Eddie's Didactic Weasel Factory Blog

Unexpected Bit of Good News

2004-10-28T23:26:00.000-07:00

I've always enjoyed the Daily Show with John Stewart when I catch it. However, it isn't a show that I regularly watch (typically, my TV is on perma-cartoon network). Tonight I was flipping channels and happened to land on the Daily Show just as Stewart announced his guest, John Zogby.

John Zogby is a pollster, owner of Zogby International (www.zogby.com). He became famous in 1996 when he predicted the outcome of the presidential election within one tenth of one percent. He is the rock star of polling -which probably goes without saying, as when was the last time you saw Louis Harris invited on an entertainment oriented program?

The first thing John Stewart asked him, obviously, was, "So who is going to win on Tuesday?" As a pollster with a reputation to maintain, of course, Zogby was expected to answer that it's a tight race and too close to call. Amazingly, and without pausing, Zogby, responded, "John Kerry." It was so unexpected that Stewart didn't immediately respond and Zogby took to explaining why he felt confident Kerry would win.

I've been largely depressed about the election since Kerry inexplicably dropped the ball in August. Furthermore, I've kept my eye on two consistent elements of public opinion. 1. Likely voters insist that security issues are their top priority. 2. Bush has maintained a double-digit lead on the topic of strong leadership. Those two pieces of conventional wisdom, when taken together, seem to bode very poorly for Kerry.

Still, maybe Zogby is right. Maybe people are attempting to gather some facts to back up their Bush is stronger argument and finding it lacking? Maybe observable facts like things are getting progressively worse in Iraq instead of better are starting to weigh on the masses? Maybe people are considering Bush's record on everything else?

Another interesting note: Apparently God is back campaigning for Kerry again (begging Zogby's pardon, the senator needs it). Not since August has every single breaking news story been a look what bad thing happened because of our president expose'. Missing explosives. Doctored ad photos. The FBI investigating Halliburton. Bush even said, "You don't want someone who jumps to conclusions without getting their facts straight first to be your president!" at a campaign event. Bush said that. CNN is running that quote as though it were the funniest blooper to come down the pipe in a decade. If Dick Cheney turns into a pillar of salt, I'll not be surprised.

If I may using a gaming metaphor -and I think I may- I sincerely hope John Zogby is right so America can get its alignment back to ordered/neutral. I don't dig the red aura, and I certainly don't like the negative intelligence modifier!

YCDtoTV

2004-10-27T08:13:00.000-07:00

You Can’t Do that on Television was certainly an enigmatic show. By all accounts, kids in Ottawa, Canada, where the show was produced and first aired, couldn’t have cared less about it. Almost certainly, Nickelodeon picked it up thinking, “cheap filler”. Yet, it became the program that defined Nickelodeon, and a major kid-culture reference of the period (in the US).

I think what captured the imagination of the American audience was YCDtoTV’s total lack educational value. If you stop and think about it, every kid’s program of the period had a moral (even GI Joe -and knowing is half the battle) or lesson. Optimus Prime felt a need to instruct as well as entertain. What producers didn’t understand was that kids needed escapism too. After 7 hours at school plus homework, having Duke remind you not to pet a strange dog was a downer.

YCDtoTV was just fun for the sake of fun. Even when they did toss out a polemic episode, like “Smoking,” it was still fun because the message was part of the humor and not just a “now what did we learn today, class” at the end.

Having recently watched several of the episodes, I think I’ve discovered another reason why the show was so popular: It really captured the feel of the 1980’s from a kid in the 80’s perspective. I’m not sure how Roger Price managed that. Maybe he was a really good observer. Maybe his relationship with the kids was more collaborative than one would expect. Children’s shows necessarily tend to be what adults *think* kids will like, or worse, what adults *want* kids to like.

