If You Want It, Here It Is, Come And Get It
(But You Better Hurry 'Cause It's Going Fast)

For the older generation, or should I say for the non-techie population, the news probably passed unnoticed. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of MGM vs. Grokster, and as hundreds of millions of Americans yawn a chill is being felt throughout the global tech community. "Why is that?", you ask. Well, if you buy all the hype and hyperbole, this is a case which will decide America's technology future, or at least the future of file-sharing over so-called P2P networks. For those of you not up on your internet lingo, P2P is the technology so much in the news these past few years that allows the wholesale distribution of copyrighted materials to millions of internet users each day. I realize this whole subject may seem a bit obtuse to those who aren't tuned in to the P2P scene so let me try to explain what's going on.

First of all, don't believe everything you read on the internet (except for this blog, of course). While it's true that the internet is a vast, diverse ocean of thought and ideas, venturing out into the water quickly makes it clear that for all it's breadth its deepest point the it is no more than a few inches deep. In fact I'd characterize it as a very incestuous place, endlessly self-referential, and constantly parroting the same opinions, discarding the same facts, and shouting down the same people who challenged its most sacred and misguided assumptions. If you want to know how many gigaflops that new processor can do, or what the temperature in Jefferson, Mississippi might be, the internet is the place to go. Otherwise, I'd sooner trust an email asking me for my bank account number than the internet, at least when it comes to diverse or divergent points of view.

As a case in point, let's look at MGM vs. Grokster. Go to any techie website, read any techie blog or news report, browse any techie forum and I guarantee you will find mimicked there the same P2P oath that no self-respecting internet junkie would ever dare speak against.

"It's just like back in the 70's when they (they being the evil 'them') tried to outlaw the VCR."

"What are they talking about?", you ask. Well let me try to explain. You see, according to the unofficial hardcore techie creed new technology is good, subverting the status quo is good, and free...well, that's best of all. Conversely, asking accountability of new technology is bad, law and order is bad, and, worst of all, asking payment is downright obscene. You have to understand the creed before you understand their position.

And so the techie argument goes like this. Back in the 70's there was this new technology called the VCR which the TV networks and the Hollywood studios were sure would be the death of their industries. They filed a lawsuit charging that VCR's should be made illegal because they allowed people to violate their copyrights and make unauthorized copies of their properties. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court and the Court decided that since the VCR had substantial non-infringing uses the manufacturers could not be held liable for the acts of those who used the machines for illegal purposes. In other words, the media companies lost and we all got to keep our VCR's. I may have misplaced a fact or two along the way but I'm sure I got the gist of it right.

Now we fast-forward to the 21st century and we have this new technology called P2P that techies argue is the same old VCR thing all over again. Like brainwashed acolytes they parrot that the media companies are trying to restrict our access to new technologies by holding technology companies responsible for the illegal actions of its users, just like they failed to do back in the 70's.

And here's where I part company with the techies.

Now hear me on this because it's important. (In fact you may want to take 0ut a pencil and paper and write this down) If you understand nothing else about this issue understand this: The techies are lying to you America, and they know it. Let me repeat that for emphasis. The techies, and by that I mean the technology companies, their lawyers, and the tech community at large, are LYING to you. "What is the lie?", you ask. It's simply this.

P2P, unlike the VCR, is not a reproduction technology - it is a distribution technology.

So what, you ask. Is there a difference? Let me explain. In order to distribute millions and millions of copies of copyrighted works over the internet you need two things: Some means of copying the content off of the CD or DVD or cable or satellite network, etc..., and some means of distributing the content to other users. The first step, the copying, is easily done and there are literally hundreds of programs out there that will copy or "rip" CD's and DVD's and dozens of devices that will capture content off of an audio or video source and transfer it to your computer. When the techies talk about the VCR this is what they are really talking about, because this is really the only part of the process analagous to VCR's and the taping of TV shows that we are all familiar with.

However, the second part of the process is much different and is made possible largely by the ease with which digital content (as opposed to the analog content found on those old VHS tapes) can be transferred over the vastness of the internet. Digital content, it turns out, is very portable and compressable and amenable to the distribution models that P2P networks like Grokster and Streamcast are happy to provide and profit from.

Now I don't want to confuse anyone by going into the why's and where's of P2P technology, but you should be aware that there is nothing even remotely analagous to P2P in the VCR world. In fact, a good analogy for P2P would not be the VCR but rather cable TV. Again, remember, Grokster is not a copying program, it is not "ripping" software, and the techies that tell you it is are liars. Just like the cable company, Grokster is a conduit and facilitator for the distribution of content. The cable companies distribute content over their private networks, and the Grokster's of the world distribute it over the internet. However, with one important difference.

