The (over)exercise of power: "Am I the only person who finds this disturbing? I don't mean the fact that Bush would vet his selection for the highest court in the land in part on something utterly trivial. That's expected. What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy."
Well, no you are probably not the ONLY one, but more people find it disturbing that the money losing LA press doesn't have better things to be disturbed about. Were you disturbed by all those jogging pictures during the Clinton years? Were you curious that after all that supposed excercise he got fatter and fatter. Were you disturbed by the comparisons between Kerry falling off his 10-speed on a Washington street and Bush falling off a mountain bike riding up a hill composed of soft sand?
I'd be checking into the reasons behind all of your concern. We don't buy it any more.
independentsources.com also thinks it odd that Bush is critisized for something worthy of praise.
I guess I'm not the only one who is disturbed at their being disturbed. Do we have the makings of a Monty Python sketch here?
Friday, July 22, 2005
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Last Farmland in DC Sold
Article here, thanks to Technocrat.com
Why do people move to big cities? Jobs.
What happens when a medium sized city gets to be a megalopolis? Ordinary people can no longer afford to live in the center. Roads in the center can't cope with individual travelers and mass transit copes poorly, forcing middle class people to move to the edge and commute AROUND, which is what the beltway was originally intended for (the overcrowded core of DC has long since passed beyond the beltway though).
If you change jobs a lot you are better off renting. If you insist on owning a home you had better get a real estate license on the side (at which point you realize you can probably make more money selling real estate than whatever else you were doing). That describes DC, LA, NYC and a number of other "hubs" right now.
All of this was pretty much inevitable for the non-farm worker in the past. But today we have no excuse for continuing this endless cycle other than "well, thats the way we've always done things".
Why do millions of stock brokers, computer programmers, customer support specialists, lawyers, sales reps, and a host of other white collar workers have to leave their home at all and clog up one means of transport or another with their sweaty bodies for 3 and 4 hours a day? And for most of these people, what do they do at work? Sit in front of a computer display and talk on the telephone. I'll skip the argument about whether 80 percent of the government workers need to be employed at all, but from my observation of them (over the course of 15 years or so, since computer networks became commonplace) there is almost nothing they need to be physically present to accomplish.
Only recently in the DC area did I work with sales reps who no longer had a permanent office. Not surprisingly it was mostly from foreign based companies that didn't see ownership of a building in the US with a logo on its side as an asset. These sales reps of course did pay me frequent visits, another waste. They could have e-mailed me the powerpoint presentation from Idaho or anywhere else and it would have been just as useful as a personal visit. "Ahhh" some will say, "that personal touch makes the sale!". But I don't think there is a lot of evidence to support that.
Hopefully in another generation or so we will finally be weaned off of notions that a TV ad reaches "millions" while an Internet ad only reach those who "click-through". My mailbox is full every day with print media desperate to count me as an eyeball to their advertisers when in fact I almost never open their publications.
In a civilization that takes the power of the Internet seriously I think big cities are going to die one last (and hopefully slow, painless) death. A well known tech pundit recently asked if Silicon Valley would ever make a full recovery from the dot-com crash. The answer is NO, and why should we want it to? That USED to be productive farmland and there is no reason it can't revive that tradition (at least it isn't QUITE as paved over as New York yet). It could be a nice place for a lot of technologists to live, but there is no need or advantage for ALL of them being there. Many of them would be surprised how many places between the east and west coasts are not only pleasant places to live, but still affordable. And just maybe having some of our technology brain power in less expensive parts of the country is a better alternative to using the brain power in other parts of the world.
Why do people move to big cities? Jobs.
What happens when a medium sized city gets to be a megalopolis? Ordinary people can no longer afford to live in the center. Roads in the center can't cope with individual travelers and mass transit copes poorly, forcing middle class people to move to the edge and commute AROUND, which is what the beltway was originally intended for (the overcrowded core of DC has long since passed beyond the beltway though).
If you change jobs a lot you are better off renting. If you insist on owning a home you had better get a real estate license on the side (at which point you realize you can probably make more money selling real estate than whatever else you were doing). That describes DC, LA, NYC and a number of other "hubs" right now.
All of this was pretty much inevitable for the non-farm worker in the past. But today we have no excuse for continuing this endless cycle other than "well, thats the way we've always done things".
Why do millions of stock brokers, computer programmers, customer support specialists, lawyers, sales reps, and a host of other white collar workers have to leave their home at all and clog up one means of transport or another with their sweaty bodies for 3 and 4 hours a day? And for most of these people, what do they do at work? Sit in front of a computer display and talk on the telephone. I'll skip the argument about whether 80 percent of the government workers need to be employed at all, but from my observation of them (over the course of 15 years or so, since computer networks became commonplace) there is almost nothing they need to be physically present to accomplish.
Only recently in the DC area did I work with sales reps who no longer had a permanent office. Not surprisingly it was mostly from foreign based companies that didn't see ownership of a building in the US with a logo on its side as an asset. These sales reps of course did pay me frequent visits, another waste. They could have e-mailed me the powerpoint presentation from Idaho or anywhere else and it would have been just as useful as a personal visit. "Ahhh" some will say, "that personal touch makes the sale!". But I don't think there is a lot of evidence to support that.
Hopefully in another generation or so we will finally be weaned off of notions that a TV ad reaches "millions" while an Internet ad only reach those who "click-through". My mailbox is full every day with print media desperate to count me as an eyeball to their advertisers when in fact I almost never open their publications.
In a civilization that takes the power of the Internet seriously I think big cities are going to die one last (and hopefully slow, painless) death. A well known tech pundit recently asked if Silicon Valley would ever make a full recovery from the dot-com crash. The answer is NO, and why should we want it to? That USED to be productive farmland and there is no reason it can't revive that tradition (at least it isn't QUITE as paved over as New York yet). It could be a nice place for a lot of technologists to live, but there is no need or advantage for ALL of them being there. Many of them would be surprised how many places between the east and west coasts are not only pleasant places to live, but still affordable. And just maybe having some of our technology brain power in less expensive parts of the country is a better alternative to using the brain power in other parts of the world.
Monday, July 04, 2005
The End of the Rainbow - New York Times
The End of the Rainbow - New York Times: "'We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under,' said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. 'It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change.'"
Maybe we here in the US need to start electing Democrats again so we can nearly go under and get the courage to change.
Except I thought we tried that already. Apparently Democrats have forgotten. Or they just like being in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)