There are two episodes to go. Christopher has left us, to join Adriana in the great beyond. Who else is going to die?
Meadow is the only innocent Soprano, so either she will survive because of that, or if they go for the meaningless of life approach, she will buy the farm and the others will survive.
There is talk of a Sopranos movie, so I would be surprised if Gandolfini gets offed, but maybe he gets killed and AJ takes over, a la The Godfather.
Silvio could carry a spin-off if they ever wanted to do that and he is generally portrayed sympathetically, so I doubt he dies. AJ would need him as consigliere.
Carmela is worse than Tony. I say off her.
Bobby is sort of good, so he will survive, but Janice will leave him to market Christian contemporary music with her former born-again narcoleptic boyfriend and her son, Harpo. Leotardo will definitely die, unless they are thinking of a movie.
I think Paulie Walnuts will die. Junior will live but still be stuck in the asylum.
I mean it is kind of funny, because who thinks of the Jersey mob being able to take on one of the Five Families, although the New York mob families aren't what they used to be. It would be an interesting twist to see the entire Soprano crime family rubbed out, to let us know that we have spent 9 years and 7? seasons watching minor league gangsters. (What mob boss bets the standard spread? I thought that was just for dirty cops).
I know I am hedging my bets but I am still hoping for either a movie or a spin-off.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Health, Science, Lies and Truth: The Nanny State and Demon Rum
Health, Science, Lies and Truth: The Nanny State and Demon Rum
One of the somewhat distressing trends in American society over the last 30 years is an apparent increase in the level of what I will call "busybody nannyism." It is a favorite hobby by both the right and the left, although they differ in what they want to control, either by overt messages or legislative penalties.
People on the left tend to worry a lot about people eating things that are bad for them and about commercials that our children watch and certainly tobacco.
People on the right worry about people looking at too many pictures of naked people, although looking at pictures of dead naked people may be O.K. with them. Tobacco doesn't bother them so much, but marijuana and other drugs tend to put people on the right into fits and conniptions. (perhaps such pleasurable conniptions that people on the right don't need to use illegal drugs?--just a hypothesis).
Alcohol is probably hated by both the right and the left. Certainly, it is the greatest killer of all ingested mood-altering substances. But one thing that is particularly distressing about the American approach to dissuade people from drinking(as well as marijuana) is that it is often based upon providing people, and minors in particular, with either misleading or outright false information.
With respect to marijuana, the Bush administration states over and over that it is one of the most dangerous drugs of all and that this is proven by the fact that more people seek treatment for marijuana dependence than any other drug. This may be true, but the Bush people neglect to point out that virtually all of the treatment is court-ordered for people who would end up in jail otherwise. Their little statistic is not very impressive once one understands (as any criminal defense attorney can tell you) the true workings behind it.
Getting back to alcohol, the connumdrum is that alcohol appears to be healthful in restricted amounts, but it is unclear exactly what amounts constitute excessive use. American doctors tend to recommend no more than 1-2 units for women and no more than 2-3 units for men. Surprisingly, or rather, not surprisingly, governments in France and Europe tend to recommend the larger amount of no more than 3-5 units for men.
In terms of weekly recommendations, when compared to the countries most like the U.S., which are probably Canada, New Zealand and Australia, these nations have recommendations from 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the American recommendation for weekly consumption.
Even worse, the United States, together with several of the other nations that flirted with prohibition during the last century, flatly lies to women regarding the reasonably anticipated dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy and recommends total abstinence during pregnancy. Only the UK and Australia provide women with recommendations regarding drinking alcohol during pregnancy, which are based upon science. The Australian recommendation is no more than 2 per day for pregnant women and no more than 7 per week.
Here is the reality:
The American College of Obstreticians and Gynecologists concludes that "there is no evidence that an occasional drink is harmful. Women who drink heavily throughout pregnancy may have smaller babies with physical and mental handicaps, but women who drink moderately may have babies with no more problems than those women who drink rarely or not at all."
This group of medical specialists points out that "It's hard to determine the amount and timing of alcohol consumption that puts the fetus at risk. One study shows that women who drank only occasionally and moderately (described in this particular study as between 1 and 45 drinks spaced out over a month) had babies with no more problems than those women who drank rarely or not at all. There were no differences either in size or nmber of babies' handicaps bwtween the women who drank moderately and those who abstained or drank likely."
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FetalAlcoholSyndrome.html
Most of the children affected by FAS in the United States come from either African-American or Native American households and the condition was caused by drinking patterns far, far in excess of the stated recommendations, truly by a pattern that most people would characterize as chronic alchoholism. http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html
Alcohol is not, unlike say LSD or cocaine, a substance without a long history of human use. When taken to clear excess, it can result in blood poisoning, violent behavior, severally impaired coordination and cirrhosis of the liver. Women who become pregnant and who are chronic alcoholics run a heightened risk of delivering a child with FAS.
Nevertheless, alcohol has been prevalent in virtually every culture for thousands of years. It has nutritional value, particularly when consumed in the form of dark beer or red wines and is certainly here to stay. Given this reality, it seems that the more honest and prudent approach is to provide Americans with correct and accurate information, based upon science, not upon prohibition.
I will post a link below to the book, the French Paradox, which has some interesting viewpoints about the scientific studies done thus far. In a nutshell, it can be argued that the current daily recommended units could be almost doubled without harmful health effects. Second, there is an interesting hypothesis that alcohol only begins to cause damage to the human organism after someone reaches a blood alcohol content of .046. If correct, a person could conceivably drink far more units per day safely, provided he allowed his blood alchol content to wane before ingesting more. Two glasses of red wine at lunch, followed by two glasses at dinner and one after-dinner drink could conceivably be harmless, even healthful, given the beneficial substances contained in red wine.
http://www.french-paradox.net/fpbkch7.html
One of the somewhat distressing trends in American society over the last 30 years is an apparent increase in the level of what I will call "busybody nannyism." It is a favorite hobby by both the right and the left, although they differ in what they want to control, either by overt messages or legislative penalties.
