The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) in Washington, D.C. is set to rule on Thursday over a request from the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) to raise the royalty rate paid on digital downloads.

It seems the NMPA has decided it is time for royalties to go up, and seeing as CD sales are on the decline, the record companies have pawned off the request to the digital download market.  The current royalty rate is $.09 a song and they are requesting an increase to $.15, a hike of more than 60%.

Seeing as Apple’s iTunes store currently controls 80% of the digital music market, it is fairly obvious this move is squarely directed at them.

Under the current system, on a $.99 song sale, it is believed Apple already gives away $.70 in royalties and rights.  Of the remaining $.29, very little is actually profit as the majority goes to maintaining the store, paperwork and so on.  This new rate would lower Apple’s share to $.23, and they are saying at that price they would actually be losing money.

As Apple is like any other business, and wishes to make money, iTunes vice president Eddy Cue has made a rather ominous threat via an article on CNN Money.

If the [iTunes music store] was forced to absorb any increase in the … royalty rate, the result would be to significantly increase the likelihood of the store operating at a financial loss - which is no alternative at all,” Cue wrote. “Apple has repeatedly made it clear that it is in this business to make money, and most likely would not continue to operate [the iTunes music store] if it were no longer possible to do so profitably.

I personally find it highly unlikely that Apple would actually go that far, but it does seem when one company controls 80% of a market, and is projected to go as high as 85%, that this does seem a rather unfair targeting of them. It does also put them in a position where their threat should be taken very seriously.  Apple does have a counter-proposal on the table of a percentage of wholesale that would work out to an actual reduction of royalties, but somehow I don’t see that flying either.

David Israelite, president of the National Music Publishers Association, is saying that everyone should embrace the royalty increase because ultimately everyone involved will prosper. Um… yeah… sure, I see that. -scratches head- There was a more telling quote in the CNN Money story from Mr. Israelite that I think sums up the core of this whole issue.

“Apple may want to sell songs cheaply to sell iPods. We don’t make a penny on the sale of an iPod.”

Ah, yeah, there we go again.  Remember back in 2005 when Edgar Bronfman, CEO of the Warner Music Group, thought record companies should earn a percentage from the sale of each iPod sold as Apple wouldn’t be able to sell their products without music to put on it.  Luckily that idea was quickly squashed, but here it is rearing it’s ugly head again, just in a different form.

So Apple is once again being targeted for basically being profitable.  Well, let me ask the music industry a very simple set of questions: Did you collect payments for sales of record players?  8 Track players?  Tape decks?  CD Players?  On and on and on, why is it now okay to target one hardware manufacturer because they have the most popular version of it?

Once again, here we are with the music industry again trying to get more blood out of a turnip, never mind their greed may end up harming things.  Say this passes and Apple finally gives in to raising their prices, this will inevitably leads to lower sales, and in turn, lower royalties.  Say Apple would shut down iTunes, then there would be no royalties at all.  Gee, are either of these desirable for any party involved.  How would everyone “prosper” again?

Stupid, stupid music companies.

According to IO9, there is talk of someone doing a sequel to Blade Runner.

Okay, first off, the original film came out in 1982, based on a novel by Philip K. Dick named Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, and while it has cult status, I doubt many people younger than myself even know of this film.  Considering this project isn’t locked, and lead times for effects heavy films are 2 - 3 years, you’re looking at 2010 or 2011 for this to come out.  That would put this project close to the 30 year mark since the original, making progressively less sense.

Secondly… IT ISN’T NEEDED!  Blade Runner is one of those works that, no matter which cut of it you watch, it is a complete and perfect work.  Fantastic story, great acting and with so many years gone by, the visuals still pack a heck of a wallop.  I watched it on HD-DVD when the deluxe boxed set came out, and there were even more astonishing details lurking in the shadows, and with a bit of effects cleaning, it was just… wow.  Capturing the vibe of this film a second time would be next to impossible and, quite simply, should just not be done.

This is where Hollywood is just depressing me more and more.  We just hear about bad idea after bad idea, and there seems to be no stopping them.  Remember MTV is remaking The Rocky Horror Picture Show?  There are talks that the remake of Ed Wood’s schlock classic, Plan 9 From Outer Space, is moving ahead.  Possibly a Men In Black 3, which is so not needed (and the cartoon series actually was better than the second film).

