June 21, 2008
05:18 pm
The Vast Wasteland
There are only two weeks left for this year’s run of Doctor Who, and there won’t be a full series next year — just a few specials. Torchwood will only have a 5-episode run next year.
Lost is over until 2009. Battlestar Galactica is on an extended hiatus until 2009, and then the series ends.
I don’t know about you, but I’m going through a severe television withdrawal and I don’t know if I will survive.
Thank goodness for Netflix. They’re my supplier, my dealer. RIght now they’re filling the gap with 1980s television like Remington Steele.
Ah, sweet, sweet candy.
There are only two weeks left for this year’s run of Doctor Who, and there won’t be a full series next year — just a few specials. Torchwood will only have a 5-episode run next year.
Lost is over until 2009. Battlestar Galactica is on an extended hiatus until 2009, and then the series ends.
I don’t know about you, but I’m going through a severe television withdrawal and I don’t know if I will survive.
Thank goodness for Netflix. They’re my supplier, my dealer. RIght now they’re filling the gap with 1980s television like Remington Steele.
Ah, sweet, sweet candy.
May 23, 2008
10:24 am
Now we know what Tommy Puett is doing
Three years ago, I asked the question, whatever happened to Tommy Puett?
I got my answer. He’s Googling himself, and demanding that any unflattering material be removed.
Here’s the email I received this morning:
The body of the email consisted entirely of some kind of derogatory comment about business practices and personality issues. At first I was wondering what kind of spam this was — the whole thing was wacky and bizarre and written in the way most spam is, like the person wasn’t familiar with the conventions of email (such as, oh, putting the content in the body, not the subject).
I began to realize that the writer was referring to something on my blog — I had never written anything like that, and it dawned on me that this must be a comment someone wrote.
I searched through the blog for the comment in question which I deemed to be… well, rude. I don’t know if it rose to the level of libel and I generally write plenty of derogatory comments myself here. But I limit my attacks to those who, through fame or power, invite such attacks. In my opinion, a former child actor turned businessman doesn’t rise to that level. Back in 2005, I didn’t have a moderation function in place to weed out such comments. In addition, the commenter did not give a name or email address. Accordingly, I removed the comment as an unfair personal attack.
This was a difficult decision. If the comment had been called to my attention in some other way, I’d have definitely deleted it without a second thought. But now I’m afraid that the deletion will make it look like I caved in to some silly demand and the threat of “the next step.”
I have to say now, at the risk of another ridiculous takedown demand, that Mr. Puett, by taking this action, certainly didn’t quell the allegations made by the commenter. Googling yourself and then demanding removal of any criticism out there on the internet is just sad; doing so with the threat of legal action is patently ridiculous. I have no doubt that the allegation in the original comment was unfounded. Of course, by responding in such a direct way to an allegation — in this case, in the subject of his email — he’s simply making it worse than if he’d simply ignored it. If his lawyer really was there and approved such an email, he should be looking for another lawyer.
How much more impact would he have had if he had simply responded to the comment like a rational person, winning friends (and possibly new customers for his company) in the process?
(As an aside, I should note that I have removed entries or comments in the past because celebrities have contacted me cordially and in a friendly way, explaining that sometimes my blog comes out on top in Google searches rather than the official sites; it’s not my responsibility to fix their SEO issues, but they were so nice about it and asking nicely is far preferable to threatening legal action, especially where there is no legal leg to stand on.)
Anyway, although the comment has been removed as I deemed it a personal attack, he is now presented with the publicity that results from a heavy-handed threat for which there is no justification. It seems to me that the email he sent to me is my property, and I am under no obligation whatsoever to keep it confidential; my own policy requires that I explain why something was redacted from my blog.
Oh, and what is Tommy Puett doing?
He runs a cap company called “LilBrims,” which I must admit look pretty cool. I’m thinking birthday gifts for some kids I know. Wow — a potential new customer even after this. Imagine if he’d been nicer about it?
So, now we know.
Three years ago, I asked the question, whatever happened to Tommy Puett?
I got my answer. He’s Googling himself, and demanding that any unflattering material be removed.
Here’s the email I received this morning:
From: Tommy Puett
Subject: This is Tommy Puett sitting with our in house lawyer. Please remove this comment you posted on your blog page. I was NOT canned for bad business practice. I left to start my own company. I would like this misrepresentation of me removed or I will take the next step. Thank you.
Date: May 23, 2008 7:35:24 AM PDT
To: Gene Cowan
The body of the email consisted entirely of some kind of derogatory comment about business practices and personality issues. At first I was wondering what kind of spam this was — the whole thing was wacky and bizarre and written in the way most spam is, like the person wasn’t familiar with the conventions of email (such as, oh, putting the content in the body, not the subject).
I began to realize that the writer was referring to something on my blog — I had never written anything like that, and it dawned on me that this must be a comment someone wrote.
I searched through the blog for the comment in question which I deemed to be… well, rude. I don’t know if it rose to the level of libel and I generally write plenty of derogatory comments myself here. But I limit my attacks to those who, through fame or power, invite such attacks. In my opinion, a former child actor turned businessman doesn’t rise to that level. Back in 2005, I didn’t have a moderation function in place to weed out such comments. In addition, the commenter did not give a name or email address. Accordingly, I removed the comment as an unfair personal attack.
This was a difficult decision. If the comment had been called to my attention in some other way, I’d have definitely deleted it without a second thought. But now I’m afraid that the deletion will make it look like I caved in to some silly demand and the threat of “the next step.”