People on the left tend to worry a lot about people eating things that are bad for them and about commercials that our children watch and certainly tobacco.
People on the right worry about people looking at too many pictures of naked people, although looking at pictures of dead naked people may be O.K. with them. Tobacco doesn't bother them so much, but marijuana and other drugs tend to put people on the right into fits and conniptions. (perhaps such pleasurable conniptions that people on the right don't need to use illegal drugs?--just a hypothesis).
Alcohol is probably hated by both the right and the left. Certainly, it is the greatest killer of all ingested mood-altering substances. But one thing that is particularly distressing about the American approach to dissuade people from drinking(as well as marijuana) is that it is often based upon providing people, and minors in particular, with either misleading or outright false information.
With respect to marijuana, the Bush administration states over and over that it is one of the most dangerous drugs of all and that this is proven by the fact that more people seek treatment for marijuana dependence than any other drug. This may be true, but the Bush people neglect to point out that virtually all of the treatment is court-ordered for people who would end up in jail otherwise. Their little statistic is not very impressive once one understands (as any criminal defense attorney can tell you) the true workings behind it.
Getting back to alcohol, the connumdrum is that alcohol appears to be healthful in restricted amounts, but it is unclear exactly what amounts constitute excessive use. American doctors tend to recommend no more than 1-2 units for women and no more than 2-3 units for men. Surprisingly, or rather, not surprisingly, governments in France and Europe tend to recommend the larger amount of no more than 3-5 units for men.
In terms of weekly recommendations, when compared to the countries most like the U.S., which are probably Canada, New Zealand and Australia, these nations have recommendations from 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the American recommendation for weekly consumption.
Even worse, the United States, together with several of the other nations that flirted with prohibition during the last century, flatly lies to women regarding the reasonably anticipated dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy and recommends total abstinence during pregnancy. Only the UK and Australia provide women with recommendations regarding drinking alcohol during pregnancy, which are based upon science. The Australian recommendation is no more than 2 per day for pregnant women and no more than 7 per week.
Here is the reality:
The American College of Obstreticians and Gynecologists concludes that "there is no evidence that an occasional drink is harmful. Women who drink heavily throughout pregnancy may have smaller babies with physical and mental handicaps, but women who drink moderately may have babies with no more problems than those women who drink rarely or not at all."
This group of medical specialists points out that "It's hard to determine the amount and timing of alcohol consumption that puts the fetus at risk. One study shows that women who drank only occasionally and moderately (described in this particular study as between 1 and 45 drinks spaced out over a month) had babies with no more problems than those women who drank rarely or not at all. There were no differences either in size or nmber of babies' handicaps bwtween the women who drank moderately and those who abstained or drank likely."
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FetalAlcoholSyndrome.html
Most of the children affected by FAS in the United States come from either African-American or Native American households and the condition was caused by drinking patterns far, far in excess of the stated recommendations, truly by a pattern that most people would characterize as chronic alchoholism. http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html
Alcohol is not, unlike say LSD or cocaine, a substance without a long history of human use. When taken to clear excess, it can result in blood poisoning, violent behavior, severally impaired coordination and cirrhosis of the liver. Women who become pregnant and who are chronic alcoholics run a heightened risk of delivering a child with FAS.
Nevertheless, alcohol has been prevalent in virtually every culture for thousands of years. It has nutritional value, particularly when consumed in the form of dark beer or red wines and is certainly here to stay. Given this reality, it seems that the more honest and prudent approach is to provide Americans with correct and accurate information, based upon science, not upon prohibition.
I will post a link below to the book, the French Paradox, which has some interesting viewpoints about the scientific studies done thus far. In a nutshell, it can be argued that the current daily recommended units could be almost doubled without harmful health effects. Second, there is an interesting hypothesis that alcohol only begins to cause damage to the human organism after someone reaches a blood alcohol content of .046. If correct, a person could conceivably drink far more units per day safely, provided he allowed his blood alchol content to wane before ingesting more. Two glasses of red wine at lunch, followed by two glasses at dinner and one after-dinner drink could conceivably be harmless, even healthful, given the beneficial substances contained in red wine.
http://www.french-paradox.net/fpbkch7.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Hell
After considered thought, research and contemplation, it appears difficult to find much biblical textual support for the doctrine of Hell. Others have written eloquently on this topic, both from a Christian perspective and from a Jewish perspective. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/hell_evolved_concept.html
To me, the evidence seems quite strong that the concept of Hell and dualism in general, was brought back by certain Jewish sects during the Babylonian captivity and subsequently infected Christianity, while fading from the Jewish tradition. Ultimately buttressed by the writings of Dante and the Book of Revelation, (certainly the most bizarre and suspect text of the New Testament) the doctrine of hell continues unabated torturing millions of people in Christian nations with the concept of a God so steadfast (headstrong?) as to perpetually torture his own creation after granting them a mere handful of years to accept his gift of eternal life. Religions may not be based upon logic, but certainly few people perceive much fairness in these purported methods of the Most High, even leaving aside the troubling doctrine of Calvinistic predestination.
But wait, the fundamentalist Christian apologist says. God puts no one in Hell. People put themselves in Hell by exercising their free will and rejecting God's gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. While God is love, they say, he cannot not abide sin, and therefore is constrained to throw the billions into constant torture in the fires of Hell. Now, apart from the conundrum that the very creator of Lucifer and sin, is somehow unable to co-exist in the same plane with the sinful, let's look at the fallacious notion that God is just in placing people in Hell since any individual has true free will to opt for the gift of salvation or not.
