persistence in the face of failure. As the film shows, every featured entrepreneur's persistence comes from mom.

As a teenager, my first business venture was delivering newspapers. I shared a route with my brother for the now-defunct evening paper in Richmond, Va. We continued this sharing until a second route opened in our neighborhood. I took this route, while my brother maintened the original. We shared expenses and profits, treating the two routes as a single entity to achieve economies of scale. We couldn't have defined economies of scale if we'd heard the term, but we'd focused on our experience to understand the concept.

After we worked out delivery efficiency on the combined routes, we absorbed a third route. After a few months, we "divested" ourselves of the third route. We had customers who refused to pay, in addition to juvenile harassment from some of the neighborhood kids. (I'm a redhead... harassment is a fact of life.) Our initial analysis had told us that we'd build our empire further, but we were wrong.

Who was behind us, supporting this venture? Mom. (You thought I'd lost my focus, didn't you?) On a day-to-day basis, my brother and I had it under control. We never had to borrow money to keep going, since a newspaper route isn't capital intensive, but at 13, we couldn't do everything.

When it rained, newspapers had to be bagged. This doesn't seem too tedious since we got out of school at 3pm, but in the rain, our supply of newspapers usually arrived late. The newspapers had to be delivered by a set time, which I don't remember. If they weren't delivered on time, our customers could call the newspaper to complain. Each complaint cost us 25 cents. We only made pennies per day for each newspaper, so we couldn't afford complaints. A few would destroy our profits for the month and that would mean fewer Garbage Pail Kids. (We were 13. Reinvesting was a foreign concept.) Guess who was there to help bag the papers? If the delivery was especially late, guess who was there to drive us on our routes? I even remember a few instances of riding in the back of her station wagon, tossing papers onto porches in the snow.

My mom never asked for anything in return. She never complained that she'd already worked a full day. She let us know we could get the job done, but on the occasions when we needed help, she'd be there. I can never repay that. My only response is gratitude.

At a time when there is significant discussion about family values, I can think of no better way to celebrate a mother's impact than Lemonade Stories. The stories in the film are riveting and diverse, but the common theme is the same. Family values aren't defined by Disney movies, Chutes and Ladders, and freshly-baked cookies. Family values can come in the form of a swearing mother who teaches her children to believe in themselves and to strive for self-defined success. That's a lesson I can live with.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Isn't America great? Thanks to voluminous objections, even a lumbering, stupid organization like Major League Baseball can be forced to not do what it should've had the sense not to do. Baseball has backed off its idiotic plan to put Spider-Man 2 logos on bases during games.

Well, slip a run in the old hand-operated scoreboard for the "purists." Those prim guardians of the game scored one yesterday when baseball's marketing geniuses decided it wouldn't be such a neat idea after all to sell advertising space on the bases for some games this season.

Baseball had asked teams to use bases with Spider-Man 2 logos during the games of June 11-13, a bit of cross-promoting that was supposed to hype a forthcoming movie and, major-league officials hoped, induce young fans to look up from their video games and pay attention to baseball for a moment.
...
They didn't figure on the purists, however, and their outcry that the game was being defiled. Baseball's front office is capable of missing the obvious, but always willing to go in full retreat when necessary. So, no ads in fair territory for the time being. The on-deck circles, maybe. In the stands, you can still count on it.

Allow me to pause here and show you the original proposed base:

Now that we see how stupid the bases would've looked, let's consider a statement from our friend Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's chief operating officer:

"The bases were an extremely small part of this program," said Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer. "However, we understand that a segment of our fans was uncomfortable with this particular component and we do not want to detract from the fan's experience in any way."

That is PR nonsense. "A segment of our fans" means approximately 80%, according to most polls I saw over the previous 48 hours. As for "not wanting to detract from the fan's experience", I'm not going to debate that. Optimistically, I hope that's true. But I suspect that Major League Baseball doesn't realize that it's opinion and my opinion of the "fan's experience" differ. Significantly. Such is life, of course.

Which leads me to examine this statement:

"We listened to the fans," said Geoffrey Ammer, president of worldwide marketing for the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group. "We never saw this coming, the reaction the fans had. It became a flashpoint — the reaction was overwhelming."

"We don't want to do anything that takes away from a fan's enjoyment of the game," he said. "Some people thought it was a great idea, but others saw it as sacrilegious."

Ammer said his group approached baseball about pulling the bases promotion.

"We could easily solve it," he said.

So who is the baseball purity savior who pulled the plan? This is just like when police arrest two suspects alleged to be working together. They separate them to see if their stories match. It seems to me that the stories don't match. Good planning, guys.

For a historical perspective, the article's author contacted the Baseball Hall of Fame:

Baseball's Hall of Fame said it could find no records of ads ever appearing on bases during games.

Hey, what do you know... It seems the fans know tradition more than the executives.

But it's not about tradition, is it? It's about helping smaller-market teams compete against larger-market teams. When that happens, the dollar outweighs the sanctity. It's good for baseball if the Pirates and the Royals don't have to hide from the Dodgers and the Yankees. So why am I still not convinced? Perhaps this clarifies the problem:

There is some entertainment value in the whole commercialism hubbub, although not necessarily what baseball and the movie people intended.

It is highly amusing, for instance, given all the game's economic woes, that large-market teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox stood to make more money from the Spider-Man deal than the small-market teams that host games the same weekend. If the Yankees had complied with all the requests for "brand exposure," the club would have been paid about $125,000. Pluggers like the Cleveland Indians could have pulled in only about $50,000.

Major League Baseball has other options. I suspect that Oakland A's outfielder Billy McMillon is a brilliant prognosticator of the future:

"I just wonder where this leads to. Will it be the Bad News Bears with Chico's Bail Bonds on the back of our uniforms?" he said.