Thanks to the internet, I’ve been able to rewatch all the old YCDtoTV episodes that I saw over and over again as a kid. It is a very nostalgic experience, and one I would recommend to anyone who was a fan in the 80’s. I had forgotten how we used to play with realistic toy guns, go to arcades prior to the NES, and wear football socks and indecently short shorts.

I think sometimes adults assume that all childhoods are the same, that kids today are having the same experience as kids in the 90’s, 80’s, 70’s. Watching the old YCDtoTV episodes has reminded me of my childhood, and, surprisingly, it doesn’t look as much like the kids I see today’s.

Ah, nostalgia.

Old Nickelodeon

2004-10-26T08:31:00.000-07:00

With as many special interest channels as there are now it is hard to imagine a time when something as broad as an all-kids channel seemed novel. In the early 1980's Nickelodeon debuted on a shoestring budget with programing that wouldn't exactly capture the imagination of kids today.

The anchor show for Nick was Pinwheel, a Canadian (?) imitation of Sesame Street. Pinwheel was a combination of live actors and puppets with dozens of recurring cartoons/animations from all over the world. As I recall, it was an all morning show that ran for about 4 hours each weekday. The rest of Nick's lineup was of similar quality with similar provenance.

There was a freaky program early on called The Third Eye. It collectected paranormal mini-series' from the UK and Australia (mid-70's vintage). It was probably a bit much for most kids and didn't last too long. What's funny is that most people have long forgotten the show, but it disturbed enough kids so that every now and again, in a conversation about 'back in the day' Nickelodeon, someone in their late 20's will say, "what was that show with the kids and the stones? That scared the shit out of me!"

Another Staple of early Nick was Mr. Wizard's World. That show made every kid who could get his hands on an ice cube, a cardboard tube from a roll of toilet paper, and a generous supply of aluminum foil, think he was Louis Pasteur.

Some other early Nick favorites are the Star Trek cartoon, Lights, Camera, Action, Bel and Sabastian, and, of course, Danger Mouse. And that brings us to the defining early Nickelodeon show, You Can't Do that on Television. YCDtoTV is too important a part of 80's kiddom to just mention in passing. I think I'll devote tomorrow's bloggage to the show.

Reflecting on the 80’s

2004-10-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does everyone’s childhood seem to get better as they get older?

The 1980’s weren’t a perfect time. Children of the eighties grew up acutely aware of the monolithic evil in the east. As we discovered in Red Dawn, the commies were perpetually at our door waiting for the right moment to break in. Nuclear war seemed just a breath away.

I remember being scared in the 1980’s. I remember being in elementary school when Reagan bombed Libya. Today, I find it difficult to conceive of a 4th grader being aware of current events, even though Reagan bombing Libya was all we talked about for weeks when I was that age. Had I been an adult at the time, I probably wouldn’t have thought too much about it. But being a kid with such limited understanding, it made me and my contemporaries paranoid. It makes me wonder how kids feel today about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the “war on terror”. Surely they are just as paranoid. Are their parents as oblivious to their fear and confusion as ours were?

Even so, those are rarely the memories that surface when I think of my childhood.

What I do remember, fondly, are Transformers, Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors, Saturday morning cartoons, Kid’s Country Day Care, A. B. Combs Elementary School (just the good parts), The Reader’s Corner, Foundations Edge, Capital Comics, summer vacation, etc. Christmas used to be exactly what it should have been: family, presents, tradition, grandparents. Halloween rocked. The schools went all-out for Halloween parties and fall festivals. EVERYONE trick or treated

Hrmmm. I think I’ll spend this week delving into the fun I had as a kid here on the old blog.

Polls

2004-10-20T06:22:00.000-07:00

I wonder how accurate polls are becoming. Can Kerry really go from 2 points behind in New Mexico to 10 points ahead in a week? Is Bush really only up by 3 points in North Carolina and only 2 points in Tennessee?

