Mar

29

Capacity building.

Filed Under GLBT | Leave a Comment

Went to a capacity building training in Portland. Cohort of leaders from queer youth organizations, with me as one of four representatives from Stonewall Youth. Training sponsored by Pride Foundation, run by TACS. Helped me understand how to frame the conversation about some troubles Stonewall has been having lately. Also helped me understand where some of the staff are coming from. Also helped me see how other, somewhat similar organizations are structured. Five more trainings in the comings months. Useful. Exhausting.

Mar

25

Balls!

Filed Under Uncategorized | 3 Comments

That is all.

Mar

18

AIG bonuses.

Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments

For all the uproar over the AIG bonuses–the classism, the waste of tax dollars, the obliviousness of the banking industry, the contract law questions–what seems to be lurking around the edges is a very strong worry that financial experts don’t know squat. Observe: AIG executives are arguing not only are they contractually obligated to pay the bonuses, they’re arguing that retention bonuses have to be paid in order to fix AIG. Now, I haven’t seen the contracts, but I’m pretty sure no employer would sign anything that pays retention bonuses that doesn’t have a “for cause” firing exception. AIG can take the guys that signed off on the derivatives and whatnot, look at their work performance over the last year, and fire their asses. No bonuses.

Why don’t they? Because they’re under the impression that the folks that got AIG into this mess are the most qualified to get AIG out of this mess. I’ve heard this same sentiment echoed in other arenas–that we shouldn’t let a lot of investment banks fail because too many financially savvy individuals would be out of work and may leave the industry, or we ought to be hiring regulators from the financial industry because they’ll be in a better position to understand how it works.

But I’m not convinced. In fact, after reading (e.g. “Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street“) about how the financial industry works, I’m reasonably convinced these clowns have no fucking clue what they’re doing.

A qualifier: there are financial transactions–like mortgages and bonds–that most laypersons can, if they choose to, understand. Because they are, at their heart, loans. They’re “I’ll give you money today if you promise you give me more money tomorrow” transactions. They make sense. Yes, there are a lot of complications tacked on, mostly to ensure that your promise to pay more money tomorrow is not illusory, and that even if you renege, there’s some recourse. But at the core, these are loans.

But most securities–even things that have been around for centuries, like stocks–are a goddamned joke. There’s no expertise. There’s only a whisper of a relationship between the soundness of the company and the stock price. Indeed, our entire regulatory system is premised on the idea that stock prices are by their very nature accurate. That the company really is worth its market cap. Of course, the underlying assumption of that is that everyone knows everything. Which means we regulate trades where someone knows more than the rest of us.

What that means is securities trading consists of (a) transactions between people of equal relevant knowledge, i.e. gambling, and (b) transactions between those in the know and those not.

Many trades are between people in the know, the so-called financial experts. These people are gambling with other people’s money. This is what happens when your mutual fund company buys or sells a bunch of stock. It’s moving money around without a basis, and for that the mutual fund manager gets a cut.

Other trades are between people of disparate knowledge. That could mean insider trading, which is a big no no in the publicly traded arena, but is regularly practiced with private sales. The “I know about my business than you, and I’m going to conveniently leave out some bad facts to convince you to pay a higher price for a piece of my business than it’s worth” transaction. It could also be the outsider trading, the “I researched the situation heavily, and I don’t think you did, either because you don’t have the access I have, or you simply are too lazy to do your homework” transaction. [This second one is the one Jim Cramer champions.]

But here’s the thing: I’m pretty convinced the insiders and outsiders-with-research are inept at valuation. The insider or the outsider-with-research may think he’s pulling a fast one on the ignorant outsider buyer by inflating the share price…but what determines the share price? How much is the company worth? What sort of factors have to be considered to even begin to answer that question? Is there any good way of doing it? I submit the answer is no. There are too many unknowns. Too many variables.

It isn’t that you don’t get a somewhat predictable market reaction, or that securities are a bad investment. It’s just that they’re not based upon anything real. Or, more to the point, they’re not based upon anything predictable in the long term. And because they’re not based on anything predictable, all the extra knowledge an insider or an outsider-with-research may have doesn’t amount to anything substantive. It’s all still gambling.

So my point is: fire the assholes who fucked up the economy. Deny them their retention bonuses. Then hire some new guys without any experience on the cheap. It’ll work out the same either way. And at least the second way you’re not throwing so much good money after bad.

