Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The funniest actress on television
The fairer sex is enjoying a rare moment of dominance atop the world of comedy. Well, maybe not dominance: comedy is still dominated by skinny, pasty white males and is likely to stay that way so long as cracking wise yields greater sexual returns than sitting-, pulling-, and pushing-up. But GWS digresses. Since Amy Poehler's baby came along, there's no clear answer as to who's the best comedic actress on television right now. GWS takes a look at some of the candidates you might expect, but DBMIVFK's choice may surprise some.THE ALSO-RANS...
Tina Fey: The multi-Emmy-winning Fey is the reigning empress of mainstream comedy. After her well-publicized turn at "Saturday Night Live," she wrote the smart and funny Mean Girls, which should be remembered as both a great comedy and the height of The Lohan's pulchritude. She's since been toiling in critically-acclaimed-but-unwatched no-man's-land as the driving force behind "30 Rock." Throw in some American Express commercials, add some broth and potatoes...baby, you got a stew goin'.
Fey doesn't get our award for a number of reasons.
- First and foremost, GWS is not as big a fan of Fey or her work as everyone else on the planet seems to be. Her work at "SNL" was nothing special, and GWS thought that while the skits were funny, they lacked teeth. This shift at "SNL" to sillier humor coincided with "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report"'s collective ascent to the throne of political satire, a position once held by "SNL" and a former source of some of its best work. It's arguable that Fey was simply being smart and playing to her strengths, getting "SNL" out of the way of Comedy Central's satrirical juggernauts, and if this is the case, Fey should be commended for her good business sense. But if we assume this is the case and give her credit as a businesswoman, we must then recognize what she recognized: that Fey and her team at "SNL" couldn't compete on satire in a 24-hour news-cycle world.
- Secondly, Fey has always written better for herself than for others. That's not a knock, that's just a statement of fact. Go back and watch the tape. Aside from Alec Baldwin's consistently scene-stealing performance as Jack Donaghy, Fey's characters seem to get a disproportionately high percentage of her pieces' best lines. Fey writes wonderful work for herself and admittedly great work for others (Kenneth had some great lines in last week's "30 Rock"), but this trend leaves GWS with questions.
- Thirdly, have you noticed that the first two points were about Fey's work as a writer? Me too. Fey is, fundamentally, a writer and show-runner. It's what she knows, it's her profession, and it's what she does better than 99.9% of the rest of the planet. But she's not really an actress. Here is where the unfair slight that "Fey gets by on her looks," rings somewhat true: a less-attractive actress of similarly limited range and similarly prolific writing and production skills would probably see less screen time. Fey is endearing as Liz Lemon, and girl-you-want-to-take-home-adorable...but she's not a great actress, and that's why she's just a contender.
Sarah Silverman: The writing on "The Sarah Silverman Program" ranks among the least "safe" in all television. As a result, it's hit and miss, but it's mostly hits, and that speaks volumes about Silverman herself as the show's prime mover. Sarah Silverman is almost certainly the funniest female comic working today, and again, her telegenic good looks don't hurt; the jappy caricature through which she delivers most of her lines on and off the show depends on it. But again, we're looking for the funniest actress, not the funniest comedienne or female writer.
- Sarah Silverman never breaks character as Sarah Silverman, an admirable feat for a comedic actress. It's an ingeniously devised persona, but it is so based on her previous "character" in stand-up comedy that it can be difficult to see where the writing starts and the writer stops. Silverman's not really playing a character in the traditional sense---it's not a big stretch for Sarah Silverman to get inside the character of Sarah Silverman.
- Moreover, Silverman's character is remarkably consistent. While this is further testament to her writing and creative skills, it means she has to do less and less as an actress. This is a luxury our winner does not enjoy.
- Finally, Sarah Silverman doesn't win this award for the same reason Tina Fey doesn't. It's not that they're bad actresses. In fact, they're really very, very good. It's just that they're better at other things related to acting. Babe Ruth was a helluva pitcher, but we remember him as a homerun hitter. As Fey will be remembered as a writer, Silverman will likely be remembered as a comic.