While, perhaps, today with modern media, most people do indeed have a chance to hear some version of the Gospel, the notion that therefore God is just in casting away non-believers simply does not hold up.
Each person has a variety of experiences in life and we each have a different amount of time in this world. Some of us only live a few years; some forty; some live a hundred years. Some of us may be mentally incapacitated in some way--can a person with Alzheimer's be saved?--that prevents us from accepting the purported gift of eternal salvation.
People who live in "Christian" nations will have far more opportunities to hear the salvation message and will have access to the great evangelical persuaders such as Billy Graham and Billy Sunday, while people living in Asia or Muslim countries may have far fewer encounters with the gospel. Tribes hidden in Amazonia may still conceivably have none.
All of these facts certainly point to the notion that true free will is something that only exists on a sliding scale. But ultimately, all of these apologies still fail, because God refused to give any of us (as far as we can remember) the choice to opt either for existence or not.
Not a single one of us asked to be created.
There was no Rawlsian veil of ignorance where we could before birth decide whether or not we would choose to be born.
Such would embody a truly free choice: weighing a decision between existing and running the probable chance (some Christians claim virtually everyone will end up damned) of ending up in Hell, or saying:
"No thanks, Yahweh, this non-existence thing is working pretty well for me and while the heat down in Miami is one thing, I don't think I would fair too well down in Hell. It's just too risky. The returns just don't justify taking the plunge, and even though I don't exist yet, I am pretty sure that I would be good at risk-reward evaluations." http://infotech.fanshawec.on.ca/faculty/jedicke/rawls.htm
I must, if somewhat grudgingly, given their own scriptural problems, tip my hat to the Church of Latter Day Saints, for correctly understanding this fundamental problem regarding pre-existence and having a doctrine to deal with it, which I had been unaware of, before writing this piece. When I speak of fundamentalist Christianity, I do not include sects with radically different viewpoints regarding the essence of Christ and salvation, but point towards what are generally now non-mainline Protestant churches, whose beliefs preserve the fundamental viewpoints of the reformation and the thought of Calvin and Luther. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(Mormonism)
Essentially, fundamentalist Christianity teaches the story of a fumbling creator who inadvertently creates sin, either through Lucifer or Eve, and who then periodically decides to destroy his creations in the Old Testament, as depicted in the stories of Noah and to a lesser extent, Sodom and Gomorrah. After leading the Children of Israel from Egypt, Moses has to talk Jehovah out of destroying his chosen people. Finally, in the Book of Job, God actually uses Lucifer as his agent to torture Job and his family. Apparently, at this time, God could abide sin in his presence. Perhaps this is why Hell is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.
But suddenly, in the New Testament, this formerly angry and edgy creator, all of a sudden becomes a model of platonic perfection. Somehow, though,while he is now painted mostly as a peace and love kind of god, who leaves the destruction and killing to Christ and the Angels in the Book of Revelation, he also apparently can no longer tolerate sin in his presence and decides in his second testament to cast the overwhelming number of his creation into the eternal torture of hellfire.
While I welcome any reconstruction of the doctrine of the justness of hellfire, It seems clear, to me, at least, that the fundamentalist notion of a permanent Hell as something fundamentally just, simply fails. Linguistic, historical and textual evidence all point towards the irrelevancy and antediluvian nature of the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of eternal damnation. Trying to paint the doctrine as somehow epitomizing fairness is no more persuasive than any of the other dilapidated defenses of one of the most pernicious doctrines to ever pass for religious thought.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/hell_evolved_concept.html
To me, the evidence seems quite strong that the concept of Hell and dualism in general, was brought back by certain Jewish sects during the Babylonian captivity and subsequently infected Christianity, while fading from the Jewish tradition. Ultimately buttressed by the writings of Dante and the Book of Revelation, (certainly the most bizarre and suspect text of the New Testament) the doctrine of hell continues unabated torturing millions of people in Christian nations with the concept of a God so steadfast (headstrong?) as to perpetually torture his own creation after granting them a mere handful of years to accept his gift of eternal life. Religions may not be based upon logic, but certainly few people perceive much fairness in these purported methods of the Most High, even leaving aside the troubling doctrine of Calvinistic predestination.
But wait, the fundamentalist Christian apologist says. God puts no one in Hell. People put themselves in Hell by exercising their free will and rejecting God's gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. While God is love, they say, he cannot not abide sin, and therefore is constrained to throw the billions into constant torture in the fires of Hell. Now, apart from the conundrum that the very creator of Lucifer and sin, is somehow unable to co-exist in the same plane with the sinful, let's look at the fallacious notion that God is just in placing people in Hell since any individual has true free will to opt for the gift of salvation or not.
While, perhaps, today with modern media, most people do indeed have a chance to hear some version of the Gospel, the notion that therefore God is just in casting away non-believers simply does not hold up.
Each person has a variety of experiences in life and we each have a different amount of time in this world. Some of us only live a few years; some forty; some live a hundred years. Some of us may be mentally incapacitated in some way--can a person with Alzheimer's be saved?--that prevents us from accepting the purported gift of eternal salvation.
People who live in "Christian" nations will have far more opportunities to hear the salvation message and will have access to the great evangelical persuaders such as Billy Graham and Billy Sunday, while people living in Asia or Muslim countries may have far fewer encounters with the gospel. Tribes hidden in Amazonia may still conceivably have none.
All of these facts certainly point to the notion that true free will is something that only exists on a sliding scale. But ultimately, all of these apologies still fail, because God refused to give any of us (as far as we can remember) the choice to opt either for existence or not.