It just seems like bad idea afte rbad idea is coming out of Hollywood lately, and no one is saying “wait a minute…”.  I think the time has come for exectutives to come out of their ivory towers and hear what people actually have to say about these projects.  They need to be stopped before they even get started, and save all of us the inevitable pain.

Just say no to Blade Runner 2… please.

A 478-carat diamond was found in the Kingdom of Lesotho recently.

The diamond has been rated as a D color, the highest color grade possible in a white diamond, and it is said to have a flawless center.  After going through the cutting process they expect to yield a 100-carat round diamond.

Who cares?

I am sorry, but this is one of the aspects of the world I have never grasped.  Sure, there are some things diamonds can do such as drill bits and so on, but for their usual purpose as jewelry, I just don’t get it.  And it’s not just diamonds, but gems in general… you do all realize you’re getting excited but shiny rocks, right?

Now, I know I get excited about technology, but at least it does something for me.  Gold?  Well, gold is too soft to be usable as pretty much anything.  Silver?  Well, it makes a nice tea set.  It’s gem stones where I really do shake my head the most.  Shiny, shiny rocks, and there’s whole stores devoted to them!  Jewelry stores are about the equivialent of “rock stores” to me.

I understand it all goes back to peceived value, demand, rarity, etc, and if you think about just about anything in these terms, you’ll come up with a similar conclusion for any given item.  However… shiny, shiny rocks is just totally lost on me.

What could any person say about Paul Newman that hasn’t been said a thousand times by millions of others?

While Mr. Newman could have traded on his famous good looks for his entire career, he didn’t.  Instead he became a master of his craft and provided us with more memorable roles than some armies of actors could ever hope to do.  While you can certainly point to his well-known roles in films such as The Hustler,  Hud, Cool Hand Luke,  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Color of Money and on and on and on, one of my personal favorites is one that never got much coverage, and that was Nobody’s Fool.

I’m not sure why Nobody’s Fool never got much mention, it may have been because it was a story that centered heavily on people facing their own mortality, but it is one of my most recommended films to friends and family.  A great performance by Newman (of course), Jessica Tandy in her last role and Bruce Willis (who took scale pay so he could have the opportunity to work with Newman), make for a wonderful little gem of a film.  Seriously, rent it, buy it (you can usually find it pretty cheap), but do yourself the favor of checking it out.

Beyond his acting, though, it was his immense generosity that always amazed me.  Most people have seen the Newmans Own brand of food items in the grocery store, but it always amazes me how many people don’t know the story behind it.  Every penny of profit made from the line of salad dressings, lemonade, popcorn and more goes to charity.  In the 25 years the brand has been around, it has donated over $250 million dollars to various charities around the world.  This also included the Hole in the Wall Camps (named for the Hole in the Wall Gang from the story of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) which were summer camps set up for kids with serious health problems that allowed them to attend totally free of charge.

I will certainly miss Mr. Newman not only for his contributions to the cinema, but also for all of the charity work he did over the years.  Rest in peace, Mr. Newman.

It’s episode 11… and it’s mostly for all the new people…

- Lots of new readers this week, and possibly some new listeners, so a bit of a catch up on who I am and what this blog is about. All of this brought about due to that James Bond post.

- Comments, comments, comments… I need feedback folks!

Here’s a link to the MP3 for those who wish to download it.

Over three days last October (posts here, here and here), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) finally won their first legal victory against a peer-to-peer user.  However, nearly one year later, the victory has been overturned, and all the parties involved are heading back to court.

For those of you who don’t remember Jammie Thomas, she is a single mother that the RIAA targeted for copyright infringement after she shared 24 songs on the KaZaA network.  After the two day trial, the case went to the jury and she was found guilty and fined $9,250 per song for a total of $222,000.  It now seems the judge in the case, Judge Michael J. Davis, has overturned the ruling of the federal jury due to an improper instruction he gave.

The situation boils down to the definition of what is and is not distribution.  Does the mere act of making a file available to a peer-to-peer network constitute distribution?  The original instruction said it did not, but a hearing was held later outside the presence of the jury where the judge finally agreed with the RIAA that it does.  This creates a mistrial situation, and the previous award is now tossed.

What is slightly curious is that in the 43 page ruling (PDF link via Ars Technica) you almost wonder if Judge Davis didn’t want to find an excuse to overturn the ruling because he felt the award was excessive.

The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit… Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market.

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred [emphasis his] times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs…

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.