- Of the four main charaters on "The Office," (Michael, Dwight, Jim, Pam), Pam's character is the least funny. That's not Fischer's fault, and she deserves credit for staying within her character's role in the show. But it also allows her very few show-stealing moments. If the women on this list are Patriots wide receivers, Fischer is Wes Welker to our champion's Randy Moss: she's an absolutely necessary component of her show, better than just about anyone else out there, and she'll win a game for you if you let her. But Welker's not the game/show-changing presence Moss is, and neither is Fischer compared to our champ.
- Because it's not Pam's job to be her team's "big-play receiver," it's her job to do other things on the show...things that aren't related to comedy. The Pam-Jim romantic subplot on the American "Office" is a major part of how NBC's series has been able to generate four-plus seasons of content where its British predecessor called it quits after two. Fischer's on-screen chemistry with John Krasinski's Jim can't be faked, and if you're not cheering for those two characters to live happily ever after, then you, sir, are an asshole. But, again, that means that Fischer's character is something deeper than just a comedic foil, that she's working with a real character, which means that more comedic heavy-lifting has to be done by other actors (mostly Rainn Wilson).
- Jenna Fischer is the only candidate on this list whose looks can't be cited for why she's considered funny (this is not a curse unique to talented female comics and actresses. See also: Cook, Dane). Don't get GWS wrong: Jenna Fischer is a professional film and television actress, and as such, contractually obligated to be way, way prettier than any woman DBMIVFK's male readers or GWS has any right to meet. She's a brilliant casting decision as Pam Beesly: imminently accessible, with the kind of eyes that can stop you across a room, and a megawatt smile. But her frumpy receptionist's outfits tone down her natural good looks, and again, she's limited to a specific, well-defined role on "The Office." Pam can't play the sexpot, the shrew, the out-and-out bitch, and it's a good thing "The Office"'s writers never ask her to do so. Ultimately, Fischer loses this competition on degree of difficulty. She might be the best actress on this list, but she's not the funniest actress on television right now.
Without further ado...
THE FUNNIEST ACTRESS ON TELEVISION IS...
Wait for it...
Kaitlin Olson!: Olson is the unsung star of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and in GWS's opinion, the best comedic actress on television. Her bio says she was born in Oregon, but GWS is convinced she was custom-milled in a comedienne factory, a top-secret prototype that somehow broke free. Olson's work as Deandra Reynolds on "Always Sunny" consistently steals the show despite the absolute misery inflicted on the actress by the show's writers. A leggy 5'8" blonde, Olson's physique gives her writers options that other women on this list don't. She's the most intimidating of the four women on this list and simultaneously the least cute and sexiest. Simply put, she can do things the other women on this list can't.
"Sweet Dee" is expected, by turns, to be a raging booze hound, a woman scorned, a trod-upon employee, a social degenerate, a cunt, a child, and a loyal friend. Deandra is expected by "Always Sunny"'s writers to swing wildly between the least flattering female comedic stereotypes---the conniving whore, the ditz, the vengeful shrew---and Olson does so seamlessly. She's not working with a real character which makes her ability to make Dee seem relatable all the more remarkable. Dee is merely a foil for the three guys on the show; she's around when the writers have a bit that calls for someone with ovaries. Olson's character never gets her own storyline, she's rarely in an episode's climactic scene, and she never comes out on top. No comedy on television asks more of its female lead than "Always Sunny," and no actress carries more of her show's weight (can YOU think of another female lead who gets waterboarded?). It's inconceivable that such a physically attractive woman would hang out with such losers as Dennis, Charlie, and Mac (to say nothing of Frank), but Olson plays Dee as such a social misfit that it starts to make sense, helping "Always Sunny" avoid the cliched "Why is this hot girl hanging out with these losers?" trap that its writers had set for her. "Always Sunny" would grind to a halt if Olson weren't playing Dee, and the character wouldn't be nearly as funny with anyone else.