Not a single one of us asked to be created.
There was no Rawlsian veil of ignorance where we could before birth decide whether or not we would choose to be born.
Such would embody a truly free choice: weighing a decision between existing and running the probable chance (some Christians claim virtually everyone will end up damned) of ending up in Hell, or saying:
"No thanks, Yahweh, this non-existence thing is working pretty well for me and while the heat down in Miami is one thing, I don't think I would fair too well down in Hell. It's just too risky. The returns just don't justify taking the plunge, and even though I don't exist yet, I am pretty sure that I would be good at risk-reward evaluations." http://infotech.fanshawec.on.ca/faculty/jedicke/rawls.htm
I must, if somewhat grudgingly, given their own scriptural problems, tip my hat to the Church of Latter Day Saints, for correctly understanding this fundamental problem regarding pre-existence and having a doctrine to deal with it, which I had been unaware of, before writing this piece. When I speak of fundamentalist Christianity, I do not include sects with radically different viewpoints regarding the essence of Christ and salvation, but point towards what are generally now non-mainline Protestant churches, whose beliefs preserve the fundamental viewpoints of the reformation and the thought of Calvin and Luther. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(Mormonism)
Essentially, fundamentalist Christianity teaches the story of a fumbling creator who inadvertently creates sin, either through Lucifer or Eve, and who then periodically decides to destroy his creations in the Old Testament, as depicted in the stories of Noah and to a lesser extent, Sodom and Gomorrah. After leading the Children of Israel from Egypt, Moses has to talk Jehovah out of destroying his chosen people. Finally, in the Book of Job, God actually uses Lucifer as his agent to torture Job and his family. Apparently, at this time, God could abide sin in his presence. Perhaps this is why Hell is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.
But suddenly, in the New Testament, this formerly angry and edgy creator, all of a sudden becomes a model of platonic perfection. Somehow, though,while he is now painted mostly as a peace and love kind of god, who leaves the destruction and killing to Christ and the Angels in the Book of Revelation, he also apparently can no longer tolerate sin in his presence and decides in his second testament to cast the overwhelming number of his creation into the eternal torture of hellfire.
While I welcome any reconstruction of the doctrine of the justness of hellfire, It seems clear, to me, at least, that the fundamentalist notion of a permanent Hell as something fundamentally just, simply fails. Linguistic, historical and textual evidence all point towards the irrelevancy and antediluvian nature of the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of eternal damnation. Trying to paint the doctrine as somehow epitomizing fairness is no more persuasive than any of the other dilapidated defenses of one of the most pernicious doctrines to ever pass for religious thought.
The Wonder Years
I have always been a fan of the somewhat corny, with its incessant voice-overs, sitcom The Wonder Years. I don't think it quite reaches the levels of truly great television programs like Andy Griffith or Mash, but it is a pretty interesting slice of life of the Johnson-Kennedy years, where I first began to have memories.
What truly amazes me, though, is after watching an episode, I walk to the computer, which rouses itself from sleep (remember when you had to boot up?) and type wonder years in google and an open source encyclopedia built upon the donative efforts of ten billion souls (at least they are all eligible to write something--see if Brittanica will let you do that) and immediately a staggering number of documents come up. We are truly in a new age where people will write and research differently based upon these enormous collaborative efforts. Here's a link of all of the Wonder Years episodes which people have put up just out of their own good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Wonder_Years_episodes
Ten billion people writing about different, often essentially useless stuff, for free! This brings to mind an important point that I believe will begin to divide more and more those scant numbers of people who call themselves libertarians.
We need to always remember that libertarianism or love of freedom, is a far different thing from capitalism. In fact, many economists, even free market economists, argued in the past that such public goods needed government subsidies because otherwise no one would have the incentive to produce them. Obviously, these were the type of scholars who spent way too much time in their offices.
People do things for free just out of the joy of living--and that is the true expression of freedom. Capitalism is nothing more than an unimportant by-product of freedom. Let freedom ring and write!
What truly amazes me, though, is after watching an episode, I walk to the computer, which rouses itself from sleep (remember when you had to boot up?) and type wonder years in google and an open source encyclopedia built upon the donative efforts of ten billion souls (at least they are all eligible to write something--see if Brittanica will let you do that) and immediately a staggering number of documents come up. We are truly in a new age where people will write and research differently based upon these enormous collaborative efforts. Here's a link of all of the Wonder Years episodes which people have put up just out of their own good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Wonder_Years_episodes
Ten billion people writing about different, often essentially useless stuff, for free! This brings to mind an important point that I believe will begin to divide more and more those scant numbers of people who call themselves libertarians.
We need to always remember that libertarianism or love of freedom, is a far different thing from capitalism. In fact, many economists, even free market economists, argued in the past that such public goods needed government subsidies because otherwise no one would have the incentive to produce them. Obviously, these were the type of scholars who spent way too much time in their offices.
People do things for free just out of the joy of living--and that is the true expression of freedom. Capitalism is nothing more than an unimportant by-product of freedom. Let freedom ring and write!
Monica Goodling and Larry David
With the Bush Administration embroiled in yet another scandal, something that I recall from the Larry David's inspired Seinfield show comes to mind.
At one point on the program, realizing that his life is a total shambles, George Costanza begins to implement a personal policy of always doing the opposite. The opposite of what? The opposite of what he would normally do. Whenever George had new decisions to make, he began to analyze what his instincts would tell him to do normally and then (for that episode) decided to do the opposite. Miraculously, George's life completely turned around.
Well, you can see where I am going with this. Maybe another George could try the opposite policy. Whatever it is that Bush thinks best or whatever God tells him to do, go with the opposite. I mean, come on, he couldn't possibly do any worse. We've had 6 1/2 years of living by George Bush's gut instinct--let's take 18 months and try the opposite--what have we got to lose?
