Tonight's episode of The Simpsons (the X-Mas special aired on December 5, 2010) was an instant classic. I am so happy.
Most Sundays, I sit in front of the television for the only show I even consider watching. Usually, it's an average episode, but I continue to keep the faith, because the Simpsons will surprise you. This Sunday, my faith was rewarded. Hallelujah.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Where a California Teacher Gets Schooled
There's no sport in debating most K-14 California teachers because it's just too easy. Sigh.
Bonus II: Governor Christie also shows us how it's done. More here.
Update in April 2017: to sum her up, "You're bitter but well-read... go teach college." I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
California Teacher 1: Interesting perspective however, why is the average salary of a CA teacher below that of a secretary of a private sector company. Why do education administrators who have less than 4 years of classroom experience earn 3 times that amount and fail to make good decisions about classroom teaching and materials? 80% of a school budget does not go to teachers. Mainstreaming in education has pulled funds in so many directions. The other factor people fail to see is that somehow we began printing materials and textbooks and interpreters for students who do not speak English and creating a system that allows children starting school in kindergarten to reach 8th grade without mastering reading, writing and speaking in English even though they have been in the U.S. for 14 years or more? The printing costs alone could change the funds for education! Why do teachers have to ask parents to donate facial tissue, loose leaf paper, pencils, copy paper, markers, crayons, color pencils, funds for class set of literature, and other supplies in nearly 50% of public schools nationwide? It is not true that half of the General Fund does not make it to education and if it were true, then we are not collecting enough taxes for anything (including education K-12 and beyond). Prop 13 killed funding for education a long time ago. It has been a steady decline of funding for public education and even the Lottery monies never really get to education as they were intended to do when we sold the idea of legalizing gambling.
Teacher 2: I believe, from conversations I have had with [NAME], that she is basing her facts on both her own experience in the private sector and her experience in education.....
Lawyer: let's take what [California Teacher] said and break it down logically.
1. She said, the average salary of a CA teacher is less than [an average] private sector secretary. FALSE.
According to the teachers' own union, the average CA teacher makes over $64,000, and receives additional compensation in the form of pensions (usually after just five years) and full medical benefits.
Please cite reliable stats showing that the average secretary in the private sector makes over $64K and is eligible for a pension and full medical benefits. You won't find any such statistics because her statement is incorrect.
2. She said that canceling printing costs for ESL students would substantially increase funds for education. Really? With $40+ billion annually spent on CA K-14 education, it is highly unlikely that ESL "printing costs" are a major problem. Common sense says that textbooks and other materials are bought once and used for many years. I'd love to see total expenditures each year on ESL printing costs. My hunch is that [California Teacher] was scapegoating American citizens who speak ESL in an attempt to shift direction from the fact that 80 to 85% of CA K-14 education funding goes into the pockets of district employees.
3. She said, "Half of the General Fund does not make it to education." FALSE, unless you want to quibble over 48% vs. 50%. Total funding for K-12 education was projected to be an astounding $68.5 billion in 2008-09 (it appears that the teachers' unions were forced to make some concessions, lowering spending projections). In CA Fiscal Year 2008, about 48% of the General Fund went to California elementary, secondary, and higher education. http://www.statehealthfact
Again, people are entitled to their opinions, but not their facts. Isn't it sad how so many teachers don't know how to make a logical, fact-based argument?
Bonus: more here from Bill Baker, Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon.
Teacher 2: I believe, from conversations I have had with [NAME], that she is basing her facts on both her own experience in the private sector and her experience in education.....
Lawyer: let's take what [California Teacher] said and break it down logically.
1. She said, the average salary of a CA teacher is less than [an average] private sector secretary. FALSE.
According to the teachers' own union, the average CA teacher makes over $64,000, and receives additional compensation in the form of pensions (usually after just five years) and full medical benefits.
Please cite reliable stats showing that the average secretary in the private sector makes over $64K and is eligible for a pension and full medical benefits. You won't find any such statistics because her statement is incorrect.