It would seem to this untrained legal eye that the Judge may be trying to tell the RIAA to get over itself.  I agree with the Judge that what Ms. Thomas did is illegal, but you would be hard pressed to ever say that her sharing the equivalent of three CDs could ever cost the music industry $222,000.

This is a rather large gamble, though.  There is every chance that the next jury could very well award the RIAA the original $150,000 per song they were looking for, making Ms. Thomas’ new fine a staggering $3.6 million.  My feeling is the judge may try to guide the jury to the same amount, or even less, but it still seems like a bit of a gamble to me.

I’m glad to see the RIAA can no long crow about their one and only victory they have had against file sharers thus far, and I am even happier to see a judge telling them that the judgment they are looking for is totally disproportionate to the crime.  It does concern me that Sony may get to go on the stand again and once again decree that anyone copying music from a CD they own to an MP3 file constitutes piracy, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants to see Ben & Jerry’s replace cow milk with human breast milk in their products.

According to a story on NBC 5 WPTZ’s website, PETA sent a letter to the founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream after they heard of a restaurant in Switzerland that was switching to human breast milk in all of their recipes.  A Ben & Jerry’s spokesperson said, “We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”

While I also applaud ethical treatment of animals, I have never been a fan of PETA and their tatics.  You would be hard pressed to find a bigger animal lover than myself, to the point even have a hard time watching dogs being “hurt” or “killed” in a movie.  I don’t even like to entertain the thought of hurt animals, and I know full well that conditions could be better treated in farming situations, I also know that some of the things PETA protests have gone on since the dawn of time.  I may not thrill to some of the situations these animals are put in, but I also know I can only hope for the best due to scales of production.

This is an interesting idea, but I would like to see how PETA thinks a company the size of Ben & Jerry’s could ever find enough women willing to volunteer their breast milk to this.  I am sure they would be paid, but it is still a matter of finding enough pregnant women to provide the amount of milk this company requires to meet their demands. There is also the problem of medications and diseases being passed through breast milk, and with this country’s opposition to irradiation of food, I’m not quite sure how they would suggest those issues be handled.

Honestly I see this as just another headline grabbing ploy by PETA to get attention, knowing that there was zero chance of it being adopted by the well-known company.  I chalk this up with their never ending slew of naked celeberity ads about how they would rather bo bare than wear fur.  You know what I find funny about this?  When was the last time you saw PETA use anyone other than a good-looking female celeberity for those ads?  No men?  No average women?  Just “hot” women wear fur?  Really?  Huh… funny coincidence that.

Nice job PETA at posing another faux argument to grab attention.  I guess it worked.

Ian Fleming, a former British Naval officer during World War II,created James Bond 007 in 1953.  After fourteen books about the British spy, Mr. Fleming passed away in 1964 of a heart attack.  Somehow his character endures over four decades after his death, and shows no signs of slowing down.

I bring all of this up because I finally watched Casino Royale, the 21st James Bond film, on Monday night.  I admit I took my time getting to this film because the past few movies had been less than classics to be sure.  With a reboot to the franchise (it was named for the first novel and had Bond just picking up the mantle of being a double-0), they seemed to have really retooled the whole thought process behind the films, and I couldn’t be more thrilled.

The early films had over-the-top villains bent on world domination, but I always enjoyed the aspect of the nefarious organization known as SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion).  While no name was ever mentioned in Casino Royale, there were some hints to some evil organization running things in the background, and the commercials for Quantum of Solace, the 22nd film, certainly point to more information on this portion of the plot.  I mean, come on, Tomorrow Never Dies had a guy who wanted to start a war so he could sell more news.  That’s a villain?

So, why the picture of how Mr. Fleming envisiong the spy?  It is time to delve into one of the most hotly contested debates to face mankind of all time… which actor was the best James Bond?  (I avoid politics on this blog, but I’m willing to take on THIS taboo subject?!?  Am I insane?!?)

Sean Connery

The first man to portray James Bond, and the one most people point to at the true James Bond.  He played the role for six films (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever… I think everyone tries to forget Never Say Never Again), and is the first impression most people have of the character.

I would have to say I always enjoyed his wry delivery, and he certainly had the debonair aspect down, but he also knew how to become the deadly assassin when needed.

Easily the best up until a certain point… more on that later.

George Lazenby

Poor George Lazenby.  He is like the forgotten Bond as he only appeared in one film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.  He was originally supposed to appear in seven, but apparently his agent felt Bond wouldn’t last that long and convinced him to drop out after only one film, leading to Connery returning for one more go at the title role.