The content coming over your cable box has been paid for. Licenses have been bought, royalties have been paid. The content coming over Grokster is stolen. Well, I should say 'technically' it's been stolen, because we have to remember the techie creed. Free is good. The air is free, the sky is free, butterflies are free - why shouldn't CD's and DVD's be free too? If I can take it and you can't stop me, then that's just an expression of my freedom, isn't it. Can't we all be brothers? (I could go on but I feel a Jesse Colin Young song coming on)

Anyways, everywhere you go on the internet that's the argument you hear, and one that I think leads to an obvious question. If Grokster wins this case, shouldn't the cable companies and satellite companies also be allowed to distribute unlicensed (i.e. stolen) content over their networks? Shouldn't Comcast or Time-Warner be allowed to add bootlegged movies to their Pay-per-view lineup? Well, it's just a thought, and besides, we all know the consequences of Grokster losing this case would be far worse. Why Xerox machines be illegal if that happens. Right? Oh wait a minute. I almost forgot - Xerox makes copy machines, don't they?

Damn, there's that lie again.

On The Evolution Of The Species

Enough about me. What I want to know is how do YOU pass the time when you're having your bowel movements? Do you just sit there? Do you talk on the phone? Do you read? Oh no, don't tell me you're one of those people who scribble things on the wall. You are? Why? Is it boredom? Is it the illicit thrill of writing forbidden words? Is it because the visceral feel of having your underwear wrapped around your ankles just somehow brings out your natural expressive instincts? Well, I have a theory about this, and like it or not you're gonna hear it.

My theory is that there are three kinds of people in this world. The first are the happy and carefree Bruce Willis types who truly enjoy their bowel movement and joyfully, and sometimes quite poetically, sing its praises. The second are the serious and self-important Jerry Falwell types who find their bowel movement humiliating and dirty and often write cruel, smutty missives full of foul language and hateful speech as a means of venting their feelings of disgust and debasement. There are a lot of those types around these days. And then there is the third type. People like me who find their bowel movement a necessary inconvenience and would rather be done with the process entirely, or at least as quickly as possible. We don't write on the walls of toilet stalls and merely wonder at those who do, generally keeping our opinions to ourselves and spending our creative energies on more urgent and pressing matters.

Like blogging, which, after all, is just the internet equivalent of toilet stall graffiti. Well, this blog is at least.

Anyways, back to the matter at hand, I think it's true that most of us who don't write spend our bowel time reading newspapers and magazines and books and things like that. I know I do and I really get tired of the remark you hear sometimes.

"Geez, what were you doing in there? Reading a Book?"

To which I reply,

"Well...yeah, actually I was. What do you do when you're in there? Draw dirty pictures?"

What can I say. I read when I'm in there, and I think some of my most peaceful literary moments have come while perched upon that throne. Peaceful, that is, when I remember to bring along something to read. Oftentimes I forget and when that happens I usually find the experience anything but peaceful. I don't know if you've ever been in that situation, but when I don't have anything to read in there I desperately start looking around for something to occupy my eyeballs. A medicine bottle, a tube of toothpaste, a can of hairspray - anything. Something with printing on it so that I can get my mind off of the business at hand.

Which brings me to the real subject of this blog. You see, there I was today, sitting in my usual spot with nothing to read and panic setting in, when I turned to the right and what should I see but a stick of anti-perspirant sitting next to the sink. Perfect, I thought, and so I picked it up and started reading.

Warning! For external use only.

Ok, I wasn't planning on eating it anyways.

Uses: Reduces underarm wetness.

Well, that's sort of stating the obvious, isn't it. And then I read the next paragraph.

Active Ingredient: Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex.

That's when I freaked out. I mean, did you know know that they were putting Aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex in that stuff? I know I didn't, and if I did I certainly would have insisted on an explanation. Can you imagine how you'd feel if you came home and there was some scientist in your bathroom telling you

"Mr. Myers, we have some bad news for you. Our team has detected high concentrations of Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex in you bathroom."

"Well get it out of there, dammit!"

"Please don't be alarmed Mr. Myers. It's perfectly safe."

"Like hell it is. If you don't get that stuff out of there I'm gonna call the cops, and then I'm call my congressman, and then I'm gonna call my lawyer. You understand what I'm saying to you."