2. She said that canceling printing costs for ESL students would substantially increase funds for education. Really? With $40+ billion annually spent on CA K-14 education, it is highly unlikely that ESL "printing costs" are a major problem. Common sense says that textbooks and other materials are bought once and used for many years. I'd love to see total expenditures each year on ESL printing costs. My hunch is that [California Teacher] was scapegoating American citizens who speak ESL in an attempt to shift direction from the fact that 80 to 85% of CA K-14 education funding goes into the pockets of district employees.
3. She said, "Half of the General Fund does not make it to education." FALSE, unless you want to quibble over 48% vs. 50%. Total funding for K-12 education was projected to be an astounding $68.5 billion in 2008-09 (it appears that the teachers' unions were forced to make some concessions, lowering spending projections). In CA Fiscal Year 2008, about 48% of the General Fund went to California elementary, secondary, and higher education. http://www.statehealthfact
Again, people are entitled to their opinions, but not their facts. Isn't it sad how so many teachers don't know how to make a logical, fact-based argument?
Bonus: more here from Bill Baker, Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon.
Bonus II: Governor Christie also shows us how it's done. More here.
Update in April 2017: to sum her up, "You're bitter but well-read... go teach college." I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Gov Workers Not Overpaid?
A recent study claims that government workers are not overpaid when considering their education levels. I laughed out loud. Here are some questions to ask people who take such studies seriously:
1. In the study you cite, please tell me how much money or value the researchers assigned to the much higher job security of public sector workers, who are usually not at-will.
2. Please name 10 major corporations that have long term, unpredictable debts owing to hundreds of thousands of non-working employees. Within these 10 major corporations, how many of them are able to shift 100% of the debts to taxpayers?
(Note: major banks do not count because 1) the debts aren't owed to non-working employees; and 2) unlike gov employees, banks must pay back all taxpayer monies, i.e., the taxpayer has provided a loan, not a grant that causes higher taxes.)
3. You seem to gloss over the additional compensation provided to government employees in the form of pensions. Do you know what percentage of private sector workers under the age of 55 receive pensions? If so, please list the percentages of under-55 gov workers and private sector workers who are eligible for pensions.
Bonus: did the study provide any additional weight to the gov worker's guaranteed pension vs. a private sector worker's non-guaranteed 401k? If not, do you believe a retirement guarantee is worthless?
4. In the private sector, how many entities are able to pass along their higher costs and COLA to taxpayers instead of cutting spending, jobs, or salaries?
5. Let's assume that gov workers, on average, have higher levels of education than the general population. Outside of universities and university-backed research labs, what useful inventions have government workers provided to the general public vs. private sector workers with similar education levels, such as those who work for Google, eBay, GM, Intel, etc.?
Click here for more on these issues.
1. In the study you cite, please tell me how much money or value the researchers assigned to the much higher job security of public sector workers, who are usually not at-will.
2. Please name 10 major corporations that have long term, unpredictable debts owing to hundreds of thousands of non-working employees. Within these 10 major corporations, how many of them are able to shift 100% of the debts to taxpayers?
(Note: major banks do not count because 1) the debts aren't owed to non-working employees; and 2) unlike gov employees, banks must pay back all taxpayer monies, i.e., the taxpayer has provided a loan, not a grant that causes higher taxes.)
3. You seem to gloss over the additional compensation provided to government employees in the form of pensions. Do you know what percentage of private sector workers under the age of 55 receive pensions? If so, please list the percentages of under-55 gov workers and private sector workers who are eligible for pensions.
Bonus: did the study provide any additional weight to the gov worker's guaranteed pension vs. a private sector worker's non-guaranteed 401k? If not, do you believe a retirement guarantee is worthless?
4. In the private sector, how many entities are able to pass along their higher costs and COLA to taxpayers instead of cutting spending, jobs, or salaries?
5. Let's assume that gov workers, on average, have higher levels of education than the general population. Outside of universities and university-backed research labs, what useful inventions have government workers provided to the general public vs. private sector workers with similar education levels, such as those who work for Google, eBay, GM, Intel, etc.?