GWS sincerely hopes to see more of Olson in the future. Her ascendancy to Amy Poehler's old spot at the zenith of female comedic actresses also means that Rob McElhenney is elevated to Will Arnett's position as luckiest S.O.B. in Hollywood.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Some 21st-century problems require 19th-century solutions
It's been quite a November, hasn't it? GWS's little sister celebrated her first birthday out of college, Barack Obama was elected President, and the pillars of capitalism continue to be shaken by unforeseen tremors from both within and without. Many of the problems we face will require new solutions, and all of them will require sacrifice. But while FDR's legislative and regulatory template may not be a perfect fit for the problems we face today, Thomas Jefferson's interactions with the Barbary pirates may help President-elect Obama navigate the treacherous waters off the horn of Africa.
Try to imagine this scenario: you've been transported back to Selma, Alabama, 1955. There, you tell incredulous citizens that you are from the future where people speak to one another through tiny portable phones, a black man has been elected President, and that President does not face the challenge of mutually assured destruction but rather that of piracy. Good old fashioned, made-from-scratch, take-your-stuff-from-you-at-sea-and-hold-you-for-ransom piracy. I'd give you five seconds before someone inquired if, you, boy, weren't from round heah.
But piracy off the horn of Africa is a serious matter, made all the more so by the capture of Saudi Aramco's supertanker Sirius Star. The reason the capture of the Sirius Star is important is because of what some academics refer to as "signalling," which is a not-so-fancy way of saying that people paid attention to the taking of the giant oil tanker and will extrapolate lessons from this event.
The Sirius Star was captured more than 400 miles out to sea, well beyond what was thought to be the pirates' operational range. Forget the reports detailing the use of "mother ships" (who thought we'd hear that phrase used in conjunction with hard news?) and the Indian navy's recent successes; the important part of this event for anyone with interests off the coast of Africa was the fact that this strike occurred so far afield. As Fareed Zakaria noted on his most recent show, if Somali pirates' operational range is indeed 400+ miles from shore, the world's navies must now protect a staggering 1.1 million square miles of open ocean---a practical impossibility.
Beyond the cruel arithmetic of the current crisis, GWS is surprised by the lack of media coverage on the copycat angle. Pirates are like any other industry: when they see a better business model than the one they're using, they'll change course. So how the world responds to the capture of the Sirius Star becomes very important as a signal of how the international community plans to respond to this problem. It is possible that the capture of the Sirius Star is a one-time event, and the fact that it was attacked so far out to sea suggests that the perpetrators bought high-quality information that may not be readily available to all pirates. But GWS is less than convinced that this incident won't happen again, so the international community's response to this current crisis will act as a powerful signal to Somali pirates and the world of states alike. An ineffectual response will act as an accelerant on a slowly burning fire. Rumors are circulating about pirates making $50,000/year, but even if they're making half that, they're still living like kings in anarchic Somalia. If the world's navies accept pirate control of the waters off the horn of Africa and continue to merely ransom captive sailors, the implications for global trade could be dramatic.
The parallels between the current crisis and the United States' last major engagement with pirates---the Barbary Wars---are few and far between. Barbary piracy was a state-sanctioned form of high seas extortion wheras Somali pirates appear to be motivated by the appeal of a source of income in a shattered state, but there are still some lessons that can be applied.
First of all, the scourge of Barbary piracy was only brought to an end by a concert of nations. The United States was able to force the Dey of Algiers to favorable terms, but it took the brutal British Bombardment of Algiers the following year to bring the recidivist Dey back in line. Lesson: an effective response will require a coordinated and sustained international effort. Secondly, the Barbary pirates success against merchant vessels was not duplicated against the world's navies, neither on land nor at sea. The American navy mostly smashed the Tripolitan and Algerian forces it faced at sea, and the decisive battle of the First Barbary War came when the undisciplined defenders of Dernah fell into a disorganized retreat when faced by a numerically inferior American-led force. Lesson: pirates are not a disciplined fighting force and are likely to flee when faced with one, even when the pirates enjoy superior numbers. Finally, the Bombardment of Algiers may---may---be instructive. "Shock and awe," along with most theories of air power, have been discredited as effective coercive tools when used against a nation-state, but it just might work against loosely organized criminals. Lesson: speak softly, and carry a big Tomahawk cruise missile.