I’ve seen the movie once or twice, and he didn’t seem to really fit to me, though that may have partially been because his voice was dubbed over in some sections of the film, but who knows.  I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who says he is their favorite Bond.

Roger Moore

I remember as a kid thinking Moore was fantastic, and he never failed to make me laugh… in a James Bond film.  As I’ve gone back and looked at his seven apperances as the spy (Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View to a Kill), I think he may have partially been a victim of the time period where he played the role.

The 1970’s had an odd sense of humor, focusing more on a slapstick style, and when they wanted to interject humor into the films, it always came off as ham fisted.  I think it also didn’t help he played the role into his 50s, and his age was showing towards the end.

He was passable, but I would say if I was forced to make a list of the actors in order, he would be in the bottom three for sure.

Timothy Dalton

Mr. Dalton only appeared in two films (The Living Daylights & Licence to Kill), and I had high hopes for him, but both films were pretty much disasters story wise.  He was more inline with what Bond should be like, but his comedic deliver was just abysmal, and the movies just seemed to drag on endlessly.

I’m not sure if it was his fault, or the scripts, but I also wonder if the fact Pierce Brosnan was perused heavily for the role, but couldn’t take it because NBC didn’t want to mess up Remington Steele, had anything to do with it.  There was a six year gap between his last film and the next one, so something went awry with the whole process.

Pierce Brosnan

I just about did backflips when he finally got named to the role of Bond, but he entered a horribly weak period for the villains.  Over his four films (GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day) he was certainly passable as Bond, but with the lack of good villains, it just felt like an exercise in pointlessness.

His tenure in the role also suffered from more and more emphasis being put on product placement.  Everytime you turned around in these films, you were being shown some company logo on a gadget he was using.  While some is to be expected, the amount during these four verged on the absurd.    It also seemed that special effects got better, they were trying to see just how many they could cram into the film, leaving Bond as almost more of an instigator than the centerpiece of the films.

It was unfortunate because I thought Mr. Brosnan could have been the best Bond since Connery, but he suffered from a film series that had certainly lost its way.

Daniel Craig

The minute Daniel Craig was announced as Bond… I was horrified.  He was too rough looking, he wasn’t debonair… HE WAS BLONDE!  You can’t have a blonde guy being James Bond!  The horrors!  I will say now that I have seen a drawing of what Fleming always envisioned that he actually is the closest, and that surprises me.

Having finally seen Casino Royale, I have to say that Mr. Craig actually has a shot at being the best Bond since Connery, and (this part may get me killed) potentially surpassing him.

I know, I know, BLASPHEMY!  Hear me out, though.  He played this role in such a human way, an almost brutal and animalistic way.  This Bond is human, but just an amazing one.  The scene that sold me was the foot chase early on in the film.  Where the guy he was chasing was doing all these fancy acrobatics, Bond was running through dry wall like a bull.  He was more of a force of will than some super spy.  He still has his moments of brilliant cunning, but he is just a man at the end of the day.

Partially script, partially a fantastic performance by Craig, it has me more jazzed about the James Bond series than I have been in ages, and I actually want to see his second film, Quantum of Solace, in the theater, and that’s something I haven’t done since Licence to Kill.

And the winner is…

I think in the end it all boils down to personal tastes, but I will force myself to do something that will possibly get me hung in some parts of the world.

1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Timothy Dalton
5. Roger Moore
6. George Lazenby

It’s difficult to say because there were script problems for some, production problems for others, but you really just have to look at the actual performance to make the final judgment. Brosnan would have ranked higher for me if he had been given more to work with, but he is where he is on the list.  Moore would have beat Dalton if he hadn’t played the part for so long, and hadn’t had bad comedy all the time.  Lazenby gets last place for a whole slew of reasons, but I really don’t blame him as an actor.

Have at me, but that’s my list.  So, who is your favorite, and why?

On the episode of Saturday Night Live that aired on September 20th, there was a sketch about the New York Times sending their writers to Alaska to sniff out as much as they can about Governor Palin.

Host James Franco is playing the assignments editor and pitching the assignment to his staff.  As they are going over possible angles, the following exchange happens:

Reporter: What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.
Assignments Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.

At the end of the sketch, the reporter that asked this question is shown on the cover of the New York Times with the headline “While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”  It seems that some people are taking great offense to this portion of the sketch, and it has made it on to Fox News.