I have to say now, at the risk of another ridiculous takedown demand, that Mr. Puett, by taking this action, certainly didn’t quell the allegations made by the commenter. Googling yourself and then demanding removal of any criticism out there on the internet is just sad; doing so with the threat of legal action is patently ridiculous. I have no doubt that the allegation in the original comment was unfounded. Of course, by responding in such a direct way to an allegation — in this case, in the subject of his email — he’s simply making it worse than if he’d simply ignored it. If his lawyer really was there and approved such an email, he should be looking for another lawyer.
How much more impact would he have had if he had simply responded to the comment like a rational person, winning friends (and possibly new customers for his company) in the process?
(As an aside, I should note that I have removed entries or comments in the past because celebrities have contacted me cordially and in a friendly way, explaining that sometimes my blog comes out on top in Google searches rather than the official sites; it’s not my responsibility to fix their SEO issues, but they were so nice about it and asking nicely is far preferable to threatening legal action, especially where there is no legal leg to stand on.)
Anyway, although the comment has been removed as I deemed it a personal attack, he is now presented with the publicity that results from a heavy-handed threat for which there is no justification. It seems to me that the email he sent to me is my property, and I am under no obligation whatsoever to keep it confidential; my own policy requires that I explain why something was redacted from my blog.
Oh, and what is Tommy Puett doing?
He runs a cap company called “LilBrims,” which I must admit look pretty cool. I’m thinking birthday gifts for some kids I know. Wow — a potential new customer even after this. Imagine if he’d been nicer about it?
So, now we know.
April 17, 2008
11:34 am
The website that watches you back
I was perusing my server logs today. Here’s some of the amusements to be found within:
I was perusing my server logs today. Here’s some of the amusements to be found within:
- There are tons of people, mostly in MySpace and various forums, who are hotlinking directly to images here on my blog. I’m being slammed, bandwidth-wise, by all the image links so I took some action today. There are bunch of MySpace profiles and the like today which have amusing little “I’m a bandwidth hog” messages on them.
To some extent, I blame MySpace for this. That crappy site encourages people to leech off of others because the culture there, for some reason, leads people to fill up comment forums with images, the cheesier the better. And none of these images are ever hosted on MySpace’s servers — oh, no. They encourage users to hotlink to other people’s servers, thus making money while others pay for bandwidth. I wonder if there is some way to block image requests from MySpace pages? - There are some pretty bizarre search terms leading people here. For instance, so far this month the top search word that brought people to my site was “Kevin.” Wha?? First off, what kind of person just searches for “Kevin” rather than a full name? What are they expecting to find?
Other top search terms include “Juliana Margulies”, an actress I know nothing about and never wrote about other than posting a “The More You Know” PSA. The #4 top search was “Cowan,” which at least makes some sense, and that’s followed at #5 with “DC Metro Map.” But then #6 is interesting: “kinky ideas.” I can certainly understand why people might search for some kinky ideas to liven up their Friday night; but I’m afraid they’re going to be sorely disappointed when they end up here. - My site is designed to look really nice in Safari, since that’s the browser I use and frankly, this site is for me when it boils down to it. But it turns out that only 3.7% of the visitors are using Safari. 17% are using IE 7, and 16% are using IE 6; something like 7% are using Firefox. I think you guys should switch over to Safari. Really. It looks so much nicer.
April 05, 2008
12:18 pm
The neighbor’s grass is always less green
My neighbor: has a gardening service mow their lawn, driving from who knows where in a pick-up and a big van, using gas-powered mowers and a gas-powered blower.
Me: Do it myself, with an electric mower, and pair of hand-operated grass clippers, and a rake and broom.
My way is not only less carbon intensive, but is also better exercise… and much quieter and less annoying.
[Update: I’m being punished for my smugness with blisters on my hands.]
My neighbor: has a gardening service mow their lawn, driving from who knows where in a pick-up and a big van, using gas-powered mowers and a gas-powered blower.
Me: Do it myself, with an electric mower, and pair of hand-operated grass clippers, and a rake and broom.
My way is not only less carbon intensive, but is also better exercise… and much quieter and less annoying.
[Update: I’m being punished for my smugness with blisters on my hands.]
March 27, 2008
07:15 am
This is why I’m irritable in the morning
When my clock radio turns on at 6:20am, there is invariably a story about the Iraq war or the Middle East on “Morning Edition.” At the bottom of the hour, the news begins and it usually starts off with a story about Iraq or the Middle East. After the news, there’s often a story about the Iraq war or the Middle East, followed by a story about a soldier or an ordinary person who has been touched by the Iraq war or the Middle East. After a break for traffic reports, it’s time for a story about people losing their homes after taking out usurious loans, then some long-winded “perspective” from a whiner and a boring story about something uniquely Californian, an in-depth look at the root structure of an endangered plant or some such thing.
The whole time I am laying in bed listening to this getting more and more depressed, there is a single bird chirping outside my window. He seems to have taken up permanent residence outside my bedroom, and his chirp is monotonous and insistent; sounding like the annoying, incessant chirp of a smoke detector with a low battery.
This is the world in which I wake up every morning: the constant low-level hum of a region at war far away that does nothing to us back home but annoy; financial disaster; birds that don’t seem to understand that you don’t get enough sleep, what with the waking up 4 times a night.
As I lay there I often wonder… is this how people become disengaged from civics, estranged from politics, uninterested in their government? I’m becoming one of those people. I had thought it was because of the sunny weather and blue skies conspiring to give me other things to do; now I realize that I am bombarded by it day and night to such an extent that I tune it out.
Hopelessness, inability to change what it happening. That’ll be what gets written in the history books about this era in our history.