GWS favors a hawkish approach not because it worked hundreds of years ago against the Dey of Algiers, but mostly because it's the only way to send a negative signal to other pirates. GWS advocates a policy whereby the international community treats Somali pirates like William Longshanks treats the Scottish in "Braveheart": lie, cheat, steal, murder, and generally do whatever it takes to subdue these people by force of arms. The (multi)generational issue of Somali development must be considered alongside a military response, but neither the world's markets nor the pirates themselves are working on that long-term timetable. The international community has a major interest in keeping the waters off east Africa pirate-free, and they would do well to offer the pirates no quarter, to make $50,000/year piracy Somalia's most dangerous job (a tall order indeed). This is the only way GWS sees to curb piracy in the short- to medium-term. If GWS were Head Minister of World Naval Policy, he'd pay the pirates whatever they want, tell them whatever they need to hear, promise whatever he needed to ensure the safe release of the innocent sailors of the Sirius Star---and as soon as the crew were clear, send a SEAL team aboard the ship and kill every single pirate.
In the words of Brother Cavil, "We round [them] up, and we execute them. Publicly." Continue this policy of Stab-You-in-the-Back-ism until the pirates adapt and it stops working---then, adapt in response and stab them in the back again. Piracy is antithetical to international order, trade, and the freedom of the seas, and it cannot be tolerated by the world's nations. It is in the best interest of everyone outside a small band of Somali criminals to both rebuild the Somali state and deal swiftly and severely with those who engage in piracy. Somalia's pirates must come to see the seizure of the Sirius Star as an example of hubrisitic overreach, not a viable new business model.
Try to imagine this scenario: you've been transported back to Selma, Alabama, 1955. There, you tell incredulous citizens that you are from the future where people speak to one another through tiny portable phones, a black man has been elected President, and that President does not face the challenge of mutually assured destruction but rather that of piracy. Good old fashioned, made-from-scratch, take-your-stuff-from-you-at-sea-and-hold-you-for-ransom piracy. I'd give you five seconds before someone inquired if, you, boy, weren't from round heah.
But piracy off the horn of Africa is a serious matter, made all the more so by the capture of Saudi Aramco's supertanker Sirius Star. The reason the capture of the Sirius Star is important is because of what some academics refer to as "signalling," which is a not-so-fancy way of saying that people paid attention to the taking of the giant oil tanker and will extrapolate lessons from this event.
The Sirius Star was captured more than 400 miles out to sea, well beyond what was thought to be the pirates' operational range. Forget the reports detailing the use of "mother ships" (who thought we'd hear that phrase used in conjunction with hard news?) and the Indian navy's recent successes; the important part of this event for anyone with interests off the coast of Africa was the fact that this strike occurred so far afield. As Fareed Zakaria noted on his most recent show, if Somali pirates' operational range is indeed 400+ miles from shore, the world's navies must now protect a staggering 1.1 million square miles of open ocean---a practical impossibility.
Beyond the cruel arithmetic of the current crisis, GWS is surprised by the lack of media coverage on the copycat angle. Pirates are like any other industry: when they see a better business model than the one they're using, they'll change course. So how the world responds to the capture of the Sirius Star becomes very important as a signal of how the international community plans to respond to this problem. It is possible that the capture of the Sirius Star is a one-time event, and the fact that it was attacked so far out to sea suggests that the perpetrators bought high-quality information that may not be readily available to all pirates. But GWS is less than convinced that this incident won't happen again, so the international community's response to this current crisis will act as a powerful signal to Somali pirates and the world of states alike. An ineffectual response will act as an accelerant on a slowly burning fire. Rumors are circulating about pirates making $50,000/year, but even if they're making half that, they're still living like kings in anarchic Somalia. If the world's navies accept pirate control of the waters off the horn of Africa and continue to merely ransom captive sailors, the implications for global trade could be dramatic.
The parallels between the current crisis and the United States' last major engagement with pirates---the Barbary Wars---are few and far between. Barbary piracy was a state-sanctioned form of high seas extortion wheras Somali pirates appear to be motivated by the appeal of a source of income in a shattered state, but there are still some lessons that can be applied.