But I'm just being foolish, aren't I? Of course it's safe. A little Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex never hurt anyone. What it really points out is how strange an animal we human beings really are. I mean, just think about it. You never see apes or monkeys or any of your other lower primates rubbing Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex over their skin and into their hairy pores, do you. No, of course not. Only homo sapiens does that, and I bet the rest of the animal kingdom has got to be scratching their heads and thinking what a really weird thing that is to do. Just imagine the scene if chimpanzee teachers were to take their students on field trips to the zoo to see the humans on display.

"Teacher, teacher, what's that man doing?"

"Oh well, you see, human beings are very clean animals, dear. When they get up in the morning they always wash themselves off with water and coat their skins with Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex."

"But why teacher, why?"

"We're not really sure, dear, but we think it part of the mating process. You see, millions of years of evolution have taught male humans that female humans are less likely to reject them as potential mates if they don't smell like day old underwear. We believe that the Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex helps mask this smell and make the females more receptive to the male's advances."

"I don't understand teacher?"

"Neither do I, dear. But the animal world is full of many strange and mysterious things."

"Yeah, that's really weird. But teacher, if humans are so clean then why is that male over there bending over and picking his toes. Why is he doing that, teacher. Why?"

"Which male? Where dear?"

"Over there teacher. Don't you see him. Eeew, he's picking crud out from under his toenails and sniffing it with his nose. Eeewwww..."

"Oh, yes, I see him. That is disgusting, isn't it. I tell you what - why don't we go over and look at the tigers now. Ok?"

"Eeeeeewwwww...."

Well, I'm sure I've just brushed the surface of this topic. Some of you may want to do some further research on your own so I recommend a visit to www.speedstick.com. It's really a wonderful resource full of FAQ's and product news and even a product selection tool for those of you who may be wondering just what anti-persperant is right for you. One more resource you might try is Colgate World of Care which answers a question I know I've often asked.

"What anti-persperant is rec0mmended for vegetarians?"

Well, if you want to know the answer is here.

Here Comes The Sun

Greetings from Tornado Alley. Yeah, really. We had a tornado here in the Bay Area this past week and it was so weird - one week it's sunny and 85 degrees and the next week we've got rain and wind and tornados and all kinds of crazy stuff happening. Reminded me of that Dennis Quaid movie where everything is normal and we're all just driving around in our SUV's and then all of a sudden the atmosphere starts freezing and the oceans turn to ice and there's tornados in L.A. and planes are crashing and people are dying and there's this big sucking thing happening over Minnesota and we all have to evacuate to Mexico before or we all die and...

Hey, it could happen.

Anyways, I didn't come here to talk about the weather. I came to talk about gift cards, and in particular about a $65.00 gift card I currently have in my wallet for a major electronics store. I got the card last Christmas and I thought it was very nice and thoughtful present and was genuinely grateful to receive it, but the problem is it's almost the end of March now and I still haven't used it. Which brings me to the point I'm trying to make.

Like I said the card is from a well known electronics retailer who I don't want to name or libel in anyways, so let's just call it Pest Pie. There are many Pest Pie stores around the country and they sell a variety of electronic goods ranging from TV's to computers to digital cameras to stereos to cell phones to...well, suffice it to say that if it has anything to do with audio or video or computing they sell it. They are, in fact, an electronics supermarket, and anyone who knows me and my attraction to all things electronic would naturally assume that a Pest Pie gift card would be the perfect Christmas gift, and they would be right. Yet, for some reason, the card still sits in my wallet unused.

What is going on here?

Well, two things really. The first is that it's hard to buy anything at Pest Pie for $65.00. Oh sure, you look at the ads and it looks like there's plenty of stuff to by at that price, but if you look a little closer you see that there is more going on here than meets the eye. For example, in the ad you see the latest electronic wonder gadget selling for a ridiculously low price of just $49.95 and you say "Wow, I can get one of those", but then you look a little closer and you notice that the advertised price is not really the price you are going to be charged. You might have to squint but it's right there in tiny black print at the bottom of the ad.

"In store price $999.95 less $500.00 mfr. mail-in rebate less $300.00 Pest Pie mail-in rebate less $150.00 special promotion mail-in rebate = $49.95 final cost."

Oh, I get it. That $49.95 price is not the real price, that's just the teaser price. In actual dollar terms you $65.00 gift card is still going to leave you about $835.00 short. Well, that's ok, it's just a matter of sending in a form and waiting for the check to come back, right? So then you go to the store and read the rebate offer and they've got all this paperwork for you to fill out and copy and mail in and then they say you've got to allow them 12-15 weeks to process your rebate and send out your check and of course by that time they're hoping you'll have forgotten about it or lost all your paperwork so you won't have any evidence to back you up when you call them up and ask where your rebate check is, and then it dawns on you. What a scam, and apparently a pretty successful one too judging by all the rebate deals they offer. Sheesh, you can't even buy a 50 cent pack of gum at Pest Pie without doing some kind of rebate - "In store price $9.99 less $9.00 mfr. mail-in rebate less $0.49 Pest Pie mail-in rebate = $0.50 final cost."