Mar

16

Hot dogs.

Filed Under Food & Drink, Olympia | Leave a Comment

Aside from the prices, I have nothing but good things to say about the Olympia Hot Dog Co. I am referring, of course, to the hot dog stand in front of Jake’s on 4th that somewhat recently expanded into daylight hour service. Which surprised me, because I’ve made the mistake of eating in Jake’s, and the two establishments appear to share a kitchen.

But the vegan hot dogs seem reasonably tasty. The condiments–including chopped onions, grated cheddar, several kinds of mustard, pepperoncini, jalapeños–can safely be described as “galore.” The fact of the soft pretzels and mozzarella sticks on the side is comforting. The expansive hours is useful. The fact that it’s within walking distance from my work is also nice. But for the fact that they’re charging $4 for a hot dog, I’d eat there regularly. Well, at least a few times a year. But for $4, I can get two slices at Old School. So no dice, Olympia Hot Dog Co.

Mar

15

I never thought missing children could be so sexy.

Filed Under Music | 1 Comment

Until today, I’d forgotten how amusing the Bloodhound Gang’s Hooray for Boobies is in general, and how amusing “A Lap Dance Is So Much Better When the Stripper Is Crying” is in particular. And then I reminded myself. Minnie Pearl, Chasey Lain, and Falco. What could be better?

Mar

15

Privacy.

Filed Under Law | 1 Comment

People even slightly older than I–I’m thirty–have this persistent idea that the Internet poses a significant danger or threat to personal privacy. Whereas most people I meet my age and younger, although acknowledging privacy is affected by the rise of the Internet, wouldn’t describe the impact as a “danger” or “threat.”

I expect over time many things heretofore considered private affairs–everything from grocery shopping habits to recreational drug use, from medical history to the frequency of sexual encounters–to become more public. And yet I expect the great publicking to be a largely positive phenomenon. Why? To consider that is to consider why privacy is so important in the first place.

I rather think privacy is championed largely for shame avoidance purposes. If an individual’s decisions–say, regarding whether to eat the cactus or cream pie–were public, he might be less likely to do what he wants for fear of reprisal from the community. Here’s the thing, though: certain acts should be a source of shame. If you’re shamed out of embezzling funds from your employer or molesting that six year old, that’s great for society. And here’s the other thing: certain acts shouldn’t be considered shameful.

Seriously, how many people were relieved when President Obama wrote about having tried crack cocaine? Relieved because, well, a couple of recreational uses of damned near anything does not have a significant long term negative impact on your ability to do, well, anything? If everyone knew everything about everyone, no one would care about most of the previously-considered-shameful acts. Your next door neighbor wouldn’t care that you like to have a big rubber fist shoved up your ass. Your employer wouldn’t care that you binge drank your way through college. Your friends wouldn’t be flipping out over that abortion you had fourteen years ago. Your bank teller wouldn’t get up in arms over your mistress. No one would care about most everything.

Unless it’s relevant. If your job performance is off because you’ve been binge drinking your way through the past few months, your employer might care. Your wife might care about that abortion you had last week. Your friends might care that you broke another friend’s nose in a bar fight for no reason yesterday evening. And why would there be any social or legal protections in place that would prevent that sort of information from being widely disseminated?

A common problem I see relates to prior criminal convictions. Some people–usually people with money–get to hide the fact of their conviction after a while. Others–usually people without money–have convictions on their records forever. It’s the disparity that miffs me. And I suspect, with the rise of the Internet, no record will ever be lost or sealed again. Not really. Maybe a court may be legally forbidden from considering some wealthy fuck’s old conviction, but it will still be out there. And everyone will know he beat the fuck out of someone with a baseball bat twenty years ago and will be able to treat him accordingly. Which, depending upon the context, may be to treat him as you would anyone else or to treat him with a little more caution.

The thing is, almost all of us have something in our past that we’re not to proud of, and would prefer no one know about. But I suspect a lot of that has more to do with not knowing about everyone else’s past. When we find out we’re basically the same as everyone else, that yes, we all have skeletons in our closets, and those skeletons are pretty comparable and minor, we’ll move on, and be much healthier for it. Unless they’re not minor. In which case, keeping it a secret is a problem for society as a whole.