First of all, the scourge of Barbary piracy was only brought to an end by a concert of nations. The United States was able to force the Dey of Algiers to favorable terms, but it took the brutal British Bombardment of Algiers the following year to bring the recidivist Dey back in line. Lesson: an effective response will require a coordinated and sustained international effort. Secondly, the Barbary pirates success against merchant vessels was not duplicated against the world's navies, neither on land nor at sea. The American navy mostly smashed the Tripolitan and Algerian forces it faced at sea, and the decisive battle of the First Barbary War came when the undisciplined defenders of Dernah fell into a disorganized retreat when faced by a numerically inferior American-led force. Lesson: pirates are not a disciplined fighting force and are likely to flee when faced with one, even when the pirates enjoy superior numbers. Finally, the Bombardment of Algiers may---may---be instructive. "Shock and awe," along with most theories of air power, have been discredited as effective coercive tools when used against a nation-state, but it just might work against loosely organized criminals. Lesson: speak softly, and carry a big Tomahawk cruise missile.
GWS favors a hawkish approach not because it worked hundreds of years ago against the Dey of Algiers, but mostly because it's the only way to send a negative signal to other pirates. GWS advocates a policy whereby the international community treats Somali pirates like William Longshanks treats the Scottish in "Braveheart": lie, cheat, steal, murder, and generally do whatever it takes to subdue these people by force of arms. The (multi)generational issue of Somali development must be considered alongside a military response, but neither the world's markets nor the pirates themselves are working on that long-term timetable. The international community has a major interest in keeping the waters off east Africa pirate-free, and they would do well to offer the pirates no quarter, to make $50,000/year piracy Somalia's most dangerous job (a tall order indeed). This is the only way GWS sees to curb piracy in the short- to medium-term. If GWS were Head Minister of World Naval Policy, he'd pay the pirates whatever they want, tell them whatever they need to hear, promise whatever he needed to ensure the safe release of the innocent sailors of the Sirius Star---and as soon as the crew were clear, send a SEAL team aboard the ship and kill every single pirate.
In the words of Brother Cavil, "We round [them] up, and we execute them. Publicly." Continue this policy of Stab-You-in-the-Back-ism until the pirates adapt and it stops working---then, adapt in response and stab them in the back again. Piracy is antithetical to international order, trade, and the freedom of the seas, and it cannot be tolerated by the world's nations. It is in the best interest of everyone outside a small band of Somali criminals to both rebuild the Somali state and deal swiftly and severely with those who engage in piracy. Somalia's pirates must come to see the seizure of the Sirius Star as an example of hubrisitic overreach, not a viable new business model.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Universal suffrage may need a rethink...
The Minnesota Senate recount is underway, and Minnesota Public Radio has gone completely web 2.0---they're so web 2.0, some experts are actually classifying them as web 3.5, which is the most web anything has ever gotten.
All snarkery aside, MPR has posted several of the state's contested ballots and lets you be the judge. It's worth a look and makes GWS wonder why we let everyone's votes count equally...
All snarkery aside, MPR has posted several of the state's contested ballots and lets you be the judge. It's worth a look and makes GWS wonder why we let everyone's votes count equally...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Maureen Dowd Inanity Watch
From today's New York Times:
"Some critics say Hillary doesn’t have the foreign-policy chops for the job. But she would stop the pompous John Kerry from getting it, and that is a formidable recommendation. (You know he just wants to swan around in those striped pants.)"
As Fishbulb once put it, "She reads like a sarcastic 6th-grader." Couldn't agree more. Does anyone else get the impression that Dowd was one of the pretty, popular girls in high school, only she wasn't the prettiest and she certainly wasn't the most talented, but she got to sit with them during lunch because she went to middle school with one really pretty girl and the others put up with her because she had a penchant for making nasty, cutting little remarks like the one above?
Hey, have you gotten your invitation to Maureen's birthday party yet? Oh, yeah, that's right, you weren't invited. (Giggle giggle giggle giggle)
"Some critics say Hillary doesn’t have the foreign-policy chops for the job. But she would stop the pompous John Kerry from getting it, and that is a formidable recommendation. (You know he just wants to swan around in those striped pants.)"