There has been talk about polling inaccuracy because of a sharp rise in the number of people who exclusively use cellular phones and are, therefore, unable to be polled. Furthermore, all major pollsters admit to being unable to adjust for the unprecedented number of voter registrations. Conventional wisdom is that newly registered voters are not particularly likely to show up at the polls. As a result, these people are not considered "likely voters" by pollsters such as Gallup, Pew, Harris, etc. But isn't there a difference between someone registering to vote at the DMV when they get their license or at a supermarket (as is the case in some places) and someone who makes an effort to register because they feel this is the most important election in their lives?

How can a poll take that variable into account?

Another thing, pollsters make certain assumptions based on past voting habits. For instance, most polls factor Ralph Nader in with the same numbers he achieved in 2000. That strikes me as just silly. Are 100,000 Naderites in Florida going to comfortably cast their lot with him knowing what happened last time? I'm sure there are some hardcore greens out there, but I can't imagine a large number of them entering the booth intent on making a point -especially given Bush's environmental record (Healthy Forests initiative, Kyoto Accord, anyone?).

Will stem cells really make a difference? Will desperate people with family members suffering from degenerative and incurable ailments abandon hope, cling to it, or find another issue to hang their hat on?

What about enthusiam? Who do people dislike enough to actually get out and vote against? Sadly, that's what it seems to come down to. It is rare to find someone who enthusiastically backs one of the candidates...not so rare to find someone who abhors one of the candidates.

All said and done, Kerry is doing much better than expected, especially given his poor showing in August. The debates seemed to have helped. Of the 16 battleground states, he is currently ahead in 9 with leads outside the margin of error in 6. Bush has moved ahead in 6 but remains within the margin of error.

According to pollster, John Zogby, Kerry has a very good chance at winning this one if under-30's get out and vote. Given unprecedented registration and a sense of urgency (and the D-word creeping into the 11th hour discourse), that could happen.

Still, I think when it comes down to it, Bush has human nature and history on his side.

Election night should be interesting.

The New Yorker

2004-10-19T06:38:00.000-07:00

The New Yorker.

Somehow it seems appropriate to suspend the conventions of grammar and make that an opening sentence -Nay! An opening paragraph. As a reader of numerous weekly, monthly, and quarterly magazines, I’ve come to accept the sameness as an understandable part of culture.

Americans don’t read, so why should a magazine devote much space to text? In a mainstream magazine like Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, etc, the cover story is granted the privilege of four pages, the first two of which is typically a photo-spread with an enlarged, one paragraph introduction. The following two pages are kind enough to supply large quotes, graphics, and more pictures so the gist of the article can be absorbed in scant minutes. Lesser articles come two to a page. Then again, a condensed blurb is what news has become.

Somehow The New Yorker survives by doing the opposite. As if to thumb their nose at the scores of plebian magazines, the editors of The New Yorker delight in publishing an 8-page expose’ on a particular type of lettuce. I’ve always imagined that practice to be something of an affectation. Not that I have minded, because if The New Yorker deems an 8-page expose’ on a variety of lettuce printable, it will most certainly be entertaining and informative in spite of itself.

Last night something occurred to me. While reading the latest issue, I found myself getting agitated by the length of an article on George Soros. I mistakenly assumed that the article would be three or four pages long. After the eighth page, I began to wish I’d flipped to the end before starting. I was getting tired. When I finally reached the end, I breathed a sigh of relief and thought something along the lines of did I really need to know 12-pages worth of information about billionaire X? That’s when it hit me. A 12-page article on George Soros isn’t an affectation at all. It is detailed information that you certainly won’t get from any other accessible magazine or news source.

Until last night, I knew the blurb about who George Soros was (multi-billionaire, predicted something about the value of the British pound dropping, was a Hungarian Jew, had recently contributed a great deal to the effort to remove Bush from the White House, etc.), but, ultimately, a blurb is just a caricature.

I wonder. Has the practice of the media to reduce news to sound bytes actually made us less informed? Is it possible that up-to-the-minute news channels, a plethora of magazines, and AP stories on the radio have resulted in a populace that thinks it knows more than it does?