The article goes on about how maybe this whole sketch was about how the staff of the paper is out of touch with anything west of the Hudson river, however the rest of the article goes on and on about how this is harkening back to the rumors earlier this month that Governor Palin is not the mother of her youngest son, Trig and so on.

If the sketch had only pointed out about things about politics, I would say they have a case, but the sketch really was just focused on how New Yorkers fear what they don’t understand, which was pretty much anything.

• None of the writers in the sketch knew how to drive a stick… none had drivers licenses… they all thought they would get around by taxi.
• One writer stated he would need the number of two psychoanalysts while there to continue his treatment, but he was informed in all of Alaska there was only one licensed doctor for that.  He paniced.
• None of them could identify a shotgun or a snowmobile.
• Two writers dropped out when they discovered there was no Thai delivery food.
• One writer was positive he would be attacked by a polar bear, but he was assured there was none in the area where they would be.  (it was later revealed he was killed by a polar bear)

In the most damning moment of the sketch proving this was more about New Yorkers, and how out of touch with reality the paper was, the sketch was dated as events happening on Septmber 8th.  One writer was reluctant to go because he didn’t want to leave a story he was working on about Lehman Brothers facing potential financial problems.  He was informed by the editor that it could wait, Lehman Brothers would still be there when he got back.

This sketch was clearly about the the out of touch nature of the newspaper itself, and I felt it got the point across fairly well.  As for the Palin/incest joke, yes, this scenario has been floated by some bloggers, but that’s what SNL has been doing for 34 seasons and that’s touching on current events.  Palin is in the news, the paternity of Trig has been in the news, this makes the subject fair game to them.  If you don’t like it, well, I don’t know what to tell you except to not watch SNL.

Here is the part of the Fox News story that made me laugh out loud, though.  First off they use a very accusatory tone about how the video fo the sketch is not available on the NBC website.

Now, some bloggers are urging protests of the show be sent to producer Lorne Michaels. The video was not posted on the SNL Web site.

Well, I went and looked, and only five sketches were posted from this week’s episode.  Yes, the sketch in question is missing, but so was the one I actually thought was the funniest of the episode, “The Cougar’s Den” about older women obsessed with younger men.  Wow… NBC must have received protests from The Cougar Coalition to not post that sketch.

The article then had the following note tacked on the end:

Editor’s Note: When this story was originally published at 12:07 pm ET, the video was available on YouTube. It has since been removed and a notice posted that NBC Universal has issued a copyright claim. Many other SNL videos remain on YouTube.

Yes, it is true that the video was removed over a copyright notice, but so are dozens of other SNL videos removed in the same manner every day. Yes, there are some others on the site, but they honestly go up so fast, I doubt anyone could keep up with taking them down.  However, the way Fox News said it made me think back to the “Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.” line from the sketch.  There is no evidence this was removed due to pressure, it was just removed over the usual copyright issues.

I think everyone needs to just take a step back, take a deep breath and relax.  Remember, this is a comedy show, and SNL has a long history of picking on anyone and everything.  I will admit that in the first two episodes of this season there has not yet been an Obama sketch, but I think that is partially due to them lacking a strong Obama impersonator.  They attempted using Fred Armissan last season, and, well, to be honest, he sucked.  I am sure his turn is coming.

There are so many bigger issues in this election, why get worked up over a joke on a sketch comedy show known for pushing boundaries?  It’s beyond me.

It would be easy to assume with how much I talk about music, I must go to a ton of concerts, but sadly the opposite is true.

Living in a town of 17,000, and being the biggest town for a 90 mile radius, doesn’t lead to many bands coming to my little corner of the world.  My best shot is going to The Blue Note, a small venue 90 miles to the south in Columbia, MO, but at that point that makes me rely on just one venue for shows.

The last time they had anything worthwhile was KMFDM in October of 2006, and a mere three weeks later was Flogging Molly and then… nothing.  Sure, there were bands in between, but nothing even remotely interesting to me.  Luckily they’ve finally announced a show I want to see on November 18th of the Dropkick Murphys.

Then comes the other problem when there actually is a show I want to see… coordinating schedules!  With my team out on the road 26 weekends a year for AnimeUSA appearances at conventions, I have to make sure someone will be in the office for me to take off early for the drive down.  This is the first show I will go to since I joined up with Mashable, but it shouldn’t be a problem to get off there as I usually do an entire weeks worth of lists on the weekends.  Then I have to make sure there aren’t any family commitments… as you can see, going out for one evening turns into a major operation, so for me to go to a show, it has to be something I really want to see.  As I don’t think the Murphys has ever come through my area before, it’s worth my time to make sure I can get down to Columbia to see them.