So that's the first problem I'm having with the gift card. The second and more fundamental problem I'm having is that there is just nothing at Pest Pie that I want to buy. I've been down there a couple of times already and gone all throughout the store and I just can't find anything. I know I've blogged on this before, but it's still true - I've got all the electronics I need and I don't want any more. That $65.00 gift card might as well be for Mary Kay cosmetics for all the good it's doing me. It's just so sad.

So instead of just letting it expire I was thinking maybe I'd get one of those new Sony PSP's that go on sale tomorrow. You know the really cool looking ones. They cost a lot more than $65.00 but the card will give me a nice discount. Unfortunately that's no good either because they'll be sold out of those pretty quick, and besides I don't know what I'd do with a game machine even if I had one. I don't play many videogames anymore and certainly not the console kind, so the fact that I'd even consider buying one just shows how effective the whole Sony hype machine has been. Just think, even people who don't play Playstation games want one. That's good marketing, and I can just see myself camping out in front of the local Pest Pie tonight just so that I can buy the latest cool thing and let it fill the big whole in my life for the next month or two until the next cool thing comes along and leaves me yearning and empty all over again.

You see, that's the way it is when you're an electronics junkie.

Only now I'm thinking maybe I've changed. A $65.00 gift card and no desire to use it. It's kind of spiritual, really, and liberating. Maybe this is a new path, a new beginning, a new...

Oh God, I hope this doesn't mean I'm going to start eating organic foods and listening to Yanni records.

Just Because I've Got Nothing To Talk About That Doesn't Mean I've Got Nothing To Say

By now I'm sure we've all had a chance to finish this month's Opera News so let's discuss it, shall we? Might as well since I don't have much else to blog on tonight.

Let's see, Placido Domingo is on the cover and the big story, of course, is his grueling schedule. It's all old news for Domingo fans but incredible nonetheless. In the span of about a month he sings the title role in Idomeneo in L.A., sings Siegmud in Die Walkure at the Met, conducts Carmen in both New York and L.A., and still fulfills his duties as general director of both the Los Angeles and Washington National Operas. And then you can add to all that all the preparation he is doing for a couple of upcoming projects he has set for later this year. How does he do it?

Glad you asked because I was wondering that myself. No one could possibly do all those things and be all those places without dropping dead from exhaustion. I knew this needed further investigation and I started by picking up the magazine and making a good, careful study his picture on the cover. You know, really look at man, see what makes him tick. And that's when it struck me. The frozen expression, the stiff pose, the strange vacant look in his eyes, it all pointed to one thing -

Placido Domingo is a borg.

Look for yourself if you don't believe me. Sure, I'll admit it's a good disguise, but there is something undeniably borg-like about that picture. Something mechanical and alien and unnatural and one can only wonder how many other borg's are out there in our studios and opera houses. Hmmm, I'll leave that for you to discuss among yourselves.

Continuing on with the Opera News...There is a shocking Der Rosenkavalier exposé on page 31. Turns out that the real 1760's Vienna was nothing at all like the one described in Hugo von Hofmannsthal's libretto. Yeah, really. No kidding. My God, such a scandal! I'm sure we'll see Mike Wallace busting down doors and demanding answers on an upcoming 60 Minutes. Oh well. I love the magazine but sometimes it seems like opera people get themselves worked up over the littlest things. I think they need outside hobbies.

Ok, continuing on...Here's an interesting little item on page 37. The Houston Grand Opera is announcing it's 50th Anniversary Gala Concert with Renee Fleming, Elton John, and others TBA. Wait a second did I read that right? Renee Fleming and Elton John? Elton John? Not that "Elton John"? Geez, when did he make his operatic debut? I don't know about you but I'm not exactly sure which would be scarier - Elton John singing "E lucevan le stelle" or Renee Fleming singing "Crocodile Rock". Just pick your poison I guess. Oh well, I'm sure it'll all work out, and besides we all know that Sir Elton is a bona fide opera luminary now that he has taken that awful Aida score that Verdi wrote and re-worked it as a Disney extravaganza. Bravo, I say, bravo Elton.