Click here for more on these issues.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Global Budget Issues
The Wilson Quarterly is my favorite journal. Douglas Besharov and Douglas Call's article on our budget issues is a good example of the kind of brilliant writing often found in the WQ:
[M]any government pension and health care systems for the elderly worldwide are now little more than Ponzi schemes that are running short of new “investors.” Aggravating the budget situation is the rapid rise in health care costs caused by the development of new—and expensive—medical technologies, drugs, and treatment procedures. The math is simple: Projected tax revenues are not nearly sufficient to cover future obligations—with the imbalance growing over time as larger shares of the populations in these countries begin to receive benefits. The U.S. Social Security and Medicare trust funds are giant and growing IOUs from the federal government to future recipients. Last year, the government “owed” the trust funds about $4.3 trillion. (These IOUs are dutifully printed at the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and placed in a filing cabinet. Not exactly Al Gore’s lock box.)
To read the full article, click here.
[M]any government pension and health care systems for the elderly worldwide are now little more than Ponzi schemes that are running short of new “investors.” Aggravating the budget situation is the rapid rise in health care costs caused by the development of new—and expensive—medical technologies, drugs, and treatment procedures. The math is simple: Projected tax revenues are not nearly sufficient to cover future obligations—with the imbalance growing over time as larger shares of the populations in these countries begin to receive benefits. The U.S. Social Security and Medicare trust funds are giant and growing IOUs from the federal government to future recipients. Last year, the government “owed” the trust funds about $4.3 trillion. (These IOUs are dutifully printed at the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and placed in a filing cabinet. Not exactly Al Gore’s lock box.)
To read the full article, click here.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Best Horror Movies (and Comedy Movies, Too)
Turn off those lights if you dare...
1. Wait Until Dark (1967)
2. The Other (1972)
3. Carrie (1976)
4. Stir of Echoes (1999)
5. Night of the Hunter (1955)
6. Psycho (1960); Dial M for Murder (1954); Strangers on a Train (1951)
7. Pan's Labyrinth (2006), The Devil's Backbone (2001)
8. Cape Fear (1991) and (1962)
9. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
10. Thirst (2009, Korean)
11. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
12. The Village (2004) [I am in the minority on this one--most people disliked this film.]
13. Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
14. The Eye (Hong Kong) (2002)
15. Black Mirror (2011-2016, series)
16. Suspiria (1977)
17. The Mermaid: Lake of the Dead (2018) (Russia) [Imagine The Shape of Water (2017) but starring an evil alien and crossed with Homer's The Odyssey ("They sit beside the ocean, combing their long golden hair")]
18. Under the Shadow (2016, Persian)
19. Requiem for a Dream (2000) [More psychological thriller than horror film, but still the most traumatizing movie experience I've ever had.]
20. The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) (horror/mystery)
21. The Cabin in the Woods (2011) (horror/comedy)
1. Wait Until Dark (1967)
2. The Other (1972)
3. Carrie (1976)
4. Stir of Echoes (1999)
5. Night of the Hunter (1955)
6. Psycho (1960); Dial M for Murder (1954); Strangers on a Train (1951)
7. Pan's Labyrinth (2006), The Devil's Backbone (2001)
8. Cape Fear (1991) and (1962)
9. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
10. Thirst (2009, Korean)
11. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
12. The Village (2004) [I am in the minority on this one--most people disliked this film.]
13. Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
14. The Eye (Hong Kong) (2002)
15. Black Mirror (2011-2016, series)
16. Suspiria (1977)
17. The Mermaid: Lake of the Dead (2018) (Russia) [Imagine The Shape of Water (2017) but starring an evil alien and crossed with Homer's The Odyssey ("They sit beside the ocean, combing their long golden hair")]
18. Under the Shadow (2016, Persian)
19. Requiem for a Dream (2000) [More psychological thriller than horror film, but still the most traumatizing movie experience I've ever had.]