When my clock radio turns on at 6:20am, there is invariably a story about the Iraq war or the Middle East on “Morning Edition.” At the bottom of the hour, the news begins and it usually starts off with a story about Iraq or the Middle East. After the news, there’s often a story about the Iraq war or the Middle East, followed by a story about a soldier or an ordinary person who has been touched by the Iraq war or the Middle East. After a break for traffic reports, it’s time for a story about people losing their homes after taking out usurious loans, then some long-winded “perspective” from a whiner and a boring story about something uniquely Californian, an in-depth look at the root structure of an endangered plant or some such thing.
The whole time I am laying in bed listening to this getting more and more depressed, there is a single bird chirping outside my window. He seems to have taken up permanent residence outside my bedroom, and his chirp is monotonous and insistent; sounding like the annoying, incessant chirp of a smoke detector with a low battery.
This is the world in which I wake up every morning: the constant low-level hum of a region at war far away that does nothing to us back home but annoy; financial disaster; birds that don’t seem to understand that you don’t get enough sleep, what with the waking up 4 times a night.
As I lay there I often wonder… is this how people become disengaged from civics, estranged from politics, uninterested in their government? I’m becoming one of those people. I had thought it was because of the sunny weather and blue skies conspiring to give me other things to do; now I realize that I am bombarded by it day and night to such an extent that I tune it out.
Hopelessness, inability to change what it happening. That’ll be what gets written in the history books about this era in our history.
March 18, 2008
11:37 am
But it’s an honor to be nominated
As I mentioned last week, we — meaning, the DC Shorts Film Festival — were nominated for the Washington, DC Mayor’s Art Awards. The awards were presented last night at the Kennedy Center… and we did not win.
I was comfortably ensconced in San Jose watching YouTube videos for no good reason while a gaggle of DC Shorts folks haunted the Concert Hall. There was universal disappointment from all as the winner was announced. The description of the winner — working with limited resources, innovative, etc. — led those assembled to expect that we’d won, but no… it went to the Washington Opera. Limited resources? They have Placido Domingo. An audience services department. Kennedy Center performance space.
When I got the call after the awards ceremony, my first reaction was irritation. I mean, in a battle between the Washington Opera and DC Shorts, who does more with less? Who works with more limited resources and yet touches more diverse audiences? Seriously.
But in the light of the morning, I realized one important thing: when Jon and I started this film festival, shoehorned into an arts space with a video projector and rented screen, who would have thought we’d ever be nominated for an award in the same category as an internationally acclaimed opera headed by Placido Domingo?
As I mentioned last week, we — meaning, the DC Shorts Film Festival — were nominated for the Washington, DC Mayor’s Art Awards. The awards were presented last night at the Kennedy Center… and we did not win.
I was comfortably ensconced in San Jose watching YouTube videos for no good reason while a gaggle of DC Shorts folks haunted the Concert Hall. There was universal disappointment from all as the winner was announced. The description of the winner — working with limited resources, innovative, etc. — led those assembled to expect that we’d won, but no… it went to the Washington Opera. Limited resources? They have Placido Domingo. An audience services department. Kennedy Center performance space.
When I got the call after the awards ceremony, my first reaction was irritation. I mean, in a battle between the Washington Opera and DC Shorts, who does more with less? Who works with more limited resources and yet touches more diverse audiences? Seriously.
But in the light of the morning, I realized one important thing: when Jon and I started this film festival, shoehorned into an arts space with a video projector and rented screen, who would have thought we’d ever be nominated for an award in the same category as an internationally acclaimed opera headed by Placido Domingo?
March 09, 2008
09:39 pm
Give a man a fish…
For no very good reason, other than because it’s on, I am watching “Oprah’s Big Give.” And what is really annoying me about it is that it is typical Oprah-style charity: giving people stuff. Contestants on this show wandered through a hospital giving cash to various people or taking people in need to a spa. A contestant threw a party at the Boys and Girls Club, giving kids iPods and PSPs, both items that really require them to go out and spend money to use; in the case of an iPod, they need a computer to sync it with. That said, one group of contestants did exactly what I would have done: they multiplied the usefulness of their money by getting in-kind donations for a children’s home, providing not just cash but donated work for renovations, their charitable work left the place better and the items they donated will continue to work for the children’s home for quite some time, much more helpful than mere money.
I hate this idea that the way to help people is to give them some bauble or a pile of cash. But that’s what Oprah is usually all about — giving away products from companies that provide them for publicity, promoting new-agey, feel-good fads such as “The Secret” that don’t ever help people but do line the pockets of charlatans, building schools that purport to provide much-needed education but money is spent on style and amenities, not the students. It all makes audiences feel warm, but aside from an instant gratification, what does it really accomplish in the long term?
It is very telling that the contestants on this show are judged on the “presentation” of their charitable work.
For no very good reason, other than because it’s on, I am watching “Oprah’s Big Give.” And what is really annoying me about it is that it is typical Oprah-style charity: giving people stuff. Contestants on this show wandered through a hospital giving cash to various people or taking people in need to a spa. A contestant threw a party at the Boys and Girls Club, giving kids iPods and PSPs, both items that really require them to go out and spend money to use; in the case of an iPod, they need a computer to sync it with. That said, one group of contestants did exactly what I would have done: they multiplied the usefulness of their money by getting in-kind donations for a children’s home, providing not just cash but donated work for renovations, their charitable work left the place better and the items they donated will continue to work for the children’s home for quite some time, much more helpful than mere money.
I hate this idea that the way to help people is to give them some bauble or a pile of cash. But that’s what Oprah is usually all about — giving away products from companies that provide them for publicity, promoting new-agey, feel-good fads such as “The Secret” that don’t ever help people but do line the pockets of charlatans, building schools that purport to provide much-needed education but money is spent on style and amenities, not the students. It all makes audiences feel warm, but aside from an instant gratification, what does it really accomplish in the long term?
It is very telling that the contestants on this show are judged on the “presentation” of their charitable work.