There is also one final deciding factor in the shows I go to… the size of the veneue.  I long, long ago gave up on the big arena shows.  They are a huge pain in the behind, not that enjoyable, and so I try to keep my concert going to shows of only 3 - 4000 people, even less if I can swing it.  I’m not sure how many The Blue Note holds, but I wouldn’t guess more than 1500, so it makes me quite happy to see shows there.

In short… yay, I’m going to a concert again!

For those who aren’t familiar with the Dropkick Murphys, here’s one of my favorite songs, “The Dirty Glass”

And seeing as that is the only time they had Stephanie sing a song with them, here is a more recent example of their sound, “State Of Massachusetts”

While I’ve mentioned on this site a few times that I’ve been working to lose weight, but I don’t think I ever mentioned what I was doing for exercise.

Well, as you might guess from the graphic, I’ve been lifting weights.  Nothing fancy, just barbells, but it is amazing how many different things you can do with them.  While I’m certainly not looking to turn into some massive body builder, I will say it’s nice finally having some actual muscles, something I have never really had before.

Therein lies the dilemmas, though.  First off, muscle weighs more than fat, so my weight number is holding fairly steady while my body mass is obviously massively shifting.  My clothes are constantly getting looser, so I know that I’m making progress.  Dilemma number 2 being that I am some definite muscle definition forming, but I have to find a balance between losing weight, getting good definition, and not looking like a total muscle builder.

I guess I should be thankful that I am actually making progress, it’s something I’ve struggled with for a long time, but now that it’s working, where do you stop?  Darn these catch-22 situations!

I think the most shocking thing is that I have actually gotten to a point where I enjoy doing it.  Sure there are some days I dread it, but once I get going, I guess I hit that “runner’s high” type of thing and I actually get to where I enjoy it.  Considering how many years I avoided all forms of exercise like a plague, it’s just surprising to me to finally see why people say it’s a good time.  How odd.

So does all of this have a point, or am I just rambling at you all?  Eh, yes and no.  I would say the point is if you keep putting off doing exercise for yourself, stop it.  I always used excuses like not enough time, too busy, all of the usual ones, but here I am working two full-time jobs with a host of other responsibilities, and I find the time.  If I can do it, I can just about guarantee you that you can also.

What do you do for exercise?  How do you fight those “blogger 15″, or any weight you gain from a sitting job.  How do you keep in shape?

It’s episode 10… and it’s a bit ranty…

On deck this week:

- More Microsoft ranting about their ad campaign and how they don’t know what they’re doing from their ivory tower.

- Financial woes of the world and how I think they came about and how they will end up impacting everyone in a spider-web fashion.

Here’s a link to the MP3 for those who wish to download it.

If it’s September 19th, then it must be International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Normally I talk about this on the 19th, but since it falls on a Friday this year, and Fridays are Scattercast day, I thought I would give you all the reminder today.  And, no, I will not be doing Scattercast in pirate speak as my throat would give out in about 5 minutes.

The fascination with pirates never ceases to amaze me considering what a dirty, vile lifestyle they led, but I’m just as bad being interested in them.  And, hey, if we can all indulge our fascinations for one day a year, why not?

For those of you have not talked pirate before, the official site gives you a good primer on talking like a pirate.  So me ‘earties, grab ye a tankard of grog and be the best pirate ye can be!

It appears that if you live in the southeast Florida town of Riviera Beach, they truly do have the fashion police, and they aren’t kidding about it.

It seems that back in March the city passed a law banning “saggy” pants (you know, pants that hang so low on a guy that you can see their underwear) after 5,000 people signed a petition to get it on the ballot.  Well, according to this story by the AFP, a 17-year-old recently spent a night in jail due to his baggy pants.  Normally he would have faced a $150 fine or community service, but he had a history of marijuana use and was on probation. Yes, a “history”, not current possession, not on his body at this time, but a “history”, however, this still was a violation of his probation and he spent a night in jail for it.  Also, according to TheSmokingGun.com, if someone gets busted a second time for this style of pants wearing, they can face up to 30 days in jail.

Do you hear that thunking sound?  That would be my head hitting on the keyboard repeatedly.  I know, I know… it’s kinda hollow sounding.  Ha ha… you’re all so funny.

Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an incredibely stupid fashion, but fining people for it?  Locking them up for 30 days behind bars because they wore pants you didn’t like?  Can you imagine THAT conversation when you met your cell mate?

Inmate #1 So, what you in for?
Inmate #2 Suspicion of murder.  You?
Inmate #1 My pants were too low.
Inmate #2 Whatever bunk you want man, it’s yours, just don’t lower your pants!  I have… well, had… a wife and kids!

Luckily Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Paul Moyle is leaning towards ruling the law unconstitutional, which I don’t know if I would go quite that far, but I would certainly say the law is about as asinine as you can get.  Our court system is already taxed to its limits, our jails and prisons are over crowded, and now we’re going to clog up both of these systems with even more people based solely on their lack of fashion sense?

At one of the Palm Beach Post articles about this, there are also sorts of passionate posts about how this is leading to the downfall of decency in society, and how people know there are certain times and places for various clothing such as when to wear a bikini etc, and to these people I say they are paying little to no attention to their surroundings.

Mayor Thomas Masters says he stands by the law and gives a quote in the article linked, “I think the people have a right to set a standard of what’s decent and indecent exposure in their city. If you didn’t set a standard, then would it be constitutional for people to walk around in their underwear?”  Actually, yes.  Were you not around in the 1980’s for the Madonna craze?  Have you never been out to a club and seen a woman wearing a corset as a top?  Corsets are underwear technically, so it’s already happening.  Glad to see you’re actually aware of what goes on in the world there Mayor Masters.  Good job.

Seriously, if we allow people to start passing laws against the fashions they don’t like, where does it stop?  Can I finally get Crocs banned?  How about overweight women in tube tops?  Oh, I know… popped collars on frat boys!  Oh yeah, I’m getting my petitions ready as I type this out!

I’m all for keeping a sane society, and wanting to make sure that we live up to a certain level of common decency towards one another, but passing a law against a fashion you don’t care for is not the way to do it.  All you are doing is breeding further resentment amongst people.  Throwing a 17-year-old kid in jail for a “probation violation” over his pants being too low is not going to do a blasted thing to help this kid except to anger him more at society.  Good job, folks.  Real clear thinking there.

Some folks are trying to compare this to school uniforms, and how if those are okay, then this should be okay.  Are you kidding me?  How can you even possibly make this connection?  I’ve made it very clear that I support school uniforms, and given numerous reasons why, but it boils down to school is your job, and it is not outrageous to wear a uniform to work.  What you do on your own time is your own business is my thinking.

Think before you pass laws folks.  There was no way this needed to be a law, and all you are doing is messing up society more than helping it by making people even more resentful, taking up law enforcement’s time, filling up court rooms and using up even more space in our jails.  Really, good job folks… big thumbs up to you.

Even though I have been in business for over 22 years now, I will never claim to understand all the trappings of high finance. What I will say is that all of these people involved with some of the stupid mistakes made on behalf of companies like Lehman Brothers and AIG could do with going back to their most basic business classes.

I have sat back watching this whole debacle unfold, and I am just dumbfounded by some of the things I have learned were going on that led to this whole slide into oblivion for these companies.  Apparently there was some form of loan I had never heard of before named “No Income, No Job, (and) no Assets”, or N.I.N.J.A. loans, where, as the name implies, apparently you can get a loan without a blasted thing going for you in the positive corner.

…

What idiot came up with this idea?  How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence even begin to think that making loans to someone with no assets is a bright idea?

As I see it, you had companies who were already incredibly rich and just got greedier for even more money, and how do you make that money in an over saturated market?  Well, you just give money to anyone who walks in!

So, I honestly was just going to let this whole thing pass without much thought, but when I heard the news tonight that the government is loaning $85 billion dollars to bail out AIG, well, it kind of becomes the business of every US citizen doesn’t it?  Now it appears if you’re big enough, and run your company into an iceberg, the government will come and pick you up, dust you off, and say “now you behave”.  However, if you’re a small business, you’re screwed and too bad.

Remember that old saying about “the rich just get richer…”?  Yeah, seems to be true doesn’t it?

Again, I am no economic expert, but this current crisis feels to me like it was all brought on by greed of slap happy executives who thought that the mere fact they were loaning money would keep the good times rollin’, and basic business sense be damned.  Yes, these companies crashing is bad for economies, and I would say it would be worth to let them rot, but then no one ever seems to learn from any company falling apart, so why bother?