"I understand revenue, but I didn't think it would invade baseball. I never thought it would come to this. They're wise not to put it on our uniforms."

Not all players thought it was a bad idea. Consider this statement by Minnesota Twins outfielder Torii Hunter:

"It's for kids, and kids love it," he said. "It would have been cool to see the Spider-Man logo for those three days. Kids could have worn their Spider-Man gear to the stadium."

I agree that baseball should be focused on kids and getting them interested in the game. They're the heart of what the game is about; even the 40-year-old men playing the game are still being kids between the foul lines. But I don't think kids wearing Spider-Man costumes to the stadium should be the goal of Major League Baseball. I enjoy seeing kids wearing baseball uniforms at the stadium. That's embracing the spirit of the game. If kids want Spider-Man logos and costumes, they'll go to an amusement park.

Funny concept, I know, but I think we can stick with it for a little while longer.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I dreamed last night that I saw David Anders at a rest area in Delaware.

Anyone who reads RollingDoughnut.com knows that I would love this if it actually happened. Why? Because David Anders portrays Sark on THE GREATEST TELEVISION SHOW EVER. Besides being completely random, this would be a spectacular opportunity to let him know how much Sark rules. That would be awesome!

But the dream became a nightmare when I realized that I drove off without speaking to him. Thankfully, I would never let that happen in real life. If only this would happen...

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

After an unexpected break in the action, I now return you to my regularly scheduled outrage. Thank you for being patient.

-----------------------------------

This news article from ESPN.com disturbs me. I've written about my love of baseball. Enough so that I suspect everyone can decipher how I'm going to feel about this prospect: (I'm a level-headed person, so I'm not reacting just to react. Seriously. Stop laughing.)

As part of a marketing alliance between Major League Baseball Properties, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios, webbed logos of the upcoming film "Spider-Man 2" will appear on bases and on-deck circles in 15 stadiums of teams playing host to interleague games June 11-13.

I enjoyed Spider-Man. I've seen previews of Spider-Man 2 and I'm sure I'm going to enjoy it. However, I've also been to baseball games and I know I enjoy that without advertisements on the bases.

There are ads all around stadiums. Stadium names are ads. Every empty space in the stadium has a logo slapped on it. There are even ads on the outfield walls. It's no secret that sports fans are saturated with information overload to the point of ignoring the advertising. That doesn't mean Major League Baseball should inundate us with more logos so that we "participate" as consumers.

The announcement Wednesday comes a day after presidential candidate Ralph Nader called the placement of Ricoh logos on the uniform and helmets of players during the season-opening series between the Yankees and Devil Rays in Tokyo "a greedy new low."

I thought the same thing when I watched the season-opening series from Tokyo. I didn't wake up at 5am to see logos on the players' uniforms. I don't want to see logos when I watch Jim Thome touch second base on a home run trot. Major League Baseabll isn't Nascar. There has to be some sanctity to the history of the game. But all is not lost... Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's president and chief operating officer, attempted to ease my fears.

"This is not a step toward wallpapering the ballpark."

I don't believe that. This is just the next step and any reasonable person has to assume that.

Never fret, though, because Mr. DuPuy has the perfect response to the purists:

"This does nothing to impact the play of the game," DuPuy said. "The base doesn't know that it has a corporate name on it, nor does the foot that hits the base."

But the dollar wins every vote between purity and prosperity. It's easiest to think short-term, with no thought given to respecting the game, respecting the players, and respecting the fans. This makes sense, thanks to the $100,000+ that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox will receive. They buy Alex Rodriquez, so I have to see Spider-Man 2 while eating my $4.50 fries and $3.50 bottle of water.

Finally, consider this logical quote from Geoffrey Ammer, president of worldwide marketing for the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group:

"This is the perfect alliance between two quintessential national pastimes -- baseball and movie-going."

I know whenever I think of the Phillies, my next thought is "Holy crap! I can't wait to go to the movies!" If the "perfect alliance" really wants to do something interesting, put video screens in the back of seats and show movies during the game. Wait, nix that idea. With seatback video screens, we'll just get 3 hours of commercials. Instead, I think I'll just watch the game.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here at RollingDoughnut.com, I take great pride in being open 24 hours-a-day. It's a great service I provide, because I'm nice that way. But it's made possible by the Internet. The Internet rules.

Despite my generosity, I don't follow the 24 hours-a-day policy. As much as I'd like to bill clients for 24 hours each day, they wouldn't like it. Besides... it would be highly unprofessional to sleep at my desk. So, out of my sense of decency, I work 8 hours per day, Monday thru Friday, totaling the standard 40 hours per week.

Since it's not a brilliant selling point, I leave my work hours out of my marketing literature. I don't even post my hours anywhere. I have no storefront, no office building, no anything. I could post a sign in the grass, I guess, but that would be littering.

What's the point of this? It's ok, I know you're asking yourself that very question right now. Allow me to continue.

As a busy person, like most people, I like the arrival of weekends, since I can relax a little. No early bedtime. No work preparation. No worries. It's great to have a change of pace. The best part is, since it's not a "school night", some businesses keep different hours on Friday and Saturday than the rest of the week. Specifically, restaurants keep different hours. For the working man.

This past weekend, wanting to revel in sleeping late on Saturday, Danielle and I got a late dinner at Chicken Out. I was so overjoyed at their hours of operation, I took a picture of the door:

Brilliant! I can't believe I didn't think of it! On Friday and Saturday, let's get a little crazy and close at 9 PM instead of 9:00 PM. As a service to all the night owls! Wowwee!

New policy in effect for my business, effective this week: Monday - Thursday, I go home at 5:30 PM, but on Fridays, I'm not outta here until Threeve O'Clock. You're welcome.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)