March 06, 2008
09:16 am
Shut up and drive
One month into my new job, I’m learning once more what it means to commute.
On the surface, all is rosy, especially when compared to my commute back in DC. To refresh your memory, my office was 14 miles from home. I lived on the south side of Washington, DC; my office was at the northern tip of the diamond. There are no highways through DC, so the options are to drive way out west to the Beltway then north around the city — which would be about 20 miles out of the way and insane — or straight through the city on regular surface roads. In this case, I took the road through Rock Creek Park, which closed to traffic during rush hours, forcing my commute to take place at 9:30am and 3:30pm. (I worked at home a lot.) All told, that off-hour commute took 45 minutes.
Today, I drive 14 miles once again, from north San Jose to the very outskirts of south San Jose. I take two freeways: 880 and 101. I leave the house at about 7:45. It takes me 15 minutes.
The difference in traffic between here and DC is astonishing. People here complain about the traffic, but they don’t understand how bad it could really get.
Yes, there are backups and stop-and-go traffic here. I see it every morning. But here’s the thing: there is still a rush hour here, and there is still “against the traffic.”
Back in DC, those concepts disappeared years ago. There is no longer a period of time called “rush hour,” because the traffic is like that all the time. You rarely hear the traffic reporters use the words “inbound” and “outbound” anymore, because there is no longer a rush into the city, the traffic goes everywhere at all times, so there is no way to drive against the traffic. Weekends in the DC area actually have worse traffic than the weekdays.
Here in the Bay Area, there are plenty of traffic bottlenecks, but there are still rush hours. In the morning and the evening, that’s when the traffic is jammed. But during mid day, on weekends, and at night things are normal. And there are still distinct patterns of traffic direction. The reason my commute is fast is because I am driving south in the morning, against traffic. The north-bound lanes of 101 are jammed with commuters heading north to San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities around the bay.
One thing that is exactly the same is the idiocy of other drivers. Just this morning I looked around, signaled and started to move into the right lane. At the last moment I had to swerve back into the left lane because a woman yakking on a cell phone decided to get into that lane as well. She never signaled, she didn’t even notice that I was already halfway into the lane. She just kept talking on the phone, without a hands-free device — something that is now illegal in California.
Earlier, there was a slow-moving backup, odd on south 101 that time of morning. Finally, I discovered why: there was a slow-moving car in the middle lane. She was doing about 45 miles per hour on the freeway as she applied make-up while driving.
And last week, as I drove in the right lane about to exit, someone was tailgating me and driving halfway on the shoulder, obviously contemplating getting around my slow-moving, 60mph roadster to get to the exit first.
I often feel as if I’m the only person on the road who is actually driving rather than drinking, talking, primping, gesticulating, arguing, watching TV, or eating.
One month into my new job, I’m learning once more what it means to commute.
On the surface, all is rosy, especially when compared to my commute back in DC. To refresh your memory, my office was 14 miles from home. I lived on the south side of Washington, DC; my office was at the northern tip of the diamond. There are no highways through DC, so the options are to drive way out west to the Beltway then north around the city — which would be about 20 miles out of the way and insane — or straight through the city on regular surface roads. In this case, I took the road through Rock Creek Park, which closed to traffic during rush hours, forcing my commute to take place at 9:30am and 3:30pm. (I worked at home a lot.) All told, that off-hour commute took 45 minutes.
Today, I drive 14 miles once again, from north San Jose to the very outskirts of south San Jose. I take two freeways: 880 and 101. I leave the house at about 7:45. It takes me 15 minutes.
The difference in traffic between here and DC is astonishing. People here complain about the traffic, but they don’t understand how bad it could really get.
Yes, there are backups and stop-and-go traffic here. I see it every morning. But here’s the thing: there is still a rush hour here, and there is still “against the traffic.”
Back in DC, those concepts disappeared years ago. There is no longer a period of time called “rush hour,” because the traffic is like that all the time. You rarely hear the traffic reporters use the words “inbound” and “outbound” anymore, because there is no longer a rush into the city, the traffic goes everywhere at all times, so there is no way to drive against the traffic. Weekends in the DC area actually have worse traffic than the weekdays.
Here in the Bay Area, there are plenty of traffic bottlenecks, but there are still rush hours. In the morning and the evening, that’s when the traffic is jammed. But during mid day, on weekends, and at night things are normal. And there are still distinct patterns of traffic direction. The reason my commute is fast is because I am driving south in the morning, against traffic. The north-bound lanes of 101 are jammed with commuters heading north to San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities around the bay.
One thing that is exactly the same is the idiocy of other drivers. Just this morning I looked around, signaled and started to move into the right lane. At the last moment I had to swerve back into the left lane because a woman yakking on a cell phone decided to get into that lane as well. She never signaled, she didn’t even notice that I was already halfway into the lane. She just kept talking on the phone, without a hands-free device — something that is now illegal in California.
Earlier, there was a slow-moving backup, odd on south 101 that time of morning. Finally, I discovered why: there was a slow-moving car in the middle lane. She was doing about 45 miles per hour on the freeway as she applied make-up while driving.
And last week, as I drove in the right lane about to exit, someone was tailgating me and driving halfway on the shoulder, obviously contemplating getting around my slow-moving, 60mph roadster to get to the exit first.
I often feel as if I’m the only person on the road who is actually driving rather than drinking, talking, primping, gesticulating, arguing, watching TV, or eating.
March 04, 2008
09:23 am
Too much C, not enough Y
Another reason to hire a competent designer and printer: this week’s sales circular from Circuit City included this image:
… which immediately got the Apple “rumors” community buzzing. “It’s a new purple iPod!” they panted.