Halloween on Sunday

2004-10-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

Scanning the headlines on CNN.com as I do in the mornings, I came across this story, "Halloween on Sunday Troubles Some Southerners." If there is one group of Americans the media loves to bait it is Southerners. Where else can you go for the guilty pleasure of snickering at people poorer and not nearly as smart as yourself?

Think about it. If the History Channel does a documentary on racism in America, what do they do? Invariably, they'll cut scenes from articulate, Julian Bond (Chairman of the NAACP) to an alarming group of tattooed rednecks screaming, "white power!" Another favorite is to cut from an interview with a white collar homosexual couple to a frenetic group of evangelicals waving "God Hates Fags" signs. In either case, it is clear who you would rather have living in your neighborhood.

Sure enough, this article didn't disappoint. It begins with this classic:

"It's a day for the good Lord, not for the devil," said Barbara Braswell, who plans to send her 4-year-old granddaughter Maliyah out trick-or-treating in a princess costume on Saturday instead.

Apparently, the good Lord doesn't mind if you celebrate the devil on Saturdays.

I expect over the next couple of weeks we'll be hearing more of this sort of thing. And, really, even though all a person would have to do to become a virtual authority on the history of Halloween is do a Google search on "history of halloween" and spend 15-20 minutes reading, wanton ignorance is so much more fun! It is obvious Ms. Braswell isn't aware that "Halloween" is a shortened form of "All Hallow's Eve" the day before All Saint's Day and All Soul's Day, both -wait for it- Christian holidays.

Yep, much like Saturnalia, Yule, and the celebration of the sun god Mithra/Sol, got incorporated into early Christianity as the Christ Mass -Christmas- (fourth century), Samhain and Feralia got incorporated as the Hallow Mass -Hallowmas- (eight century). Sadly, the Hallowmas didn't capture people's imagination the way Christmas did (though even it didn't enjoy widespread celebration until the late 1700's). In fact, it was pretty much a dead holiday until the Victorians developed an interest in the Druids.

In the late 1800's, Americans took the initiative and specifically reintroduced Halloween as a fall festival and kid's holiday (continental Europeans still don't bother with it, and the Brits have Guy Fawks Day, instead). Over a period of half a century, Halloween became costumes, ghosts, goblins, witches, black cats, candy, and trick or treating. By the 1950's, it had become a fun, kid-oriented holiday celebrated by entire communities, public schools, even churches.

So when did the devil get ahold of Halloween? Well, you have to go all the way back to the 1980's. In the early 80's something frightening, almost hysterical, happened. In the Northeast, parents whose kids went to a particular daycare center thought, maybe, their kids were being abused. They grilled the kids with questions and discovered that in addition to sexual abuse, they had also witnessed animal and human sacrifices. No evidence was ever uncovered to substantiate any of it, but it was so sensational that it made national news for weeks. Guess what happened?

As it turns out, alarmed parents from all over the country started asking their kids about what happened at their daycare. To everyone's, including law enforcement's, amazement, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and satanic ritual -suspiciously like that found in a Peter Cushing film-, were happening all over the United States. By the mid-80's, the idea of a massive, underground, satanic cult had spread. The Church of Satan, which no one had taken seriously since its creation in 1969, had become famous overnight and wasn't about to let go of the limelight. Convicted murderers discovered that they could become famous by saying, "the devil made me do it". On at least one occasion, a former "high priest" in the Church of Satan made a fortune on the evangelical circuit telling congregations lurid details about things that, as it turned out, never happened.

It was during this hypersensitive period where you had best bring your cat in for fear the local Satanist would get it, that Halloween became the devil's holiday. Even after the FBI ended its decade-long investigation into the underground cult in the early 1990's, admitting that in all that time they had never encountered one single, solitary bit of evidence to support its existence, the notion still persists among a vocal group of believers.

