Monthly Archives: June 2012

Getting Lost on the Yellow Brick Road

Posted on by

DebateListening to the pundits try to make sense of Wall Street is a bit like riding one of those old wooden  roller coasters.  You begin by starting off slowly.  Then you climb a big hill and just as quickly, head screaming back down.  In between, you get shook around a lot and end up were you started (if you’re lucky).

Take some recent analysis from the 4th estate…

The price of gas goes down at the pump.  Drivers now spend less money to fill up their tanks.  That’s a good thing, right?  Wrong!  Analysts report consumer spending is down because Americans are losing faith in the recovery.  What happens?  Stocks tumble on the news of the report.  Huh?

Speaking of gasoline, the former president of Shell Oil predicted in December 2011 that gas would cost $5 a gallon in 2012.  Gas prices did go up, but have returned to January 2012.  Maybe that’s why he is the former president for Shell.

Several large banks get their ratings lowered because of questionable deals with European countries.  That’s bad right?  Wrong!  Stocks go up because investors were already expecting this and like the fact it was done.  What happens?  Stock prices rise on the news.  Say what?

The Supreme Court surprises many people by upholding “Obama Care”.  This was not based on commerce, but that the government can tax just about anything it wants.  The money experts on Fox and CNBC immediately screamed this would ruin the economy and kill jobs.  The market did go down after the ruling was released, but only dropped around 40 points.  Wonder what Obama did when the market dropped over 100 points before the announcement was made?

There is a television ad currently airing for a financial services company.  Various husbands are getting ready for bed and fretting to their wives about what could happen if the economy goes south (I’m guessing the company doesn’t feel women are smart enough to be worried).  The wives offer sound advice saying “it’s all noise” and we should “tune it out”.

scarecrowI remember a very smart (and wealthy) financial adviser telling me to look at the market as a long term process, and not to focus on a day/week or month.  I try to follow that advice, but I have to admit it’s hard to do when all the talking heads sound like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz giving me directions to find the end of the Yellow Brick Road.

Maybe There is Hope for Us

Posted on by

Something amazing recently took place on the Internet.  It won’t bring us world peace, or end famine, but it could help restore our faith in mankind just a little bit.

The story begins with an unlucky tourist.  Anyone who lives to travel knows how important taking pictures are.  You want to capture all the sights from places that you’ve always dreamed of visiting, creating a special collection of wonderful memories.  So imagine how it would feel to travel in Europe, take over 2,800 pictures and then lose your camera.  That moment of realizing all the photos are gone would feel like being sucker-punched.

That’s exactly what happened to one unlucky traveler who visited Amsterdam, but this story has a happy ending.  You see, the camera was found by a good hearted soul who realized the camera held a clue as to its owner, but how to find him?

After looking at some of the photos, it became apparent the camera’s owner liked to have his picture taken (a valuable lesson for those who hate having their picture taken).  Still, there are millions of visitors to Amsterdam so what can one person do?

Jan van Cappellen, who found the camera on a train, said he felt like a detective.  After realizing he had a picture of the owner, van Cappellen emailed several hostels, and other tourist sites including the Iamsterdam page on Facebook.  The photo was posted on Monday and by Tuesday, the owner, Reggie Downing from Canada, was recognized and found still traveling in Europe.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, it might not seem like much, but it’s those little victories that make it feel like we still have a chance.

Amsterdam

Was it Something I Said?

Posted on by

So here’s the scenario.  A media company broadcasts something the Federal Communications Commission deems indecent.  The FCC decides to revise its’ policy in response to the broadcast and then fines the media company for it after the fact.  Make sense?

Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court didn’t think so.  In a rare unanimous ruling, the high court threw out the fines and sanctions issued by the FCC.  The court concluded that the broadcasters could not have known in advance, the broadcasts would later be deemed indecent and subject to fines.  In other words, they said it wasn’t fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

NYPD BlueThe indecent broadcasts included a brief display of nudity on ABC’s “NYPD Blue” and several obscenities uttered by Cher and Bono during different awards shows.  In case you’re having trouble remembering; The “NYPD Blue” episode “Nude Awakening” aired on February 25, 2003.  Yes, the wheels of justice do turn very slowly.

What the court did not do is free “over the air” broadcasters from the regulations that other media outlets (Cable, The Internet, etc.) are free from.  While that argument may be compelling, the government still controls the airwaves and can dictate different rules, even if many viewers don’t realize they are switching back and forth between a cable channel and a broadcast channel. It appears that, for now, broadcast outlets (television and radio) will still have to adhere to the current policy.

janet-jacksonIn case you were wondering, the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was not part of this ruling.  That case is currently making its way through the judicial process.  The government has appealed a lower court’s ruling that threw out the fine in that case.

In regards to the case just wrapped up by the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said “it is unnecessary for the court to address the constitutionality of the current policy” which means we might get to relive the Super Bowl half-time show from Reliant Stadium all over again.  Anybody want to place on bet on how that ruling will come out?

Now granted, the faster technology moves, the harder it is for laws and regulations to keep up.  Social standards can also change, causing even more confusion as to what is, and what is not acceptable.  Still, it seems like we just wasted a bunch of money.  In the last month, the Government has lost its case against John Edwards, Roger Clemens and now this.  With a record like that, they very well might end up replacing the Astros for last place.

I am the DJ on the Radio

Posted on by

Video Thumbnail copyI had written and recorded this song a while back.  I really liked how it came out, but felt it would be interesting to find a way to mix it with video.  I played around with several concepts, but nothing felt right.  I came across a website that hosted a ton of vintage film clips and discovered several films that featured radio broadcasting.  I started to download and insert the clips.  While browsing, I also came across some great clips of women doing burlesque.  I thought it fit perfectly with the bridge in the song that featured hand clapping and scratching.  I don’t think I’m every completely satisfied with any song I’ve recorded, but I was pretty happy with this.

Expensive Free Speech

Posted on by

There’s been a lot of attention focused lately on Super PAC’s and their influence in this year’s elections.  Their impact has been debated from the hallowed halls of Congress to the late night comedy news programs ever since the Supreme Court opened the door to a new form of free speech.

Politicians and Super PAC’s are not allowed to work/collaborate with each other (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but there is another surprising area which could cause a conflict of interest.  Not between the candidates and the Super PAC’s, but with the broadcasters who air their advertisements and the revenue they generate.

Broadcasters are required by law to accept all advertising from any candidate running for a national office, but they don’t have to accept any Super PAC advertising.  The dilemma is broadcasters can make a ton more money airing Super PAC ads vs. a candidate’s ads.

How so?  Super PAC’s have to buy advertising at the going rate.  Politicians, by law, can purchase broadcast time at a thing called the “Lowest Unit Rate”.  Candidates are charged the lowest rate that any commercial advertiser paid for a spot of the same class.  Broadcasters can’t bump up the rate on a candidates spot, but they can charge whatever they want to air the Super PAC’s ads.  CBS President Les Moonves told a conference back in March that, “Super PAC’s may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS”.

That’s all well and good for CBS, except broadcasters are responsible to ensure ads they broadcast are truthful and not misleading (interestingly enough, this rule does not apply to candidates running for federal office, who can say whatever they want in their ads and broadcasters can’t do anything about it).

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, from the Iowa caucus through the Wisconsin primaries, over half of the 41.1 million dollars were spent on 19 ads containing deceptive or misleading claims.  What could happen to broadcasters who aired those ads?  They could be fined, or even get the death penalty (lose its broadcast license), but that is not likely to happen.

So can the media be trusted to substantiate claims made in Super PAC advertisements at the risk of losing revenue?  I’m afraid we all know the answer to that question.