Anything else to talk about in the Opera News...not really. Just the usual back of the book kind of stuff. You know, subscription offers and opera tours and things like that, although I can never figure out why anyone would want to go all the way to Milan or Prague just to see an opera. Seems like an expensive night out to me and a bit unnecessary. I guess if you need an excuse to go to Prague then an opera is as good an excuse as any, but it does seem to add to this image of opera goers as rich and spoiled (and they wonder why so many people are turned off by opera). Personally, for myself, I say if you want to go to the opera then go to the opera. Don't worry that you aren't rich enough or haven't read enough books, and don't think you have to travel all the way to Milan or Prague just to see a good one.

There, got that off my chest.

Last but not least I guess we should turn to page 13. Now isn't that a lovely young soprano there, and isn't it nice to see a singer who doesn't have a weight problem for a change. I certainly don't want to make a big deal out of this and I'm certainly not someone to be talking about other people's weight problems. Operatic stars should be judged on their singing and acting, not their dress size, and yet it's hard not to notice the heft and bulk of many of the people you see on opera stages or, even worse, on opera DVD's. If you've seen any opera at all I know you know what I'm talking about. It's almost like a tradition. Ballet stars are anorexics and operatic stars are 300 pound diabetics. Well, Sarah Coburn (the soprano on page 13) doesn't seem to have that problem. Not yet anyways and let's hope she keeps it up. Besides, she's kind of a looker.

So that's the the March Issue of Opera News. Yeah, I know, kind of a pathetic blog. Sorry to waste your time, but I think I've got a scoop with that Placido Domingo thing. Can't wait for the wire services to pick up on it.

The Big Broadcast Of 2005

As much as I'd like to say that I've got the new religion, that I've caught the podcasting fever, I'm afraid I'm beginning to have my doubts. Yes there are some shows I like and yes I like the convenience of being able to time shift the content to fit my schedule, but more and more I just get this feeling that podcasting will never be the next big thing.

Maybe I should backup first and explain what I'm talking about.

Podcasting, for those of you who may not be familiar with the term, is a means of distributing radio over the internet. Unlike the streams which are typical of traditional internet radio, podcasts are distributed as simple mp3 files. This means that instead of tuning in to a station at a particular time to hear a broadcast, a podcast listener can store the audio file on his computer or device and play back or "time shift" the content at his or her convenience. Strictly speaking this is not a new concept and companies such as Audible.com have long offered radio shows and audiobooks for download at their sites, however podcasting offers some important differences.

The first is that podcasts are free. Sites such as Audible.com charge for their content and encrypt their downloads to prevent unauthorized copying and distributi0n. Podcasts have no such restrictions and do not charge for their content. Their files are in the common mp3 format, the lingua franca of the digital audio world, and playable on just about every conceivable computer and device currently in existence. Audible's content will only play on machines authorized to receive Audible content and licensed to receive the specific show or book being downloaded. This all relates to a concept called DRM (Digital Rights Management) that I will talk about later.

The second important difference is the means of distribution. Podcasts are not distributed through a central server or website like Audible.com but rather through a method known as syndication. To put it in very simple terms, to receive podcasts a listener needs to subscribe to a providers "feed" (commonly called an RSS feed) which will deliver the content to his computer as it becomes available, much like a magazine that arrives in the mail each month. That subscription, in turn, is handled separately by a free program such as Ipodder or Doppler which the user downloads and installs on his computer. It is this software which manages the subcription(s) and keeps the downloaded podcasts up to date and organized. If this sounds complicated, it's not. The software does most of the dirty work.

Of course what this all means to the user is portablility. As I mentioned before podcasts are simply mp3 files which are playable on just about any portable device. This means that rather than being tied to a computer to listen to your internet radio, you can download the shows to your mp3 player or similar device and take the show with you. Podcasting isn't unique in this and sites such Audible.com and Napster also allow you to download their content to portable devices, but with restrictions and for a fee. There are no restrictions on podcasts and everyone is free to create, listen to and distribute them as they wish.

So what's the problem? Podcasting sounds great, doesn't it?

Actually, there is no problem. Podcasting is great, and it really exploits this whole idea "narrowcasting" or niche programming. That is, because it's free and often a labor of love, podcasting encourages all sorts of enthusiasts and hobbyists and assorted oddballs to offer programs that would never be aired over conventional radio. One of my favorite's is a half-hour show called Dave's Ipaq dedicated solely to Hewlett Packard PDA's. It's done by guy named Dave Ciccone who also runs a website of the same name, and although the show is very well done it's probably not of much interest to anyone who doesn't own an Ipaq or other Pocket PC. Another favorite of mine is EarlySound which features music of the Renaissance and Early Baroque. It is hosted by a robot named Mr. Sauterne (yes, like the wine) and is a concept so imaginative and weird that no professional media company would ever consider doing it. Unfortunately only one show has been done so far, although I'm hoping there are more to come.