Of course, those of us with a modicum of knowledge of the printing process realized that the color reproduction in the printed piece was total crap.
I don’t know which is funnier: the poor printing job or the rumormongers who latch on to the most bizarre and ridiculous things and find clues in them.
Another reason to hire a competent designer and printer: this week’s sales circular from Circuit City included this image:
… which immediately got the Apple “rumors” community buzzing. “It’s a new purple iPod!” they panted.
Of course, those of us with a modicum of knowledge of the printing process realized that the color reproduction in the printed piece was total crap.
I don’t know which is funnier: the poor printing job or the rumormongers who latch on to the most bizarre and ridiculous things and find clues in them.
February 29, 2008
08:27 am
It’s a Kid’s Life in the Royal Army
Today’s news that Price Harry is being pulled from front-line duty in Afghanistan was hardly a surprise; once it was disclosed — by Drudge, of course — that he was there he became a dangerous target.
No, what was surprising to me was how desperate they must be for front-line troops. Take a look at the photo that the San Jose Mercury News decided to run with this story:
I guess it’s hard to find a current photo of Harry, him being so reclusive and avoiding photographers.
Kirk sez:
Looking at the old pic of Prince Henry reminded me of this-
Today’s news that Price Harry is being pulled from front-line duty in Afghanistan was hardly a surprise; once it was disclosed — by Drudge, of course — that he was there he became a dangerous target.
No, what was surprising to me was how desperate they must be for front-line troops. Take a look at the photo that the San Jose Mercury News decided to run with this story:
I guess it’s hard to find a current photo of Harry, him being so reclusive and avoiding photographers.
Kirk sez:
Looking at the old pic of Prince Henry reminded me of this-
February 23, 2008
11:49 pm
Person equals something to be sold
I admit to not liking Oprah.
Scary but true: I’m more afraid of posting an anti-Oprah post than an anti-Bush post. In other words, I still believe enough in the inherent goodness/incompetence of our government as opposed to the reach of Oprah’s empire.
But I have to say that I really have the hots for her Nate Berkus automaton — another guy that she glommed onto and decided to make into an Oprahifed commodity.
He’s cute — adorable, hot, really — and has suffered a horrific tragedy in the form of losing his lover in the tsunami, something I can’t imagine. But tonight I discovered something about him that makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, if you visit his website you’ll see it too: his name is trademarked.
It’s the ultimate in making one’s self into a product, and it disgusts me. So, I’ve decided — just in case — to follow suit. Since trademarks don’t actually require registration but only consistent use and the TM symbol, I’ve decided to trademark myself (Gene Cowan™) for protection against someone using my name in the future. Maybe it will be Oprah, maybe it will be some salesman trying to sell phallic enlarger. Regardless, I’ve got to protect myself, right?
Hope my father, Eugene Cowan, Sr. doesn’t mind the pre-emption of his name.
I admit to not liking Oprah.
Scary but true: I’m more afraid of posting an anti-Oprah post than an anti-Bush post. In other words, I still believe enough in the inherent goodness/incompetence of our government as opposed to the reach of Oprah’s empire.
But I have to say that I really have the hots for her Nate Berkus automaton — another guy that she glommed onto and decided to make into an Oprahifed commodity.
He’s cute — adorable, hot, really — and has suffered a horrific tragedy in the form of losing his lover in the tsunami, something I can’t imagine. But tonight I discovered something about him that makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, if you visit his website you’ll see it too: his name is trademarked.
It’s the ultimate in making one’s self into a product, and it disgusts me. So, I’ve decided — just in case — to follow suit. Since trademarks don’t actually require registration but only consistent use and the TM symbol, I’ve decided to trademark myself (Gene Cowan™) for protection against someone using my name in the future. Maybe it will be Oprah, maybe it will be some salesman trying to sell phallic enlarger. Regardless, I’ve got to protect myself, right?
Hope my father, Eugene Cowan, Sr. doesn’t mind the pre-emption of his name.
January 29, 2008
06:48 pm
Who is at fault? The lender or the borrower?
I don’t understand.
ABC News just ran a story about a couple who are tearfully struggling to pay their mortgage and have had to take steps like canceling their phone service and borrowing money from their kids.
Their mortgage has gone from 9% to 14%. Their current monthly mortgage payment is $2,015. Their combined income is $80,000 a year.
What?
By my calculation, they’re probably taking home $5000 a month, leaving $3000 a month after they pay their “high” mortgage. What the hell is going on here? Couldn’t ABC find a family who are in real trouble? This is not the example I’d use if I wanted to point out that things are bad for ordinary people. They sometimes borrow money from their sons, who live with them. I can only assume that they aren’t asked to pay rent despite at least one of them being 19. What in the hell are they spending all that money on?
If I made $80,000, not only would I be able to pay my $3900 a month mortgage on a tiny bungalow, but I’d also likely never have my electricity turned off for non-payment.
Without going into specifics about my financial situation, let’s just say that I make less than half what they make. My mortgage is nearly twice what theirs is. I’ve never missed a mortgage payment in more than 2 years, I’ve never had my electricity turned off, borrowed money from a relative, nor had to turn off my phone.
So, I have to wonder: is the problem with the mortgage, or with the financial responsibility of the borrower?
I don’t understand.
ABC News just ran a story about a couple who are tearfully struggling to pay their mortgage and have had to take steps like canceling their phone service and borrowing money from their kids.
Their mortgage has gone from 9% to 14%. Their current monthly mortgage payment is $2,015. Their combined income is $80,000 a year.
What?
The phone’s been turned off; Mike’s truck has been repossessed. They fill up $10 at a time.
“I can’t even afford to get gas so I can go to work, make money, pay the bills,” he said.