At one point on the program, realizing that his life is a total shambles, George Costanza begins to implement a personal policy of always doing the opposite. The opposite of what? The opposite of what he would normally do. Whenever George had new decisions to make, he began to analyze what his instincts would tell him to do normally and then (for that episode) decided to do the opposite. Miraculously, George's life completely turned around.
Well, you can see where I am going with this. Maybe another George could try the opposite policy. Whatever it is that Bush thinks best or whatever God tells him to do, go with the opposite. I mean, come on, he couldn't possibly do any worse. We've had 6 1/2 years of living by George Bush's gut instinct--let's take 18 months and try the opposite--what have we got to lose?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Pre-paid Stamps-- A Good Investment?
Maybe the Post Office isn't as bad as we have been lead to believe in terms of holding the line on prices....
http://www.slate.com/id/2166475/?nav=navoa
http://www.slate.com/id/2166475/?nav=navoa
Headphones and Sound Quality
I don't know if any readers ever listen to an iPod at home, but surprisingly an iPod can actually drive some brands of audiophile headphones. I have a pair of AKG 501 headphones and the difference in sound from the stock headphones is spectacular when doing an A/B test. For anyone who spends much time listening to an iPod-type device at home, test it out. It is difficult to go back to the stock headphones after trying out a pair of AKG or Grado headphones, which generally run from $50 to $500, with the best values in the $50 to $150 range.
Stereo, CD's, iPod's and Headphones
It is always interesting to observe the ways in which certain technologies ebb and flow. About five years ago, it looked as though stereo (i.e. two speakers emitting two different channels) was about to become passe. It had only been about ten years since television had begun to broadcast in Dolby, and surround systems with multiple speakers were beginning to become a big deal. As part of this, the music industry (RIAA) was aiming to phase out the CD in favor of SACD and DVD-A discs, which offer surround-sound, superior bit rates, and copy protection.
Well, it didn't quite work out that way. Two things happened in parallel to prop up the stereo format.
First, customers balked at moving to a new recording standard. Compact Discs had been marketed to Americans as "perfect sound forever." Americans willingly dumped their cassettes, 8-tracks and vinyl and bought new players and often purchased anew album titles that they had already owned in other formats. The RIAA stomped out the threat of Digital Audio Tape by basically crippling the sales of the machines before they could take hold. CD reigned supreme, just as the industry had wanted and as part of the marketing of the CD, its sound quality was vastly oversold to the public. Until about 1998, such tactics juiced sales and the Recording Industry began to believe that gravy-train would last forever.
The only problem that the RIAA had not adequately foreseen was the downloading of digitized music on the internet, a problem that began to make DAT tapes look appetizing in retrospect.
The industry was unsure how to proceed.
Surely, every download was a loss of sales for the industry. The industry never apparently realized that many of the downloaders would never have purchased music anyway, many indeed would go on to buy after sampling a few hits and that some were simply downloading songs that they already owned, just for the convenience of the digitized recording.
The author himself, had the Beatles' album, Revolver, on cassette, vinyl record and CD. Just to ensure more profits, the Recording Industry filed lawsuits against their potential clients and also lobbied Congress to go change the laws to extend copyrights so that they could continue to sell more of the same old music again and again, with more monoply profits ensured. This is the Republican and RIAA version of capitalism.
Well, it still wasn't enough, so then around the turn of this century, the recording industry tried to come back and tried another tack, saying, "guess what, here's something even better," at the same time that many rap, hiphop and audio enthusiasts were making known that vinyl records were better sounding and more useful in many ways than were CD's.
Not surprisingly, SACD and DVD-A discs arrived with a big thud, in spite of their technical superiority to the CD format. People already believe that CD was the golden standard, as FM and MP3 were often said to have CD-like sound. Because of the copy-protection, the disks lacked portability with MP3 players. Furthermore, most DVD players would not play either SACD's or DVD-A's and many high-end audio enthusiasts thought that vinyl still sounded at least as good. Remarkably, the DVD-A's came with oversized jewel case packaging that would not fit in a standard CD bin storage slot.
Thus, this multichannel format debacle formed part one of the survival story of two channel stereo, just as it had survived the "quadraphonic" assault of the mid-70's, stereo, at least in the music world, had survived the multi-channel enslaught.
Second, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows, Apple re-invented the wheel and somehow gained a virtual monopoly on sales of something that had been around for several years and used to be called an MP3 player.
Dubbed the iPod, the Apple product came out right when storage space began to really go down in price and the iPod became a big splash, and was directed almost entirely towards two-channel audio: two ears--two earpieces. Recording studios were loathe to go to the extra expense of mixing recordings into surround if most people were only going to be listening in stereo anyway.
As a final more minor factor, some sound enthusiasts discovered that a home theater set-up sounded almost as good in stereo as it did in surround and stereo brought three advantages: you didn't have to pay thousands to have it installed in the walls and ceilings, or you didn't have cords and speakers and sub-woofers all over the floor (I call this the wife factor) and the guy could pick the system he wanted, rather than the all in one systems sold by the big boxes and actually save money. With respect to large HD televisions, any included speakers pretty much by definition had to be stereo, as they were placed above, below and on both sides of the picture.
So, remarkably, here we are in 2007 and we see that stereo remains alive and well and it is the surround-sound format that is gasping for air, relegated primarily to the ultra-high-end. Vinyl is the only tangible format that actually is increasing in sales, with new albums by Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, and Death Cab for Cutie among many others, being issued in the century old circular format.