20. The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) (horror/mystery)
21. The Cabin in the Woods (2011) (horror/comedy)
22. His House (2020)
Bonus: below is a list of excellent comedy movies and series, in no particular order:
1. A Man Called Ove (2015)
2. Clerks (1994)
3. Chasing Amy (1997)
4. My Cousin Vinny (1992)
5. Wedding Crashers (2005)
6. The IT Crowd (British series) (2006)
7. Derry Girls (series) (2018)
8. Fleabag (series) (2016), starring Phoebe Waller-Bridge
Bonus: below is a list of excellent comedy movies and series, in no particular order:
1. A Man Called Ove (2015)
2. Clerks (1994)
3. Chasing Amy (1997)
4. My Cousin Vinny (1992)
5. Wedding Crashers (2005)
6. The IT Crowd (British series) (2006)
7. Derry Girls (series) (2018)
8. Fleabag (series) (2016), starring Phoebe Waller-Bridge
9. Get Duked! (2019)
10. Black Books (British series, 2000-2004)
11. All My Friends Are Dead (Wszyscy moi przyjaciele nie zyja) (2020)
Bonus II: my favorite romantic scenes are below, in no particular order:
1. First Love (2018, Philippines), Bea Alonzo, Aga Muhlach in bookstore singing a duet.
Bonus II: my favorite romantic scenes are below, in no particular order:
1. First Love (2018, Philippines), Bea Alonzo, Aga Muhlach in bookstore singing a duet.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Interesting Viewpoint on Terrorists
Humberto S., comment on Yahoo, 11/6/10:
Most of these Muslim terrorist leaders were either born in the West, or studied and worked in the West for years.
That's not a coincidence.
For many of them, the cultural shock was too much. Raised in homes where certain values were held as sacred, realizing the society around them held such values as "barbaric" or "backwards" made them bitter.
In a way, it's similar to the story of some KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders, who were young Liberals working with the needy in poor areas. They expected to be treated as saviours, and all they got was mistrust and getting robbed and beaten.
In general, it's the other people's prejudices, when aimed at someone who's idealistic, what turns good intentions into never-ending hatred.
It's nice to see someone make a coherent and interesting comment on a Yahoo message board. Usually, there's nothing there but mind-numbing tripe and name-calling. In case you're interested, my views on locating likely terrorists can be found here.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Is Netflix Ignoring the Hearing Impaired?
Stan Taylor, bless his heart, nails Netflix (NFLX) for its apathy towards the hearing-impaired community:
"Hearing-impaired get no love from Netflix "
So Netflix will be charging more for mailed movies? However, there is no word that they will fully provide CC and SDH (closed captioning and subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired) on their downloads. Nor is there any information suggesting they will waive the increased cost for mailers for the deaf and hearing impaired until they can provide CC and SDH. The Americans with Disabilities Act should protect hearing-impaired people from a company that just doesn't seem to care about them.
(From SJ Mercury News, letters, November 26, 2010)
I have a love-hate relationship with Netflix. I love their DVDs and movie recommendations, but I cannot understand why they won't get their act together when it comes to online captioning. Many online video outlets already offer online captioning, including Hulu. In 2009, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings claimed that Hulu didn't offer captions. His comment really irked me, because Hulu did offer captions, and the fact that he got it wrong indicated online captioning wasn't even on his radar screen. (More here on that particular exchange.)
But Netflix isn't behind just Hulu--it's also behind YouTube, which offers online captioning on many of its videos. If you want to see the difference captioning makes in the lives of the hearing impaired, watch this YouTube video. It's only 1 minute and 28 seconds, but it will give you excellent insight into online captioning. The participants point out that online captioning also exposes content to a foreign audience that wants to learn English. I'd go a step further--Google has amazing translation services and tools, which means that eventually, every single show can be put online and watched by anyone, anywhere. Without captioning, however, most of those shows, including amateur user-made content, will be inaccessible to the majority of viewers. The loss of potential markets aside, why would Netflix choose to exclude the hearing impaired community when Hulu and YouTube are able to be inclusive?