The Walkers are so afraid of losing their home and uprooting their three sons that they pay the mortgage first even when it cuts into grocery money.
“We had the electric company come in here to shut off our electricity,” Susan cried. “It’s so embarrassing.”
By my calculation, they’re probably taking home $5000 a month, leaving $3000 a month after they pay their “high” mortgage. What the hell is going on here? Couldn’t ABC find a family who are in real trouble? This is not the example I’d use if I wanted to point out that things are bad for ordinary people. They sometimes borrow money from their sons, who live with them. I can only assume that they aren’t asked to pay rent despite at least one of them being 19. What in the hell are they spending all that money on?
If I made $80,000, not only would I be able to pay my $3900 a month mortgage on a tiny bungalow, but I’d also likely never have my electricity turned off for non-payment.
Without going into specifics about my financial situation, let’s just say that I make less than half what they make. My mortgage is nearly twice what theirs is. I’ve never missed a mortgage payment in more than 2 years, I’ve never had my electricity turned off, borrowed money from a relative, nor had to turn off my phone.
So, I have to wonder: is the problem with the mortgage, or with the financial responsibility of the borrower?
January 21, 2008
06:43 pm
January 11, 2008
08:07 am
Livin’ on the EDGE
When I left for DC — was it a week ago? A month? Seems like a fuzzy nightmare — I disconnected some “non-essential” services at the house, fully expecting to be moving out of the house when I got back. So, today I am living in a house that’s been packed up, with no internet and no TV.
I’m going to try living without TV for a while, since during the writers’ strike there’s nothing much to watch; and even on a good day when the writers were scribbling away, I didn’t think there was much worth watching. Netflix will sustain me quite nicely, I think.
But internet? Oh, boy. That is a staple of life. It is awfully hard to telecommute without the “tele”, and I’ve been reading the newspaper and blogs every day using my iPhone and its EDGE connection. I always thought that the EDGE was fast enough, not as bad as people claimed, especially when out on the road and looking up a few things. But for everyday use? Not so much. Add to that the dismal signal in my house and it takes minutes to load the front page of the newspaper.
I used to have Speakeasy DSL, which — from a customer service standpoint — was fantastic. No ridiculous restrictions on how I could use my connection or what I could or couldn’t download; I could even share the connection with my neighbors. Unfortunately, it was half as fast as they were charging me for, and those charges were a bit high. Still, I called them up and found out that because I’d canceled, I couldn’t just reconnect it. I’d have to have a completely new line installed, with all the hassle that involves and the long lead time.
So, tomorrow Comcast will be out to stick a cable modem on the end of the cable and I’ll live with the threat of hackers and viruses for the time being. At least I’ll be able to surf again without having to go into the office.
When I left for DC — was it a week ago? A month? Seems like a fuzzy nightmare — I disconnected some “non-essential” services at the house, fully expecting to be moving out of the house when I got back. So, today I am living in a house that’s been packed up, with no internet and no TV.
I’m going to try living without TV for a while, since during the writers’ strike there’s nothing much to watch; and even on a good day when the writers were scribbling away, I didn’t think there was much worth watching. Netflix will sustain me quite nicely, I think.
But internet? Oh, boy. That is a staple of life. It is awfully hard to telecommute without the “tele”, and I’ve been reading the newspaper and blogs every day using my iPhone and its EDGE connection. I always thought that the EDGE was fast enough, not as bad as people claimed, especially when out on the road and looking up a few things. But for everyday use? Not so much. Add to that the dismal signal in my house and it takes minutes to load the front page of the newspaper.
I used to have Speakeasy DSL, which — from a customer service standpoint — was fantastic. No ridiculous restrictions on how I could use my connection or what I could or couldn’t download; I could even share the connection with my neighbors. Unfortunately, it was half as fast as they were charging me for, and those charges were a bit high. Still, I called them up and found out that because I’d canceled, I couldn’t just reconnect it. I’d have to have a completely new line installed, with all the hassle that involves and the long lead time.
So, tomorrow Comcast will be out to stick a cable modem on the end of the cable and I’ll live with the threat of hackers and viruses for the time being. At least I’ll be able to surf again without having to go into the office.
December 29, 2007
02:08 pm
Perhaps they’re duplicates from the alternate dimension
Earlier this month I wrote about yet another Star Trek memorabilia auction, wondering about the provenance of all these supposedly original props and costumes.
Well, looks like my question has been answered, somewhat:
Earlier this month I wrote about yet another Star Trek memorabilia auction, wondering about the provenance of all these supposedly original props and costumes.
Well, looks like my question has been answered, somewhat:
A seven million dollar lawsuit filed by a Star Trek fan alleges that the “one-of-a-kind” memorabilia that he purchased from Christie’s auction house were fakes.
As reported at the NY Daily News, Ted Moustakis is suing both Christie’s and CBS, claiming that a visor and a table represented as props from Star Trek: The Next Generation were not authentic. Moustakis now has doubts about a uniform that he purchased that was supposedly worn by Brent Spiner.
Moustakis was told that the poker visor for which Moustakis had paid $6,000 was not one worn by Spiner as had been advertised, by Spiner himself while attending a Las Vegas Star Trek convention. As reported by the New York Post, when approached by Moustakis to sign the visor, Spiner said, “That’s not my visor. You bought that at Christie’s.” Spiner went on to explain that he had sold the authentic visor himself, in an eBay auction. “He said he had told Christie’s not to sell it,” said Moustakis.
Further research by Moustakis revealed that CBS had been selling numerous versions of Spiner’s supposed “one-of-a-kind” uniform and the table had differences from the one that had appeared in the show.
