| |
Thursday, October 24, 2002
It Is Meaningless, But It Is Amusing
The National Association of Cosmetologists (read: barbers) demanded that Jesse Jackson apologize for demanding an apology from the makers of "Barbershop."
Stern told Reuters his group had screened the film, a comedy starring Ice Cube as the young owner of a community barbershop, and the 100 or so African American cosmetologists at the screening found nothing offensive about the movie.
"Reverend Jackson did not consider the future of black filmmakers," said Stern, adding that now, every time a black filmmaker produces a movie or writes a screenplay, they are going to have to consider whether they will offend some group, which in turn will stifle their creativity.
"We, as blacks, have to let the movie studios know that when he (Jackson) is wrong, we're willing to speak out for ourselves," Stern said.
Stern added that members of his group have seen their businesses hurt by Jackson's comment, and he said if the leader of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition did not apologize himself, his group would sue Jackson for defamation of character.
A Jackson spokeswoman was not immediately available to comment.
Ladies and gentlemen, reason #3,873,042 why a good parody story rarely can compare to the truth.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Ranting at Prices
I hate chain music stores (or "entertainment" stores as they like to be called now that they carry video games and DVDs). It's bad enough they and the whole membership of the RIAA got off on the collusion to keep CD prices high. The chain stores tend to have just the popular stuff, its overpriced, and lately they seem to devote Last week while at Target, I noticed the new Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers CD, the last DJ was out. I was ready to buy it, but then noticed that the "sale" price was $16.99, apparently because of the bonus DVD feature. I decided that surely the price would be better elsewhere. I don't buy much music anymore (no, not because I'm "stealing" from artists by downloading MP3s, I'm on dial-up hell at home, though I probably wouldn't even bother if I wasn't), because I don't have time to listen much at home with the baby. Add in the need to keep to a tighter budget with the little one about, and still buying a decent amount of DVDs, and well, if anyone wants to buy me the last dozen or so Dick's Picks released, I'd be grateful (no pun intended). The only time I listen for an extended period, is in the car. Still, I like Petty a lot, so I want to get this new CD.
Going into FYE (formerly Camelot or something like that) while running a couple errands at the mall this morning, I decide to stop in and check the price and maybe also pick up the new Santana CD that was released yesterday. I'm roadtripping to Pittsburgh this weekend, and a couple new CDs might be nice. The "sale" price for Santana was $14.99. "Eh," I think, "if I can get it and the Petty CD for around the same price, I'll treat myself." I find the Petty CD - $23.99!! Check the Petty link above - the retail price is listed as $21.98! They added another couple dollars!
Needless to say I didn't bother to buy either one. I can't even recall the last time I actually bought a CD in a chain record store. I've picked up the occasional DVD or some blank CDs or tapes, but actually buying a CD? This is the sort of reason why CD sales are down. People know that the CDs are overpriced and are starting to draw lines. I won't even begin to discuss the number of lousy artists they are promoting. Add in the numerous people like myself who have probably reallocated money otherwise spent on CDs to DVDs and of course the sales are dropping like stones.
I feel better now.
UPDATE: I bought both at Target today. Santana's Shaman was on sale for $10.88, and the bonus DVD Petty was $16.99.
Blame Canada
The report to the Canadian Senate recommending decriminalizing marijuana is agitating the American drug warriors. This includes the common "it's all about the children" cry from drug czar John Walters who repeats his common cry that "More teenagers seek treatment for marijuana dependency than alcohol." Fascinating especially considering this:
"According to the ONDCP's 1999 National Drug Control Strategy, there are approximately 4 million chronic drug users in the United States. This closely aligns with the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, which found that 4.1 million people were in need of drug treatment. The NIAAA report, Improving the Delivery of Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services, estimates there are 14 million alcohol abusers, whereas the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse finds approximately 9.7 million people in need of alcohol treatment. Regardless of the source, a conservative estimate of those in need of substance abuse treatment is between 13 and 16 million people. In contrast, both the 1997 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Managing Managed Care, and the 1998 National Household Survey conclude that approximately 3 million people receive care for alcohol or drugs in one year. Although, as previously stated, neither the estimates of need nor the estimates of those in treatment are all inclusive, the picture remains the same - more than 10 million people who need treatment each year are not receiving it."
Source: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, "Changing the Conversation: Improving Substance Abuse Treatment: The National Treatment Plan Initiative; Panel Reports, Public Hearings, and Participant Acknowledgements" (Washington, DC: SAMHSA, November 2000), p. 6.