Well, there you have it. The Halloween we group up with really only lasted for about a hundred years. Mebbe it wasn't meant to be...

What to do next?

2004-10-15T10:38:00.000-07:00

I need lateral filing cabinets, a stock of sports card packs, a full-on POS system that will require $700 worth of hardware and probably a new desktop computer. I just discovered a venue for affordable, customizable neon signs -those would be nice. I really, really want to get the new comics consolidated and develop an easier to organize method of displaying trade paperbacks. I need an additional shelf to store gaming modules on. I still have sooooo much to do to properly learn comtrac. It is about time for annual inventory, too.

THE debate

2004-10-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

In spite of CNN pundits calling the debate "wonkish," I couldn't help but think this debate was the one where Kerry stepped ahead. By "wonkish" the pundits seem to mean that the candidates stated a lot of facts, statistics, and sundry numbers. Personally, the reason I tuned into the debates to begin with was to see which candidate had a command of the facts and a better plan for the future.

I'll admit to initially supporting Kerry because he wasn't Bush. Having been a registered Republican for 10 years and a strong Bush supporter through late 2003, I was so horrified by my own naivete' -not to mention infuriated at being misled- that I resolved to be the first person at Whitnel School on Nov. 2 to vote for who-the-hell-ever the other guy was. At the time I was hoping for Wes Clark or even Howard Dean. A Massachusetts liberal of the Dukakis school made me very uneasy.

Truth be told, the month of August dropped my opinion of Kerry to the point where I had almost resolved to avoid the polls on Nov. 2. It was in August when God decided to back the Dems and as a campaign gift made sure that every statistic, report, news story, etc, pointed to the severe ineptitude of the Bush administration (poverty/uninsured/projected budget deficit by 2010/the news that insurgents controlled more of Iraq than they did a year ago/ad infinitum). Kerry politely declined to aggressively point out these things. Additionally, he took two weeks to denounce the Swiftboat ads. I was not impressed.

I hoped Kerry would do well in the debates, but if Bush had done better, I would have considered it a lost cause and moved on. Having intently watched the debates (and even taken notes), I have been thrilled with John Kerry. I saw a man that had facts which I could verify at his disposal. I heard a man set goals and delineate plans to achieve them. Normally I would avoid an ad hominem observation, but when watching the debates, I clearly saw an intelligent man correcting an idiot. In short, I saw a man whom I can wholeheartedly support and want to be my president.

The final debate will make a difference. CNN's first poll showed Kerry had won 52/39. Unscientific polls on news sites show a wide favor for Kerry (out of 200,000 responses, FOX News favored Kerry 66/34, AOL was 60/40). Though the pundits are giving the debate tepid reviews, as a voter looking for substance, I found this to be "THE" debate. I expect with Kerry having decisively won 3/3 debates, a number of apathetic democrats will be energized to vote. At the same time, I would imagine that some of the enthusiasm in the Republican base will dissipate.

Prediction: Kerry will edge up in the polls abit.

Election prediction: The electoral map still favors Bush, popular opinion be damned. Bush will win, and it won't take 5 weeks to determine it this time.

Wednesday Rush/Last Debate

2004-10-13T06:47:00.000-07:00

Why did the last presidential debate have to come on a Wednesday? This is the day that I usually work from 12-10pm.

Having enjoyed the previous three debates (counting the VP one, which was -for the first half, at least- the most entertaining), I just can't miss the last one. We are back to podiums and no audience participation (+ to Kerry), and the focus is domestic issues (+ to Kerry). The only real negative for Kerry is that everyone is convinced he is going to knock it out of the park. All Bush has to do to exceed expectations is not roll his eyes.

Some pundits have written this debate off saying people have already made up their minds. I think that is a reasonable assessment, but there are those who believe this to be the pivotal debate. So much hype has surrounded the debates this year that they have taken on a carnival atmosphere. I'll agree that most people who tune in are probably just wanting to see how "their guy" does, but, even so, the performance could impact turn-out Nov. 2.