Netflix's preference that its viewers watch films online certainly saves the company money on postage, but at what price to its viewers? Someone like me--severely hearing-impaired since birth--relies heavily on Netflix for entertainment. Since I function best in one-on-one situations where I can focus on a single speaker, I tend to feel lost during common social activities, which are usually group-based. For example, dance clubs and bars, which are noisy anyway, are terrible places for me and other hearing impaired persons who want to socialize. Now that Netflix is moving from DVDs to online streaming without captions, does it realize it is making another form of socialization harder for the hearing impaired?
Making matters worse, ordering a Netflix DVD isn't any guarantee that it will be captioned. You'll notice some Netflix DVDs are colored gray. Those plain gray DVDs are made specifically for Netflix. These DVDs sometimes lack captions, because Netflix doesn't require them. For example, I still haven't seen Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. I know it's supposed to be a great film, so when my first gray-colored Gran Torino DVD didn't have captions, I ordered another one. The second one had no captions. Being the persistent type, I got another one. Still no captions. I finally tried to watch it without captions, but Clint Eastwood has a very soft voice, and it's impossible for me to hear him without captions.
To be fair, it's not just Netflix that ignores the hearing impaired community. During Cisco's most recent annual meeting, CEO John Chambers indicated that "66 percent of the world's mobile data traffic will be video by 2014." (More here.) He did not mention the issue of online captioning, nor did he seem to consider that its absence might impact web traffic in the future. However, if senior citizens--who tend to lose their hearing over time--cannot fully participate in online activities, wouldn't online retailers and businesses lose a large group of potential customers?
For instance, let's assume that an online commercial has sound and speech--why would the company who paid for the advertisement want to exclude senior citizens from its reach? Even if they don't buy the product for themselves, most senior citizens have children and grandchildren, don't they? Let me give you an example of what Cisco and other online companies are missing. Make sure you have your computer's sound off or your speakers silenced. Now check out this Cisco advertisement. It's not a bad commercial, is it? Now go back and look at the commercial with the sound on. Amazing, isn't it? It's easily one of the best corporate commercials in 2010, if not the best.
Most hearing impaired people have some ability to hear sound (though not all speech). With captioning, hearing impaired people and senior citizens can mentally fill in the parts they miss and enjoy the full experience of television shows and online advertising. But let's set aside our altruistic side for a moment and say you don't care about the disabled, the hearing impaired, the deaf, and senior citizens. Fine. Yet, we all know people who watch videos and surf the web during work. If advertisers made it easier for employees to watch commercials and videos in a way that didn't alert their managers, perhaps productivity would decline, but online exposure would increase. (I said upfront I was ditching the moral choices in this particular argument, and once you've already accepted ditching the disabled and the deaf, time-theft seems almost vanilla.)
Overall, the fact that Netflix can't keep up with Hulu and YouTube should concern not just customers, but any company interested in acquiring Netflix. If Netflix can't handle online captioning, what else can't it handle? And why would any company consciously tarnish its public image by ignoring seniors, the disabled, the hearing impaired, and the deaf?
Disclosure: I currently own fewer than five shares of Netflix (NFLX), but my holdings may change at any time.
"Hearing-impaired get no love from Netflix "
So Netflix will be charging more for mailed movies? However, there is no word that they will fully provide CC and SDH (closed captioning and subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired) on their downloads. Nor is there any information suggesting they will waive the increased cost for mailers for the deaf and hearing impaired until they can provide CC and SDH. The Americans with Disabilities Act should protect hearing-impaired people from a company that just doesn't seem to care about them.
(From SJ Mercury News, letters, November 26, 2010)
I have a love-hate relationship with Netflix. I love their DVDs and movie recommendations, but I cannot understand why they won't get their act together when it comes to online captioning. Many online video outlets already offer online captioning, including Hulu. In 2009, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings claimed that Hulu didn't offer captions. His comment really irked me, because Hulu did offer captions, and the fact that he got it wrong indicated online captioning wasn't even on his radar screen. (More here on that particular exchange.)