Moustakis is seeking a refund as well as punitive damages. [Trek Today]
December 21, 2007
12:34 pm
I yearn for the transporter to be invented
I’ve unwittingly put myself into DC mode already — that stressed out, overwhelmed, frazzled state that I moved to California to escape.
This move is fraught with stress, not just because I don’t really want to leave San Jose but also because of the speed. By this day next month, if all goes to plan, I will be moved and starting my new job.
The new job is the key: I am really excited about it and looking forward to it. I won’t talk much about it right now because I like to have my ducks in a row and it is only 99.9% confirmed at this point. I’m a stickler for that last .1%. But suffice it to say that this will be a new direction in my career, a direction that I had been moving towards for years. I’ve been moving in the wrong direction for a while, trying to hold on to a career in which I am no longer the young whizkid; so I am excited about taking this fork in the road into something I can easily envision doing for the next 20 years.
Anyway. While the career move is exciting, the house move is not so much. Decisions on my little bungalow, whether to drive or fly and ship the car, finding an apartment back in DC, figuring out when the movers should come, packing my stuff… it is all piling on and shocking me into inaction. It is almost so overwhelming that I feel as if I’m not accomplishing anything at all.
When I moved to California, I had no deadlines. I could take my time, relax, just go with the flow. Moving back, I have specific deadlines in the form of first-day-at-a-new-job, money worries about a vacant house back in San Jose, how quickly I can rent an apartment during the 4 days I’ll be in DC at the beginning of January, how many hours per day I can drive on a 3,000 road trip, how Diego will feel about not having a backyard anymore, and how long I will sleep on the floor of that apartment until the movers arrive.
Every night I sleep about 1 hour, then wake up and start doing math in my head — how much everything will cost. Every single calculation comes out optimistically, but being a pessimist I can’t believe what I’m telling myself.
I’ve unwittingly put myself into DC mode already — that stressed out, overwhelmed, frazzled state that I moved to California to escape.
This move is fraught with stress, not just because I don’t really want to leave San Jose but also because of the speed. By this day next month, if all goes to plan, I will be moved and starting my new job.
The new job is the key: I am really excited about it and looking forward to it. I won’t talk much about it right now because I like to have my ducks in a row and it is only 99.9% confirmed at this point. I’m a stickler for that last .1%. But suffice it to say that this will be a new direction in my career, a direction that I had been moving towards for years. I’ve been moving in the wrong direction for a while, trying to hold on to a career in which I am no longer the young whizkid; so I am excited about taking this fork in the road into something I can easily envision doing for the next 20 years.
Anyway. While the career move is exciting, the house move is not so much. Decisions on my little bungalow, whether to drive or fly and ship the car, finding an apartment back in DC, figuring out when the movers should come, packing my stuff… it is all piling on and shocking me into inaction. It is almost so overwhelming that I feel as if I’m not accomplishing anything at all.
When I moved to California, I had no deadlines. I could take my time, relax, just go with the flow. Moving back, I have specific deadlines in the form of first-day-at-a-new-job, money worries about a vacant house back in San Jose, how quickly I can rent an apartment during the 4 days I’ll be in DC at the beginning of January, how many hours per day I can drive on a 3,000 road trip, how Diego will feel about not having a backyard anymore, and how long I will sleep on the floor of that apartment until the movers arrive.
Every night I sleep about 1 hour, then wake up and start doing math in my head — how much everything will cost. Every single calculation comes out optimistically, but being a pessimist I can’t believe what I’m telling myself.
December 17, 2007
12:40 pm
Ryan Lang says…
I received this comment today on my last entry; but I can’t quite figure out: a) which entry he really wanted to comment on, since I can’t find any mention of Ken Jennings in the database; b) what his real argument is because it is so very well constructed; and c) how much he’s paid by Ken Jennings to defend him with such an intelligent and grammatically correct screed. Never let it be said that I censor comments; that would be antithetical to my civil liberties bent. In fact, just approving the comment wouldn’t be enough, so I present it here in all its glory, where you are welcome to comment on the comment itself. I have no further comment on it, myself, but feel free.
I received this comment today on my last entry; but I can’t quite figure out: a) which entry he really wanted to comment on, since I can’t find any mention of Ken Jennings in the database; b) what his real argument is because it is so very well constructed; and c) how much he’s paid by Ken Jennings to defend him with such an intelligent and grammatically correct screed. Never let it be said that I censor comments; that would be antithetical to my civil liberties bent. In fact, just approving the comment wouldn’t be enough, so I present it here in all its glory, where you are welcome to comment on the comment itself. I have no further comment on it, myself, but feel free.
It wouldn’t let me comment on your response about Ken Jennings so I’m doing it here. “He shouldn’t be alloted to more than his 15 minutes of fame” It just shows how retarded you are and the lack of common sense you have. He had alot more than 15 minutes of fame. How many episodes of Jeopardy did he win and then got his revenge on Brad in whatever the name of the show was where all the game show champions attended. Excuse me for the name escaping me right now and I’m not gonna look it up. Anyway Ken Jennings destroyed the competition and Jeopardy so that is why people listen to what he says. That makes him alot smarter than your stupid ass, so why should people listen to you.. a retarded moron who has to make his own website to try to make himself look important but, really just an insignificant piece of crap. Don’t be jealous of Ken.
Ryan Lang, , 68.238.3.252
November 23, 2007
02:15 pm
This is what we’re fighting for
I am a full, card-carrying member of the consumer society in 21st century America; as evidenced by my self-absorbed blog, my shiny MacBook Pro, and the 50 inch plasma screen in my living room.
But even I am disgusted by the way our actions reflect on us, by the way we must look to people around the world who have to fight for a bowl of rice or dirty water as we fat Americans fight over… shoes.