As Fishbulb once put it, "She reads like a sarcastic 6th-grader." Couldn't agree more. Does anyone else get the impression that Dowd was one of the pretty, popular girls in high school, only she wasn't the prettiest and she certainly wasn't the most talented, but she got to sit with them during lunch because she went to middle school with one really pretty girl and the others put up with her because she had a penchant for making nasty, cutting little remarks like the one above?
Hey, have you gotten your invitation to Maureen's birthday party yet? Oh, yeah, that's right, you weren't invited. (Giggle giggle giggle giggle)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sixteen-year old Japanese schoolgirl kunckleballer selected in Japanese pro draft
Sixteen-year old schoolgirl Eri Yoshida (pictured above) has been selected in the Nippon Professional Baseball draft, making her the first woman on either side of the Pacific to achieve such an honor (no, Ila Borders doesn't count, and anyone who's ever been to a St. Paul Saints game can tell you why).GWS insists on referring to Yoshida as "schoolgirl" because if the AP can do it, so can he. A quick question: why would the AP refer to a young Japanese woman as a schoolgirl, when Morgan Pressel, Shawn Johnson, and others in Yoshida's age group escape that slightly-degrading appellative? GWS fears the answer lies somewhere between the image above and the deeply repressed sexual urges of Japanese men, and he bases these fears on absolutely nothing.
Yoshida throws her knuckler with a sidearm delivery, topping out around 80km/h (that's just under 50 mph for those of us who think the metric system is for sissies), so she's unlikely to make the jump to MLB anytime soon. Still, NPB seems to think she's got good enough stuff to be more than just a novelty draw.
Yoshida will mature like any other ballplayer, growing bigger, faster, and stronger than she was before. PECOTA projects her as a #4 or 5 starter who's probably better suited to the bullpen; strangely, PECOTA also predicted that when Yoshida reaches her prime, her appearances on the mound will look something like this.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Mission Not Yet Accomplished
Fire Joe Morgan has gone dark, and GWS has to point out that this is not the attitude that won us World War II. Joe Morgan remains employed by ESPN, so GWS hopes "Ken Tremendous" (a.k.a. The Office writer Michael Schur...yeah, the guy who plays Mose) can use his new job offset the damage done by the shuttering of the best sports journalism criticism around. He's co-show-runner for the new Office spinoff.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Morning Misogyny
GWS and Fishbulb are listening to Tom Ashbrooke on NPR right now...his female guest is talking about the late Michael Crichton. Tom says, "You've...I understand you've lost a friend recently..." The woman says, yeah, Michael Crichton and she were very close:
Tom: "What was he like as a person?"
Woman: "Well...he was, he was very charming."
Fishbulb to GWS: "She was sleeping with him."
Fishbulb strikes! The sad thing is, GWS is pretty sure that Fishbulb is right in the majority of situations. So, dear readers, what are your thoughts: if a woman describes a recently deceased man as "charming," does that mean she is or had been sleeping with the man? GWS is hard-pressed to find examples otherwise...
Tom: "What was he like as a person?"
Woman: "Well
Fishbulb to GWS: "She was sleeping with him."
Fishbulb strikes! The sad thing is, GWS is pretty sure that Fishbulb is right in the majority of situations. So, dear readers, what are your thoughts: if a woman describes a recently deceased man as "charming," does that mean she is or had been sleeping with the man? GWS is hard-pressed to find examples otherwise...
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Fingers crossed
GWS just finished the Foreign Service Officer Test at Bunker Hill Community College. This written exam is the first step toward becoming a member of the American Foreign Service, the professional diplomatic corps that manages the country's foreign relations. The test consisted of four parts: job knowledge, English expression, personal questionnaire, and essay.
Job knowledge: a wide range of questions about American culture, policy, history, and government. GWS thought he did well on this section. A question to readers: a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining nominal GDP, not real GDP, right?
Engrish: this portion of the exam tested GWS's ability to speak his native tongue. If he doesn't do well on this section, GWS will be most displeased.
Can I ask you a personal question?: strangest section of the test by far. Questions ranged from, "How likely are you to try to learn new things?" to "How often do others turn to you to resolve a conflict?" to "In the past six months, how many times have you volunteered for an unpleasant task?" GWS is unsure how the Foreign Service accounts for self-reporting on these metrics...