So how many teens "seek" treatment for drug use? Let's ask the ONDCP
The number of adolescents aged 12-17 admitted to treatment facilities in the U.S. showed a net increase of 20 percent between 1994 (109,055 admissions) and 1999 (131,294 admissions). Marijuana accounted for 60% of all admissions for youth in 1999 and accounted for most of the overall increase in adolescent admissions from 1994 to 1999. In 1999, half (51%) of all adolescent admissions involved the use of both alcohol and marijuana. Seventy-one percent of adolescent admissions were male. However this proportion was heavily influenced by marijuana admissions, where 76% were male. The male to female ratio was much closer for most other substances.11
About half (51%) of adolescent admissions to treatment in 1999 were referred by the criminal justice system. Seventeen percent were self or individual referrals, and 11 percent were referred through schools.12
So, 60% of 131,294 is about 78,776. But look further, 51% of the treatments were for both alcohol and marijuana usage. This means that only 49% of teens were getting treatment only for marijuana. This brings the number down to 38,600. Of that total, 51% were treatments referred by criminal courts. "Treatment" referrals from criminal court could apply to a heavy user or a kid busted for holding a dime bag, pleading his way out of any criminal charges.
It's a great way for Walters to spin marijuana as a greater threat than alcohol, by quoting dodgy (to be kind) stats that he can produce but he knows to be misleading.
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Fantasy Football Update
I shouldn't gloat since I am mired in mediocrity with my online fantasy football team (4-3, 4th out of 10), but...
I scored a strong win over sportsblogger and writer Dan Lewis(2-5, 9th place) this past weekend. I didn't overpower, Terrell Owens has been a bit disappointing in fantasyland and don't even get me started on Keyshawn Johnson (who I benched in favor of former Pitt star Antonio Bryant). My season saver has been Donovan McNabb.
Monday, October 21, 2002
Watchful Eye
A good article, dare I say ("dare, dare"), thought provoking by Arnold Kling on increased surveillance capabilities, civil liberties, laws and enforcement. His argument is that as the ability to not only see, track and record all activities increases the need to write better laws is the solution. He makes a very good point that the genie is already out of the bottle with regards to the technologies to track and observe activities that are illegal (speeding, pot smoking on college campuses to name two examples) but that the enforcement (or lack thereof) is the only reason why there aren't widespread arrests/ticketing for illegal violations. If using automated surveillance instead, though, there could be near "perfect" enforcement leading to a radical shift in what people would want to see considered illegal or ticketable. If, however, laws are made more precise and narrowly focused then you get the more desirable results. I may have mangled that so I'll let Arnold explain better using speeding as an example:
For example, the vast majority of drivers get away with speeding much of the time. What would happen if it became possible to detect all of these speeding violations?
In theory, perfect enforcement of speed limits would cause everyone to obey the speed limit. But that would be such a radical development that I doubt that it is desirable. If speeding is widespread, it is very likely that it is efficient from both the individual and social perspective. In fact, we probably want the vast majority of speeding violations to be overlooked.
If we introduced perfect speed-detection technology, then my guess is that we would have to rewrite the traffic laws to say what we really mean. What we really want is for people to drive in a way that does not cause undue risk to other drivers. This is much harder to codify than a speed limit, but if laws are going to be enforced strictly, then they have to be written more carefully.
My semi-libertarian heart could almost get behind automatic enforcement if this sort of action occurred.
Some Things Don't Need Explanations
Hollywood executives face a long hard road to ever overcome the stereotype that they are clueless, soulless, mindless drones of mediocrity who only know the last hit and actually believe market research. This explanation of a character in "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, doesn't help (Subscription req'd)
And then there's Gollum, the schizophrenic freak whom Frodo and Sam meet on their journey. "He's got a good side and a bad side," says New Line marketing chief Russell Schwartz. "I call this 'A Beautiful Mind' in Middle-earth."
Are you freaking kidding me? That's his idea of describing Gollum? Gollum, the twisted, deformed, wretched corrupted icon of what evil the Ring inflicts upon the bearer's soul is a friggin' loopy Russell Crowe in fantasy land to this guy?
Excuse me, there is a rather large drink of Makers Mark calling me.
Hunting Rabbits
It's been very, very quiet here the last couple of days. Work has been up and other things that I am not able to disclose as of yet, are happening to take my time. Hopefully I will resume posting soon.
|
|