Meanwhile:
How did we get to this point, this society that exists only to consume, the economy based on nothing in particular other than our propensity to shop? We work harder and harder, making nothing in particular but instead making our money in service industries designed to serve people who are shopping with the money they made by servicing people shopping, or by selling advertising on every part of our landscape to encourage people to shop. This bizarre cycle is insane, but since we are all part of it we can’t really see it.
I didn’t shop today nor do I plan to. I am working to make money so that I can keep my house, my TV, and my laptop. At the same time, I am not working to keep my children from starving, to prevent my family from living in a refrigerator box on the side of the road; and while I am finding it difficult to hang on to my expensive Silicon Valley home and pay my escalating health care costs, I am not even close to living in poverty.
So while everyone else is scrambling over others to score a cheap DVD player, I’m here worrying about the future but at the same time thankful that things aren’t as bad as they could (or should) be for me.
I am a full, card-carrying member of the consumer society in 21st century America; as evidenced by my self-absorbed blog, my shiny MacBook Pro, and the 50 inch plasma screen in my living room.
But even I am disgusted by the way our actions reflect on us, by the way we must look to people around the world who have to fight for a bowl of rice or dirty water as we fat Americans fight over… shoes.
A throng of angry shoppers briefly held a store at the Tanger Outlet Center under siege early Friday morning, as two men fought over a pair of shoes — and the intervention of officers from the Riverhead Police Department was needed to restore control.
Meanwhile:
Thousands lined up to be one of the first 500 hundred people to receive a gift bag.
The crowd was so large mall officials called in Boise Police to handle crowd control. As thousands of people tried to cram their way through the front doors, many were scraped and bruised as people pushed to get in.
Mall security officials say some doors were broken, and some people got hurt.
Mall officials tell us Boise Police were there most of the day. They even called in ambulances and firefighters to deal with the crowds.
How did we get to this point, this society that exists only to consume, the economy based on nothing in particular other than our propensity to shop? We work harder and harder, making nothing in particular but instead making our money in service industries designed to serve people who are shopping with the money they made by servicing people shopping, or by selling advertising on every part of our landscape to encourage people to shop. This bizarre cycle is insane, but since we are all part of it we can’t really see it.
I didn’t shop today nor do I plan to. I am working to make money so that I can keep my house, my TV, and my laptop. At the same time, I am not working to keep my children from starving, to prevent my family from living in a refrigerator box on the side of the road; and while I am finding it difficult to hang on to my expensive Silicon Valley home and pay my escalating health care costs, I am not even close to living in poverty.
So while everyone else is scrambling over others to score a cheap DVD player, I’m here worrying about the future but at the same time thankful that things aren’t as bad as they could (or should) be for me.
November 20, 2007
10:28 am
Christmas Creep
It started when I saw Christmas decorations on sale at Target in September. At the beginning of November, the same shopping center was bedecked with garland and ribbon, which would have been bad enough in December since it is festooning palm trees and evoking snow in a place where no one ever needs snow tires and Christmas day is generally in the 60s.
Perhaps I’m just in a Scrooge-like mood these days, but I kind of wish that Christmas didn’t become a three-month ordeal.
That said, when do you think I should put up the blog Christmas decorations? I feel like I should have done it a month ago.
It started when I saw Christmas decorations on sale at Target in September. At the beginning of November, the same shopping center was bedecked with garland and ribbon, which would have been bad enough in December since it is festooning palm trees and evoking snow in a place where no one ever needs snow tires and Christmas day is generally in the 60s.
Perhaps I’m just in a Scrooge-like mood these days, but I kind of wish that Christmas didn’t become a three-month ordeal.
That said, when do you think I should put up the blog Christmas decorations? I feel like I should have done it a month ago.
November 16, 2007
02:16 pm
One day’s waste
It occurred to me yesterday that if we all took one moment to think, we’d realize how hideously wasteful we are. For example:
Every day I fetch my mail from the mailbox on the front of the house, walk though the kitchen, and without bothering to read it, rip it in small pieces and dump it in the recycling bin at the back of the house. The vast majority, close to 100%, of the mail I receive is junk, circulars, ads, credit card solicitations, loan offers. I might as well attach a shredder directly to my mailbox to save me a few moments.
And yesterday, the phone company dumped a big, heavy phonebook on my front stoop. This necessitated another trip to the recycle bin. It would have been much more efficient, cheaper, and kinder to the environment if AT&T had simply chopped down a forest and then dumped the trees into a landfill. They wouldn’t have had to use the oil to transport it all, the heavy chemicals for the ink, the glues for binding, the plastic to wrap each one individually (when did they start doing that? More waste) and the gas to power the trucks that haul them from street to street. Not to mention the costs now involved in recycling a million phone books that people almost never use, especially in the era of Google.
It occurred to me yesterday that if we all took one moment to think, we’d realize how hideously wasteful we are. For example:
Every day I fetch my mail from the mailbox on the front of the house, walk though the kitchen, and without bothering to read it, rip it in small pieces and dump it in the recycling bin at the back of the house. The vast majority, close to 100%, of the mail I receive is junk, circulars, ads, credit card solicitations, loan offers. I might as well attach a shredder directly to my mailbox to save me a few moments.
And yesterday, the phone company dumped a big, heavy phonebook on my front stoop. This necessitated another trip to the recycle bin. It would have been much more efficient, cheaper, and kinder to the environment if AT&T had simply chopped down a forest and then dumped the trees into a landfill. They wouldn’t have had to use the oil to transport it all, the heavy chemicals for the ink, the glues for binding, the plastic to wrap each one individually (when did they start doing that? More waste) and the gas to power the trucks that haul them from street to street. Not to mention the costs now involved in recycling a million phone books that people almost never use, especially in the era of Google.