Mar

14

Pagolin.

Filed Under Science & Technology | 2 Comments

After years of complaining about my Dell Inspiron 600m laptop, I’ve finally broken down and purchased a new laptop. Well, I just placed the order. From System 76. A Pagolin Performance.

Now why, you may be wondering, did I get a machine with Ubuntu preinstalled? Because I just came back from a CLE where I heard the frighteningly impressive Eben Moglen speak. And so as much as I’m lazy when it comes to tinkering myself, I’m a big fan of the tinkering of others. And I’m getting sort of sick of being that guy that installs Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, FileZilla, 7-Zip,

Mar

10

Hanna-Barbera Presents: Watchmen.

Filed Under Humor | Leave a Comment

I would be the first to admit that both the comic and the movie versions of Watchmen contain a silly fun element. But there’s also a self-seriousness that, well, can be a drag at times. Which is why I’m so pleased to see this preview for a campy version of “Watchmen,” as you might watch in between “Scooby-Doo” and “Thundercats”:

I like that Dr. Manhattan can turn into a car. And that Comedian is a randy superfan of Silk Spectre’s Josie-and-the-Pussycats-esque band.

[From Scanners.]

Mar

9

Need a good cry?

Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Want to be destroyed by the senseless, accidental death of infants, as described by devastatingly good prose? Then check out Gene Weingarten’s Fatal Distraction. Really. You need a good cry.

[From Peter Sagal.]

Mar

8

Channel 101: NY Roundup (February 2009).

Filed Under Channel 101 | 3 Comments

At Mr. Prine’s request, here’s the much delayed February New York Roundup, with an unusually high number of self-cancellations:

The first of the self-enders is the monumental twentieth episode of Defenders of Stan, which takes a kitchen sink, and fairly ambivalent, attitude toward a finale. Complete with numerous of commercials and callbacks, I get the impression The Big Honkin’ folks wanted to tie up a few loose ends, create a few dozen more loose ends (opening the door for spin-offs), and dump a load of ideas that had been penned but hadn’t quite made it into one of the first nineteen episodes. I like the dead horse joke that opens and riffs on the whole longevity thing. I didn’t like the dead horse joke that closes and riffs on the whole super strength thing. And I adored the Pluto-Galactus scroller. Good run overall. But I could have done with a little less “Twin Peaks”-style way out, and a little stronger and more coherent exit strategy. B

The second self-cancellation came from the venerable Scissor Cop, with all the sort of anti-climactic fervor you’ve come to expect. The excessive editing, the gun box, the graveside final scene all work…to a point. But there’s something slapdash about this outing, and perhaps it was time for it to die. B-

Cooking with the Single Guy also bowed out in February, with a strong finish. There’s something absolutely fantastic about marrying a solid cooking show with the deep comic sadness of romantic failure. But it took the talents of Daniel Kramer and Matt Saccullo to demonstrate the format worked well every time. A-

Lysol bottle service? Nice. Kris Krossed pants? Nice. Dustin Diamond? Nice. The Nice Brothers’s debut, topping the primetime, feels like a Lonely Island production. And I mean that in the best possible way. Adam Newman even sort of looks like Andy Samberg. Although the concept gets a little grating after a while, the slightly awkward moments–such as the difficult shot framing around the garbage can–make this a winning reality show entry. B

Compare newcomer Sandwich of Terror to the “Twilight Zone” if you must. But a better comparison are the fake trailers in the middle of Grindhouse. Or They Might Be Giants’ “Fingertips.” And kudos to Mr. Prine for his “I remember that” reading. B+

I’m still not feeling Vamps. It isn’t that the acting is bad–many successful and entertaining 101s share that situation. It isn’t that the look is pedestrian–I’m down with low-cost, simple shots. And the concept is, as I believe I’ve said before, timely and lovely. But there’s just something missing about the way the program is developing. Too slow pacing? Too many or too few zingers? Too intricate or too flat background mythology? Insufficient plot movement? I’m really not sure. C

Roommates’s second episode develops its gag references a little more, and is better for it. And Double Click is a delightfully swarthy character. B

The Rory & Craig Show takes one bad Arnold Schwarzenegger cartoon and two hipster bearded whiny douches and delivers exactly zero laughs. Ugh. D

keep looking »