One can only wonder how many industry prognosticators back in 1982 at the advent of the CD format could have predicted that 25 years later, both stereo and vinyl records would be alive and well. As noted economist F.A. Hayek taught, predicting such matters is near impossible, but such is the nature of a market economy.
Well, it didn't quite work out that way. Two things happened in parallel to prop up the stereo format.
First, customers balked at moving to a new recording standard. Compact Discs had been marketed to Americans as "perfect sound forever." Americans willingly dumped their cassettes, 8-tracks and vinyl and bought new players and often purchased anew album titles that they had already owned in other formats. The RIAA stomped out the threat of Digital Audio Tape by basically crippling the sales of the machines before they could take hold. CD reigned supreme, just as the industry had wanted and as part of the marketing of the CD, its sound quality was vastly oversold to the public. Until about 1998, such tactics juiced sales and the Recording Industry began to believe that gravy-train would last forever.
The only problem that the RIAA had not adequately foreseen was the downloading of digitized music on the internet, a problem that began to make DAT tapes look appetizing in retrospect.
The industry was unsure how to proceed.
Surely, every download was a loss of sales for the industry. The industry never apparently realized that many of the downloaders would never have purchased music anyway, many indeed would go on to buy after sampling a few hits and that some were simply downloading songs that they already owned, just for the convenience of the digitized recording.
The author himself, had the Beatles' album, Revolver, on cassette, vinyl record and CD. Just to ensure more profits, the Recording Industry filed lawsuits against their potential clients and also lobbied Congress to go change the laws to extend copyrights so that they could continue to sell more of the same old music again and again, with more monoply profits ensured. This is the Republican and RIAA version of capitalism.
Well, it still wasn't enough, so then around the turn of this century, the recording industry tried to come back and tried another tack, saying, "guess what, here's something even better," at the same time that many rap, hiphop and audio enthusiasts were making known that vinyl records were better sounding and more useful in many ways than were CD's.
Not surprisingly, SACD and DVD-A discs arrived with a big thud, in spite of their technical superiority to the CD format. People already believe that CD was the golden standard, as FM and MP3 were often said to have CD-like sound. Because of the copy-protection, the disks lacked portability with MP3 players. Furthermore, most DVD players would not play either SACD's or DVD-A's and many high-end audio enthusiasts thought that vinyl still sounded at least as good. Remarkably, the DVD-A's came with oversized jewel case packaging that would not fit in a standard CD bin storage slot.
Thus, this multichannel format debacle formed part one of the survival story of two channel stereo, just as it had survived the "quadraphonic" assault of the mid-70's, stereo, at least in the music world, had survived the multi-channel enslaught.
Second, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows, Apple re-invented the wheel and somehow gained a virtual monopoly on sales of something that had been around for several years and used to be called an MP3 player.
Dubbed the iPod, the Apple product came out right when storage space began to really go down in price and the iPod became a big splash, and was directed almost entirely towards two-channel audio: two ears--two earpieces. Recording studios were loathe to go to the extra expense of mixing recordings into surround if most people were only going to be listening in stereo anyway.
As a final more minor factor, some sound enthusiasts discovered that a home theater set-up sounded almost as good in stereo as it did in surround and stereo brought three advantages: you didn't have to pay thousands to have it installed in the walls and ceilings, or you didn't have cords and speakers and sub-woofers all over the floor (I call this the wife factor) and the guy could pick the system he wanted, rather than the all in one systems sold by the big boxes and actually save money. With respect to large HD televisions, any included speakers pretty much by definition had to be stereo, as they were placed above, below and on both sides of the picture.
So, remarkably, here we are in 2007 and we see that stereo remains alive and well and it is the surround-sound format that is gasping for air, relegated primarily to the ultra-high-end. Vinyl is the only tangible format that actually is increasing in sales, with new albums by Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, and Death Cab for Cutie among many others, being issued in the century old circular format.
One can only wonder how many industry prognosticators back in 1982 at the advent of the CD format could have predicted that 25 years later, both stereo and vinyl records would be alive and well. As noted economist F.A. Hayek taught, predicting such matters is near impossible, but such is the nature of a market economy.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Israel and the Evangelicals
Israel is a light in the Middle East and has generally been a country that the United States has had very close relations with. Nevertheless, during the past 30 years or so, many in the evangelical community have put forth a notion that the United States must do anything to preserve and even, increase Israel's borders, lest we incur the wrath of God.
While there are certainly very good reasons that the United States should continue to support and work closely with Israel, mis-interpretation of the Bible is certainly not one of them. Indeed, a careful reading of the New Testament indicates that the Body of Christ are the chosen people, which is a designation not based on religion or ethnicity or geography.
http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/WittenbergDoor/index.html
While there are certainly very good reasons that the United States should continue to support and work closely with Israel, mis-interpretation of the Bible is certainly not one of them. Indeed, a careful reading of the New Testament indicates that the Body of Christ are the chosen people, which is a designation not based on religion or ethnicity or geography.
http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/WittenbergDoor/index.html
Mormons and White Evangelicals Love War
I guess the old precept of "being in the world, but not of it," has been forgotten by Mormons and White Evangelicals. Certainly, part of the problem is because of the Book of Revelation, with which these endtimes types seem to be obsessed. Martin Luther had little faith that Revelation even belonged in the Bible, but unfortunately, there it is, diverting attention away from the important books of the Bible, like Romans and Corinthians, and leading many to sit and wait for Christ to return and kill all of their enemies....