Of course, amateur radio being amateur radio there are also plenty of shows that are a complete waste of time. Take for instance a show I once downloaded that started off with some high school or junior high school kid making fart noises into his microphone (a concept that was probably funnier on paper than it was on the air). I'm sure his friends got a kick out of it but I didn't stick around to hear the rest of the hilarious goings-on. Or how about the show where the guy just kept banging the microphone on his desk. That was a good one. I guess he was having sound troubles because he sounded like he was about a mile and half away. You couldn't hear a word he was saying and that would have been bad enough, but all the time he was recording he kept fiddling with things and making these really irritating banging and rubbing sounds as he moved the microphone back and forth across his desk. Sheesh. Thirty seconds of that and I filed it straight into the recycle bin.

Yeah, this podcasting is a new frontier all right, it's unpredictable and it's fun but I don't think it will ever go mainstream. I didn't used to think that. I mean I was seduced at first like all the others, but as I listen to more and more of these things I realize it's strictly a sideshow. Why? Because although it might be new and exciting right now, eventually most of these amateurs are going to tire of podcasting and move on to something else. They're going to run out of ideas and begin to repeat themselves, and they're going to wonder if it's worth all the work involved. Especially if there's no money to be made.

And money's the big reason podcasting will never go big time.

There's simply no way to make a profit from it. What are these podcaster's going to do - find sponsor's and sell ads? How? Unless Congress makes the fast-forward button illegal (and I wouldn't put it past 'em) then ad's aren't going to work. It simply too easy to skip them. What will the podcasters do then? Are they going to start charging for their subscriptions? How can they do that without some kind of DRM. If they can't control the distribution of their content then how can they charge for subscriptions? And if they do start DRM'ing their content then they're not podcasting anymore - they''re just the same as Audible or Napster.

Nope. Without a path to profitabilty (I think that's what the business geeks call it) the big guys are never going to buy the podcasting concept and the little guys are just going to get tired and fade away. Sure, some of the more successful websites will maintain podcasts as an adjunct to their core content and there will be radio stations offering bits and pieces of their programming as a way to reach a larger audience, but the idea of a little guy starting with nothing more than a microphone and a computer and building a media empire is just childish fantasy.

At least at this point it is.

Anywhere You Go It's The Same Thing
(Money Worries, Money Troubles)

According to the Murky News (that would be the San Jose Mercury News for all the non-locals out there) it turns out that I am living in the most affluent community in America. As they reported earlier this week, the median household income for Santa Clara County (that would be the Silicon Valley for all the non-locals out there) is somewhere around $70,000, a good $11,000 more than our nearest rivals. So how does it feel to be so affluent, you might ask, well I'll tell 'ya.

For starters the houses are a little cramped and the yards are a little small, but then who can afford one anyways. Some people can, but at a median Bay Area price of $666,000 most are left out in the cold. Just do the math. A $600,000 mortgage with a 5.75% interest rate for a 30 year term leaves you paying a mere $3,484.74 a month. That's around $42,000 a year or about 2/3 of the median households $70,000 yearly gross income. But wait, we're the most affluent people in America, the Murky News said so, so you know that can't be right. Especially since that 2/3 doesn't even include property taxes and insurance. I must have multiplied somewhere when I should have divided.

That's ok because everything else is cheap. Take gas, for example. Well, on second thought that's not a very good example. Hmmm, well take utilities then. No, that's not a very good example either. Insurance? Health Care? Transportation? College for the kids? Geez, there must be something that we can buy with all this affluence (besides 60 rolls of toilet paper at Costco).

I'll think of something.

You know, when you get right down to it $70,000 a year won't buy you a whole lot in the Santa Clara Valley. It'll put a roof over your head and a little food in your belly, but if you want to own anything around here you better be making double that, and even then you'll still standing in line at Costco along with the rest of us. If you're thinking about moving here and joining in on all this affluence - don't say I didn't warn you.

But enough of that. Let's talk about who'll replace Dan Rather instead.

Have they made an announcement yet? I haven't heard anything although there have been rumors on the internet. But, I mean really, c'mon. Donald Trump? Paris Hilton? Kofi Annan? I'll believe it when I see it.