The race narrowed to a tie after the first debate largely because Bush's poor performance released steam from his base. The opposite happened for Kerry. So even if the majority of people watching are decided, the performance of their candidate could impact how excited they are to stand in line before or after work on election day -and EVERYBODY is in agreement that this election will come down to which side's base is the most motivated to head to the polls.

As for the debate, itself, I'm expecting "tax and spend liberal" to take the place of the previous mantra, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place"(or whatever). If the state of the American economy hadn't suckified so much in the last four years (7.4 trillion debt/1/2 trillion budget deficit and rising/$2 gas prices), and people's quality of life hadn't noticeably decreased (1.6 million jobs lost/number of uninsured people up 4 million/ number of people living in poverty up more than 1 million), "tax and spend liberal" would certainly be a powerful curse to invoke.

National defense was Bush's strong suit, and he didn't do so hot. When it comes to the economy, he is only lauded by the tiny neocon faithful. Traditional conservatives are just as horrified as liberals at Bush's sprint toward national insolvency. Mebbe if Dick Cheney got another tax cut, it would make it all better?

Thinking about energy

2004-10-12T07:09:00.000-07:00

I read an article about American energy consumption in the New Yorker last night before bed. The focus of the the article was primarily our dependence on foreign oil (read: Middle East). Several things struck me as interesting.

The observation was made that there has traditionally been a telling divide between the political parties with regard to dealing with the dependence. Republicans favor increasing supply; Democrats favor decreasing demand. Expert opinion favors abit of both.

OPEC doesn't control oil prices and hasn't since 1986. The price of a barrel of oil is determined by futures trading in the New York and London markets. That's a pretty clear example of conventional wisdom being wrong.

Since the price of oil dropped in the mid-eighties, American consumption has increased 25%. From the first oil embargo until 1985, high gas prices caused a 10% decrease in American oil consumption. Given these facts and the way fuel consumption is handled in Europe, some experts have suggested that rising gas prices will eventually cut demand (in the forms of people driving less, opting to purchase more fuel efficient cars).

In the short term, high gas prices act like a tax on the economy. It simultaneously decreases consumer spending power while increasing corporate expenses. Recessions followed both the 1973 and 1979 interruptions in supply.

The reason gas prices have soared in the wake of our involvement in Iraq is because of instability in Saudi Arabia. There is genuine concern that the house of Al Saud, whose reign has grown more tenuous has anti-American sentiment in the region increases, might collapse. The consequences of that happening are disastrous to the point of apocalyptic to oil imports.

And finally, for all the talk of gas/electric hybrid, hydrogen-cell powered cars, etc.., the technology isn't there yet and there are too many entrenched interests in the automotive and gas industry to expect much of an enthusiastic push in that direction.

Memorable quote from the article: "After 9/11, people went out and put flag stickers on their SUVs and bought Hummers. That tells you something."

Monday

2004-10-11T10:08:00.000-07:00

This morning's headline woke me up faster than the coffee I was sipping. Christopher Reeves Dead. For almost a decade we've heard how well he was doing in spite of everything. What shook me, however, was something Jim Myers said on Saturday. Somewhere among his rambling on about random things, he said, "Rodney Dangerfield, Janet Leigh, I wonder who the third one will be?" referencing the superstition that famous people die in threes. That just struck me as odd.

Also in the news, I saw that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (which refused to air the Nightline tribute to the fallen servicemen and women in Iraq) has ordered all of its 62 stations to air an anti-Kerry "documentary" before Nov. 2. Clintion Chronicles, anyone?

First Blog Entry

2004-10-10T10:03:00.000-07:00

Wow! I got this to work! Now I can refer to myself as a "blogger". I'm like Robert Novak and Paul Begala.

I think I'll make myself some coffee and think of something to blog about.