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=10983
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=10983
Alberto and George
This is certainly the most incompetent administration that I have seen in my lifetime. This goes to show that all of the moronic Republicans who said that intelligence was not necessary for a president were simply out of their gourds. George Bush makes Jimmy Carter seem like George Washington. It is difficult to see how this current administration can achieve anything during its last year and a half. They will have their hands full just staying out of jail. It is unfortunate that Tony Snow is willing to let himself be dragged down into all of this mess.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4815887.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4815887.html
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Good Riddance
At least, no soldiers had to die because of his mistakes at the World Bank....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/18cnd-worldbank.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/world/18cnd-worldbank.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Alberto Gonazles and Greg Newton
It really surprises me when Democrats and some Republicans criticize our Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. I think that he is exactly the sort of attorney general that Americans deserve. Americans no longer abide by International Law or even by the Rule of Law internally, and Alberto Gonzales is the perfect type of legal mind for people of that mindset.
It reminds me a bit of a statement by Wake Forest All American Tim Duncan a few years back when a journeyman player from Duke named Greg Newton, called Duncan, soft and passive. When asked by the media for a reaction, Duncan responded that the journeyman Newton was the greatest player he had ever seen.
Alberto Gonzales is the most brilliant lawyer I have ever seen.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/05/11/gonzales_hearing/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp
It reminds me a bit of a statement by Wake Forest All American Tim Duncan a few years back when a journeyman player from Duke named Greg Newton, called Duncan, soft and passive. When asked by the media for a reaction, Duncan responded that the journeyman Newton was the greatest player he had ever seen.
Alberto Gonzales is the most brilliant lawyer I have ever seen.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/05/11/gonzales_hearing/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp
The Case for Unions
Conservatives and libertarians often deride unions unfairly. While most people would agree that there have been many problems with the way that unionism has played out in North America and Europe, at the same time, unions can play a beneficial role by confronting oppressive government policies with a membership of millions united. This can be especially important when dealing with authoritarian governments, as shown by Lech Walensa.
Well, into the same as it ever was category, the U.S., under Paul Bremer, attempted to continue Sadaam's policy of banning unionization among oil workers. I guess the rationale was, "hey, you guys are free now, you don't need any stinking union." Let's face it. The real reason why business-owners, conservatives and authoritarian governments dislike unions is because it cuts into profits. When unions such as state bar associations or medical associations are created and act in the same manner in terms of restricting output, few voices are heard decrying this type of monopolization.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=192709
Well, into the same as it ever was category, the U.S., under Paul Bremer, attempted to continue Sadaam's policy of banning unionization among oil workers. I guess the rationale was, "hey, you guys are free now, you don't need any stinking union." Let's face it. The real reason why business-owners, conservatives and authoritarian governments dislike unions is because it cuts into profits. When unions such as state bar associations or medical associations are created and act in the same manner in terms of restricting output, few voices are heard decrying this type of monopolization.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=192709
Time to Get out?
"A comprehensive Iraqi survey has been conducted annually by ABC News, USA Today, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD (the German public broadcasters association) over the last three years. Its findings illuminate the most important trends in Iraqi politics. They show that, by March 2007, no less than 78 percent of Iraqis opposed the presence of U.S. forces, compared with 65 percent in November 2005 and 51 percent in February 2004. In the latter year, only 17 percent of the population thought that violence against U.S. forces was acceptable, while by 2007 the figure had risen to 51 percent."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/14/iraq/index1.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/14/iraq/index1.html
Do They Hate Us for Our Freedoms?
I have never believed the Administration's line about the Arabs hating us for our freedoms. There are two major reasons why many Arabs hate America: 1) they resent having our troops stationed near Muslim holy areas and 2) they resent what they perceive as American unfairness regarding the Holy Land.
There may or may not be good reasons for the two above policies, but first, Americans need to recognize why our country is so disliked by muslims, rather than accepting the silly neo-conservative argument that "they hate us for our freedoms," as we decide whether giving up so much of the few freedoms that we have left is worth the cost.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0701a.asp
There may or may not be good reasons for the two above policies, but first, Americans need to recognize why our country is so disliked by muslims, rather than accepting the silly neo-conservative argument that "they hate us for our freedoms," as we decide whether giving up so much of the few freedoms that we have left is worth the cost.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0701a.asp
Monday, May 14, 2007
Land of the Free?
Still think so? Take a look at the following article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660220395,00.html
Friday, May 11, 2007
George Harrison was a Libertarian Hero
Song: Taxman
Duration: 2.37
Track No.: No. 1, Side 1 Revolver
Composer: Harrison
Vocals: George Harrison
Year: 1966
Lyrics:
(One, two, three, four, one two)
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
(If you drive a car car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk walk) I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for
(Ah, ah, Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Ah, ah, Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advise for those who die
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes
(Taxman!)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one, but me
(Taxman!)
http://web.mit.edu/scholvin/www/harrison/hbeatles.htm#Taxman
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Wolfowitz
Has there ever been a more incompetent administration than the current Bush Administration? In George Bush land, somehow it is possible for people like Paul Wolfowitz and Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales to be completely wrong and erroneously put the country into an unneeded war with Iraq and yet Rice gets a promotion to Secretary of State, Gonzales becomes Attorney General, and Wolfowitz gets a sinecure running the World Bank.
Apparently, in Bush Bizarro World, Affirmative Action, Bad! Nepotism, Good!
At least, the President should have known that the Europeans were going to be fuming mad at Wolfowitz because of his misrepresentations regarding the war in Iraq and would look for any means possible to exact some revenge on Wolfowitz. And now they have it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08wolfowitz.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Apparently, in Bush Bizarro World, Affirmative Action, Bad! Nepotism, Good!
At least, the President should have known that the Europeans were going to be fuming mad at Wolfowitz because of his misrepresentations regarding the war in Iraq and would look for any means possible to exact some revenge on Wolfowitz. And now they have it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08wolfowitz.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Monday, May 7, 2007
Spider-man 3
I saw Spider-man 3 yesterday and I thought that it was pretty good, although not as good as the first two Spider-man flicks and probably not as good as either the last Batman or the last Superman, but those movies were all excellent, so there is no shame in being only "pretty good."