If it was up to me to choose (which of course it isn't) I think I'd go for a urban anchor. I say that because I was listening to Terry Gross do an interview with the RZA the other day and I think he'd be a great choice for the Evening News, and I mean I'm dead serious about this. We've got plenty of white males doing the national news these days so why not give a person with a different perspective a chance. It would certainly give a whole new meaning to the nightly "rap"-up, I can tell you that, and probably wouldn't be bad for the ratings either.

(This should be the point in my blog where I write some kind of news "rap" to illustrate my point but I'm not going to do that. Look, I'm old, I'm half-japanese, and old japanese guys don't rap. Sorry, but I'm sure you can see my point. Anyways, it's been a long week)

They'll never let an urban black guy do the news, though, so we're probably just gonna get another white guy. Why is that? They could at least give the job to a woman or an old japanese guy instead. I know I'd like to see that, and there are certainly a lot of qualified people who aren't white and male who could do the job. Susie Gharib, Gwen Ifill, or how about Terry Gross? TV is just radio with a camera sticking in your face.

Take a chance, CBS, and do something different.

Oh well, plus ca change...

Is It Just Me Or Do I Feel A Draft

Isn't it great that baseball has finally put to rest all those steroid rumors that have been hounding it all winter. Now, at last, we can get the crime news out of the sports pages and back into the business section where it belongs. And speaking of Worldcom, doesn't it just confirm what hundreds of millions of working people have been secretly wondering ever since the dawn of the modern megacorporation began. Namely, just what exactly does the boss really do all day?

At Worldcom, apparently, not a whole heck of a lot. Let's face it, the night janitor probably knew more about what was happening inside that company than poor old Bernie Ebbers. The guy was just an innocent dupe. It was hard work keeping track of all the millions and millions of salary and stock options he was raking in year after year- you can't expect him to spend time actually running the company or staying on top of a billion or so dollars worth of fraud can you? Let's be reasonable here.

Yeah, poor Bernie. I feel for the guy, but that's not what I want to talk about.

I want to talk about naked opera singers. Yeah, I know, I know, you're probably sick of it. Seems every other blog you read nowdays just wants to go on and on about some naked tenor or mezzo or something like that, and it's not like I can really add anything new, but you know this is an important topic. It deserves it's place on the internet.

So what I'm thinking is that it's really hard to ignore a naked opera singer. Think about it. There you are watching an opera and the drama is intense, the music is inspired, and the singing is breathtakingly beautiful, and then all of a sudden one of the singers takes her clothes off. How are you supposed to react to something like that? Do you hoot and holler? Do you modestly avert your gaze? No, of course not. If you're truly the refined and cultured patron of the arts you think you are then the obvious thing to do is simply pretend you don't see it. But that's hard to do.

"Enjoying the opera?"

"Why yes, it's wonderful. But I was wondering, why is the soprano naked?"

"The soprano?"

"Yes, up there on the stage."

"Naked?"

"Yes, don't you see her. She doesn't have any clothes on."

"Oh, wait a minute, hold on here, I think you're right. By George she is naked isn't she."

"You mean you didn't notice."

"Me? No. You see I find the whole experience of the opera so ennobling and enriching, so elegant and refined, that I don't even notice such frivolous things. After all, what's a pretty young girl to me when there is Strauss in the air, even if she is naked? No, for a truly enlightened man such bawdiness is merely primitive and base and of no more interest than a speck on a wall."

"Oh, you are good and just and true."

"There there, my dear, there there."

Yes, I suppose that's how I should react, but I seem be made of coarser stuff. I want to be noble - really I do. It's just that when I'm watching the DVD and I see the soprano get naked those noble thoughts don't come to mind. Instead I start thinking "Wow -look at that!!", and for some reason I don't care about the music or the singing or the drama anymore - I just want the camera to shift a little to the left so I can get a better look. Call me crass, call me crude, but that's the way it is.

And that's why I think maybe it would be better for all involved if the singers just kept their clothes on. Not that I'm a prude mind you, but it makes for a less of a distraction if you're not sitting there in the audience or in front of the TV with your tongue wagging and your eyes bugging out. You kind of lose track of things when that happens.

If you don't believe me then go watch soprano Maria Ewing starring in Strauss' Salome. It's on DVD and after you've seen it tell me how much of the opera you remember after she does her Dance of the Seven Veils.

Yeah, uh-huh...liar!