Essay: the most difficult section for GWS. The prompt was about American automobile use, specifically if and how government policies needed to change regarding private use of cars for transportation. Time was limited, and GWS wrote a tacked-on conclusion...
Keep those fingers crossed---in eight to ten weeks, GWS will know if he's dead in the water or still a candidate for America's diplomatic corps.
Job knowledge: a wide range of questions about American culture, policy, history, and government. GWS thought he did well on this section. A question to readers: a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining nominal GDP, not real GDP, right?
Engrish: this portion of the exam tested GWS's ability to speak his native tongue. If he doesn't do well on this section, GWS will be most displeased.
Can I ask you a personal question?: strangest section of the test by far. Questions ranged from, "How likely are you to try to learn new things?" to "How often do others turn to you to resolve a conflict?" to "In the past six months, how many times have you volunteered for an unpleasant task?" GWS is unsure how the Foreign Service accounts for self-reporting on these metrics...
Essay: the most difficult section for GWS. The prompt was about American automobile use, specifically if and how government policies needed to change regarding private use of cars for transportation. Time was limited, and GWS wrote a tacked-on conclusion...
Keep those fingers crossed---in eight to ten weeks, GWS will know if he's dead in the water or still a candidate for America's diplomatic corps.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Our Long National Nightmare is Over!
Eight years later, George W. Bush is headed back to Texas and Barack Obama is set to become the 44th President of the United States.
Pinch me.
The worst presidency in the history of the republic---and it will be remembered as the worst presidency ever, mark my words---has left us in several incredibly deep holes. The Obama administration will be lucky to get us back to treading water in his first term, but That One also represents this country's last, best shot.
Now the work begins.
Electoral betting update: GWS is expecting a check from his high school friend in light of Obama's crushing victory.
Minnesota Senate update: Less than 700 votes! So close! Screw you, Dean Barkley! Let's go, Franken, don't let Normy the Golden Boy go back for another six years.
Pinch me.
The worst presidency in the history of the republic---and it will be remembered as the worst presidency ever, mark my words---has left us in several incredibly deep holes. The Obama administration will be lucky to get us back to treading water in his first term, but That One also represents this country's last, best shot.
Now the work begins.
Electoral betting update: GWS is expecting a check from his high school friend in light of Obama's crushing victory.
Minnesota Senate update: Less than 700 votes! So close! Screw you, Dean Barkley! Let's go, Franken, don't let Normy the Golden Boy go back for another six years.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Nervous?
You just don't say the word "no-hitter" while one's going on...But polls start to close in a couple hours marking the end of the Bush era, which has dominated GWS's fragile political conscience. The long national nightmare---two unresolved wars, a massive fiscal crisis combined with constrained monetary policy options, Hurricane Katrina, No Child Left Behind, judicial appointments, Justice Department firings, Abramoff, Mark Foley, North Korea getting nukes, indifference to Darfur, privatizing Social Security, and the rise of Sith Lord Cheney---the long national nightmare that has defined GWS's political life since three days after he turned 18 is finally, mercifully coming to a close.
Electoral fun: GWS has made a bet with a friend from high school. If Obama wins, GWS wins $50 bucks; if McCain wins, friend of GWS gets $50. Straight up, no over-under, no line. GWS likes these odds.
Keep those fingers crossed, and go Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Is Farhad Manjoo working for News Corp. on the sly?
That's the only explanation GWS can come up with after reading this garbage in Slate.
Manjoo argues that since times are getting tough, internet companies like Facebook should revert to a "neighborhood Italian restaurant" business model, which is sort of a weird recommendation, because have you ever tried the breadsticks they serve at Facebook? Neither have I, and that's part of why this is among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.
Let me get this straight: Manjoo and I are both working from the assumption that our current economic tailspin and the death of free credit mean that there's going to be a shakeout in just about every industry. Manjoo recommendation for keeping Facebook afloat, then, is to charge people for what they've always expected was free. Tell me, John Q. Consumer, do you typically enjoy paying for things that you'd come to expect as free? What if those now-charged-for items weren't, say, food, water, or shelter? That is, if your landlord changed the terms of your lease and made you start paying for heat and hot water, would you pony up the extra cash? Probably, yeah. Now, what if your landlord started charging your $5 a month to look at your friends' drunken party photos? Would you still be willing to pay?