One thing that might be a little disappointing for some of us fathers out there is that I found Spider-man 3 to be much scarier than the first two Spider-man movies and I cannot really recommend it for children under 8 years old. I decided to screen it before taking my sons and I think this one is much darker than the first two. The Venom character, especially was pretty scary looking and the violence seemed much more hardhitting than the first two. I do think that watching at home on DVD would be much less scary as the film just wouldn't quite have the same impact.
Here come some plot spoilers.
Spider-man 3 was unique in that at the end of the movie, Spidey is left without any bad guys who still have issues with him. Harry apparently returns from the dark side to save Spidey and then, once redeemed, appears to die, although in the comic book world you never know. Venom seems to have been blown up, but I doubt it. This is also without mentioning that Venom, in the comic book, ultimately becomes a hero anyway.
Finally, Spidey and the Sandman, who was ret-conned as the killer of his uncle, basically reach an understanding and go their separate ways, with the Sandman becoming an advocate for universal health care for children. I am not kidding! Although it was a nice statement about not seeking revenge and all, it still was a strange way to end the movie, given that the Sandman had just tried to kill Peter, MJ and Harry.
Another problem with the movie was Mary Jane Watson. In the comics, MJ was an energetic gal, who was always chasing Peter and calling him "tiger". In these movies, she is basically a shy pouting type who keeps getting in the way. I know that in the comics, Superman and Spider-man had to save their women from time to time, but it didn't happen each and every issue. Now, in the Spider-man trilogy, all three movies have ended with Spider-man arriving to save Mary Jane. Please, if there is another sequel, no more MJ saving and if there is another Superman, no more kryptonite. These plot devices have become boring and hacknyed.
Ditto for Aunt May. In the comic book, she was afraid of Spider-man. This was good because she was a boring character who basically was a burden to Peter/Spidey, so we weren't subjected to so many boring speeches by her. Here, she always has to give Peter pep talks. It gets kind of old.
It seems that Sony has left things at the end of Spider-man 3 so that they can either go forward with more sequels or stop. I have to believe that there will be more, given the amazing gate that Spider-man 3 has garnered so far. My prediction is that the next movie will have Dr. Connors, Peter's physics professor as his new villain. Dr. Connors, who is lacking his right arm, attempts to re-generate his limb and is successful, but unfortunately, the process also turns him into a powerful lizard-man. If not Dr. Connors, then I predict that the next villain will be the Hob Goblin and look for Venom to pop up again, perhaps as a scary-looking good guy.
Finally, we will all have to watch for the revenge of Gwen Stacy. Will she capture Peter Parker's heart on the big screen after being unceremoniously killed by Marvel and the Green Goblin some 35 years ago, with MJ stepping into her shoes as Peter's main squeeze.
One thing that might be a little disappointing for some of us fathers out there is that I found Spider-man 3 to be much scarier than the first two Spider-man movies and I cannot really recommend it for children under 8 years old. I decided to screen it before taking my sons and I think this one is much darker than the first two. The Venom character, especially was pretty scary looking and the violence seemed much more hardhitting than the first two. I do think that watching at home on DVD would be much less scary as the film just wouldn't quite have the same impact.
Here come some plot spoilers.
Spider-man 3 was unique in that at the end of the movie, Spidey is left without any bad guys who still have issues with him. Harry apparently returns from the dark side to save Spidey and then, once redeemed, appears to die, although in the comic book world you never know. Venom seems to have been blown up, but I doubt it. This is also without mentioning that Venom, in the comic book, ultimately becomes a hero anyway.
Finally, Spidey and the Sandman, who was ret-conned as the killer of his uncle, basically reach an understanding and go their separate ways, with the Sandman becoming an advocate for universal health care for children. I am not kidding! Although it was a nice statement about not seeking revenge and all, it still was a strange way to end the movie, given that the Sandman had just tried to kill Peter, MJ and Harry.
Another problem with the movie was Mary Jane Watson. In the comics, MJ was an energetic gal, who was always chasing Peter and calling him "tiger". In these movies, she is basically a shy pouting type who keeps getting in the way. I know that in the comics, Superman and Spider-man had to save their women from time to time, but it didn't happen each and every issue. Now, in the Spider-man trilogy, all three movies have ended with Spider-man arriving to save Mary Jane. Please, if there is another sequel, no more MJ saving and if there is another Superman, no more kryptonite. These plot devices have become boring and hacknyed.
Ditto for Aunt May. In the comic book, she was afraid of Spider-man. This was good because she was a boring character who basically was a burden to Peter/Spidey, so we weren't subjected to so many boring speeches by her. Here, she always has to give Peter pep talks. It gets kind of old.
It seems that Sony has left things at the end of Spider-man 3 so that they can either go forward with more sequels or stop. I have to believe that there will be more, given the amazing gate that Spider-man 3 has garnered so far. My prediction is that the next movie will have Dr. Connors, Peter's physics professor as his new villain. Dr. Connors, who is lacking his right arm, attempts to re-generate his limb and is successful, but unfortunately, the process also turns him into a powerful lizard-man. If not Dr. Connors, then I predict that the next villain will be the Hob Goblin and look for Venom to pop up again, perhaps as a scary-looking good guy.
Finally, we will all have to watch for the revenge of Gwen Stacy. Will she capture Peter Parker's heart on the big screen after being unceremoniously killed by Marvel and the Green Goblin some 35 years ago, with MJ stepping into her shoes as Peter's main squeeze.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