I Love You California

March is here, the sun is shining, and spring is just around the corner- all in all it's not so bad living in California. Especially when you look at the news and see those poor folks back east suffering through the wind and cold and ice and snow - it must be tough for them. And I know they resent people like me who live out here in the Bay Area where it's sunny and warm. I know they call us shallow and narcissistic and pampered and all sorts of nasty things. Yeah, it hurts. Yeah, I feel guilty, but it doesn't last long. After a while I get used to it and do what all Californians do. I just say "Who cares - I'm going to the beach."

But listen if it will make any of those New Yorkers or Bostonians out there feel any better then at least you can get a little satisfaction from knowing that here in California we're expecting a little storm of our own tonight. No snow or ice, mind you, but the weatherman says we could get a quarter of inch of rain and the temperatures could drop all the way down into the lower fifties.

You see we have our hard winters too.

Speaking of California, have I talked about the great rise and fall of the man they called the "governator" yet? I d0n't think the national press had got hold of the story so in case you haven't heard let me fill you in. Let's see, where was I? Oh yeah, if I remember correctly when last we left Arnold he was riding the crest of a wave, a sort of 'Mr. Schwarzenegger Goes to Washington, er Sacramento' figure who had entered politics to reform the system and loosen the stranglehold of party politics and special interests over state government. Remember? Well, that's all different now.

If you've read this blog in the past (and I can't imagine y0u have but, who knows, I may have one lonely reader out there) then you'll remember I was enthusiastic about the new governor's ambitions to energize state government back then but also admonished him to leave the public schools alone. No one, I felt, not even Arnold Schwarzenegger would be foolhardy enough to commit political suicide by taking on the state's education establishment, particularly the formidable 9000 pound gorilla of California politics, the California Teachers Association.

Well, sorry to say, Arnold didn't listen.

I don't know why he didn't listen to me. I figure it's probably because he read that editorial in Barron's a while back that pointed out how the U.S. leads all the other industrialized nations in per capita spending on education and yet seems to have the least to show for it. In fact, the editorial pointed out we don't just spend a little more, we spend a lot more per capita. Why is it, they asked, that we spend so much to attain such meager results? I guess after reading the article the governor probably got ambitious and decided it was time for Californians to start asking questions ourselves.

So off he went on his little crusade to try to find out what is really wrong with California schools, to find out if the problem wasn't just a matter of spending more money but also a matter of how the money is spent. It was a brave thing to do, I'll admit, and yet incredibly naive at the same time. For someone who is supposed to have some political savvy and be surrounded by some of the savviest people in the business, it just seemed a peculiar thing to do.

The first news of the governors education reforms that most Californians got was from the local newscasts. You knew he was in trouble when you listened to the broadcasts and they all announced it like "The governor began his assault on California's children today by unveiling his...". Of course when the state's democrats heard this they felt like they just found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Up till then Arnold had been riding high in the polls and winning the support of both Republicans and Democrats, but after he decided to take on the schools he wasn't nearly so bulletproof anymore.

The plan mainly consisted of smaller than expected increases in education spending coupled with reforms to base teacher pay on merit rather than tenure. The public's reaction to the meager increases in spending was a predictable "Just because we're broke doesn't mean we shouldn't spend more money", while the CTA's reaction to the merit pay proposal was "This governor is trying to demonize teachers." Soon everyone huddled together in a kind of "we've got to protect our children" formation and the governor's goose was pretty much cooked.

Meanwhile, back at the statehouse, there wasn't a Democrat to be found. Before the governors proposal came out you couldn't walk ten feet without tripping over a Democrat trying to get his face on TV and shoot a few holes in the 'governator', but after the proposal they all just seemed to disappear. Where did they all go, we wondered, even though we knew they were just laying back and enjoying the sight of the once high and mighty reformer being eaten alive by his own political ineptitude. "Yes, yes, yes", you could hear them chuckling to themselves, "how could he be so stupid?"

And so Arnold started to sink in the polls. His approval ratings are still good, but not what they were, and if he continues to push the voters towards a decision between their children and Conan The Barbarian, well, all I can say is it will be a sad end for a once promising political career. Of course if he has any brains at all he'll walk away from this school thing and try to get some of his other reforms through. Whatever happens, though, let this just be a lesson for all those who seek higher office in California-

Don't mess with the schools.

If you've got to shut down the prisons, close the hospitals, and lay off every policeman and fireman in California, just do it. If you've got to sell the state parks, close the freeways, and leave every widow and orphan to go begging, just do it. If you've got to borrow from your parents, your children, your brothers, your sisters, and every aunt, uncle, nephew and cousin you can find, just do it.

Just don't mess with the schools.

And so that's the news from sunny California where the coffers are empty, the mortgage is past due, and governor hates children.