But Netflix isn't behind just Hulu--it's also behind YouTube, which offers online captioning on many of its videos. If you want to see the difference captioning makes in the lives of the hearing impaired, watch this YouTube video. It's only 1 minute and 28 seconds, but it will give you excellent insight into online captioning. The participants point out that online captioning also exposes content to a foreign audience that wants to learn English. I'd go a step further--Google has amazing translation services and tools, which means that eventually, every single show can be put online and watched by anyone, anywhere. Without captioning, however, most of those shows, including amateur user-made content, will be inaccessible to the majority of viewers. The loss of potential markets aside, why would Netflix choose to exclude the hearing impaired community when Hulu and YouTube are able to be inclusive?
Netflix's preference that its viewers watch films online certainly saves the company money on postage, but at what price to its viewers? Someone like me--severely hearing-impaired since birth--relies heavily on Netflix for entertainment. Since I function best in one-on-one situations where I can focus on a single speaker, I tend to feel lost during common social activities, which are usually group-based. For example, dance clubs and bars, which are noisy anyway, are terrible places for me and other hearing impaired persons who want to socialize. Now that Netflix is moving from DVDs to online streaming without captions, does it realize it is making another form of socialization harder for the hearing impaired?
Making matters worse, ordering a Netflix DVD isn't any guarantee that it will be captioned. You'll notice some Netflix DVDs are colored gray. Those plain gray DVDs are made specifically for Netflix. These DVDs sometimes lack captions, because Netflix doesn't require them. For example, I still haven't seen Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. I know it's supposed to be a great film, so when my first gray-colored Gran Torino DVD didn't have captions, I ordered another one. The second one had no captions. Being the persistent type, I got another one. Still no captions. I finally tried to watch it without captions, but Clint Eastwood has a very soft voice, and it's impossible for me to hear him without captions.
To be fair, it's not just Netflix that ignores the hearing impaired community. During Cisco's most recent annual meeting, CEO John Chambers indicated that "66 percent of the world's mobile data traffic will be video by 2014." (More here.) He did not mention the issue of online captioning, nor did he seem to consider that its absence might impact web traffic in the future. However, if senior citizens--who tend to lose their hearing over time--cannot fully participate in online activities, wouldn't online retailers and businesses lose a large group of potential customers?
For instance, let's assume that an online commercial has sound and speech--why would the company who paid for the advertisement want to exclude senior citizens from its reach? Even if they don't buy the product for themselves, most senior citizens have children and grandchildren, don't they? Let me give you an example of what Cisco and other online companies are missing. Make sure you have your computer's sound off or your speakers silenced. Now check out this Cisco advertisement. It's not a bad commercial, is it? Now go back and look at the commercial with the sound on. Amazing, isn't it? It's easily one of the best corporate commercials in 2010, if not the best.
Most hearing impaired people have some ability to hear sound (though not all speech). With captioning, hearing impaired people and senior citizens can mentally fill in the parts they miss and enjoy the full experience of television shows and online advertising. But let's set aside our altruistic side for a moment and say you don't care about the disabled, the hearing impaired, the deaf, and senior citizens. Fine. Yet, we all know people who watch videos and surf the web during work. If advertisers made it easier for employees to watch commercials and videos in a way that didn't alert their managers, perhaps productivity would decline, but online exposure would increase. (I said upfront I was ditching the moral choices in this particular argument, and once you've already accepted ditching the disabled and the deaf, time-theft seems almost vanilla.)
Overall, the fact that Netflix can't keep up with Hulu and YouTube should concern not just customers, but any company interested in acquiring Netflix. If Netflix can't handle online captioning, what else can't it handle? And why would any company consciously tarnish its public image by ignoring seniors, the disabled, the hearing impaired, and the deaf?
Disclosure: I currently own fewer than five shares of Netflix (NFLX), but my holdings may change at any time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)