Two larger thoughts before GWS is done with this rant.
1. GWS used to work for a market research firm, one that's struggling to keep its head above water. During the downturn earlier this year, a company-wide "suggestion box" was sent around, and the results were later sent to all employees. Most employees, particularly those in sales and the firm's more proftiable researchers, argued that the company's price points should be lowered to encourage a greater number of transactions. The lone voice of dissent on this opinion came from our PR rep, who argued that increasing what each client paid by only a little bit would really help the company's bottom line. In Microeconomics 101, this works beautifully---just move the lines so that the price point is higher and poof!, profits. In reality, counterparties see a move like that and say, "Hmmm, I wonder what more I'm getting in return for this extra money." When they see that the answer is "Nothing," they become displeased. Then they take their money elsewhere.
GWS didn't expect his PR rep to understand this; from her position in the company, she had no good reason to understand that most clients were already saying our services were overpriced. But GWS can't cut Manjoo the same slack. Ignorance can't be considered an excuse here.
2. At Mobile Internet World in Boston last year, GWS had the opportunity to listen to Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who basically invented teh t00bz while working at CERN in the 1980s and 90s. Among Berners-Lee's more memorable points was his emphasis that the internet was never intended to generate wealth; it's intended to share information, not make money, and that's just that. To Berners-Lee, the fact that some people have found a way to make money from internet-based businesses is admirable, but it flies in the face of the purpose of the system. Here's to hoping Zuckerberg & Co. heed Berners-Lee's advice.
Manjoo argues that since times are getting tough, internet companies like Facebook should revert to a "neighborhood Italian restaurant" business model, which is sort of a weird recommendation, because have you ever tried the breadsticks they serve at Facebook? Neither have I, and that's part of why this is among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.
Let me get this straight: Manjoo and I are both working from the assumption that our current economic tailspin and the death of free credit mean that there's going to be a shakeout in just about every industry. Manjoo recommendation for keeping Facebook afloat, then, is to charge people for what they've always expected was free. Tell me, John Q. Consumer, do you typically enjoy paying for things that you'd come to expect as free? What if those now-charged-for items weren't, say, food, water, or shelter? That is, if your landlord changed the terms of your lease and made you start paying for heat and hot water, would you pony up the extra cash? Probably, yeah. Now, what if your landlord started charging your $5 a month to look at your friends' drunken party photos? Would you still be willing to pay?
Two larger thoughts before GWS is done with this rant.
1. GWS used to work for a market research firm, one that's struggling to keep its head above water. During the downturn earlier this year, a company-wide "suggestion box" was sent around, and the results were later sent to all employees. Most employees, particularly those in sales and the firm's more proftiable researchers, argued that the company's price points should be lowered to encourage a greater number of transactions. The lone voice of dissent on this opinion came from our PR rep, who argued that increasing what each client paid by only a little bit would really help the company's bottom line. In Microeconomics 101, this works beautifully---just move the lines so that the price point is higher and poof!, profits. In reality, counterparties see a move like that and say, "Hmmm, I wonder what more I'm getting in return for this extra money." When they see that the answer is "Nothing," they become displeased. Then they take their money elsewhere.
GWS didn't expect his PR rep to understand this; from her position in the company, she had no good reason to understand that most clients were already saying our services were overpriced. But GWS can't cut Manjoo the same slack. Ignorance can't be considered an excuse here.
2. At Mobile Internet World in Boston last year, GWS had the opportunity to listen to Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who basically invented teh t00bz while working at CERN in the 1980s and 90s. Among Berners-Lee's more memorable points was his emphasis that the internet was never intended to generate wealth; it's intended to share information, not make money, and that's just that. To Berners-Lee, the fact that some people have found a way to make money from internet-based businesses is admirable, but it flies in the face of the purpose of the system. Here's to hoping Zuckerberg & Co. heed Berners-Lee's advice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)