I guess I am writing this more out of a bewilderment than having my own conclusion because nothing about this whole mess makes the least bit of sense to me how any group of people could be collectively this stupid.

HBO launched a new vampire series called True Blood a little over a week ago, and, everyone hold on to your hats, I’m enjoying it!

I know, I know, most people are used to me ragging on all forms of media, and that’s not to say it’s without it’s faults, but it is holding my attention.

The basic premise is that a Japanese company came up with a synthetic blood named “True Blood”, and once this was known, vampires decided to “come out of the coffin”.  Over the two years since this happened, they have been integrating into society, and are even on the verge of getting the Vampire Rights Bill passed to give them equal rights with mortals in the United States.

In Bon Temps, LA, small town waitress Sookie Stackhouse (Played by Oscar winning actress Anna Paquin) has been anxious to meet one.  Then, one night Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) walks into her bar, and she is instantly attracted to him.  Part of the reason may be that Sookie has been telepathic her entire life, and she has trouble turning it off, but for some reason all she hears from Bill is silence, and she finds it relaxing.

I won’t give away any more of the plot details, but I have to say I am intrigued by a lot of aspects of the show, and it quickly sets up a lot of mysteries that I am anxious to figure out.  Who killed the town tramp?  What is going on with Sookie’s brother?  Why does a mysterious dog seem to follow Sookie everywhere she goes, and why does Bill keep smiling at it like he knows something?

What I didn’t know going into this was that is based on an 8 novel series called The Southern Vampire Mysteries by Charlaine Harris.  The first episode intrigued me enough to go ahead and order the first novel, Dead Until Dark, which I, of course, have not had time to read yet.  I also must admit that I went ahead and picked it up because the show debuted to fairly low ratings, and it makes me worried we won’t get past the first 12 episodes they’ve filmed.  True, I may lost interest a couple episodes in (only two have aired so far), but for now it has me looking forward to each new episode.

If you’ve got the time, go ahead and check it out.  If you like vampire stories, you’ll like it.  If you like Souther style mysteries, you’ll like it.

The only thing I truly hate about the series?  I’ve long had an idea for a vampire story that a synthetic blood played a large aspect in… d’oh!

When Spider-Man 3 was being filmed, and I started to hear about the number of villians in the film, I already pretty much knew it was going to be painful to watch.

Well, I was wrong… it was worse.

Anytime you introduce too many new characters into an existing franchise, and you are trying to balance their introduction with showing off the old characters, it’s not going to work.  In this film you had the following all brought into the fold:

• Eddir Brock Jr.
• Flint Marko/Sandman
• Gwen Stacey
• Venom/Symbiote costume

Yes, I list Eddie Brock and Venom seperately because that’s how they were introduced and it was almost like a villain team-up when they came together.  So by the time you were done with the new character arcs (which really was only two as Gwen did next to nothing and Venom is more a force) you also had Harry going Green Goblin II, Mary Jane dealing with her career and Peter… I’m still not sure how many story arcs he had going, but it was more than one.  So you had five characters all attemtpting to have story arcs in an action film where you will lose major chunks of development time to fights.

So, as opposed to only picking on the film, I thought I would do something different this time in actually offering sugegstions of how it could have been done better.

Eliminate the “Flint Marko Killed Uncle Ben” story angle - It felt exceptionally shoehorned in to the overall movie storyline.  Leave him as just a misunderstood thug who wants to help his daughter.  Maybe have him hurt Mary Jane or Aunt May in a robbery and you can still have the same conversation at the construction site at the end.

Chuck the Harry gets amnesia sub-plot - It would have been far more interesting to have Harry fake being changed from the near-death experience to build empathy from Peter and Mary Jane.  You could have still accomplished all of the same things (MJ calling Harry for comfort… Peter and Harry bonding again… Peter/Harry fight where Harry gets hurt) and saved some time for other developments.

Possibly we could have gotten rid of the incredibly random deus ex machina moment with the butler showing up in the Goblin room and telling Harry that Spider-Man didn’t kill his father.

Have the black costume span two movies - This was the biggest problem to me.  Sam Raimi, director of all three films, said in numerous interviews before the third film that he was totally disinterested in using Venom as he didn’t find the character compelling.  Since this was planned to be the last film, Sony, the studio backing the series, insisted that Venom be included for marketing purposes and a potential spin-off film.  Raimi’s total lack of interest in the character is apparent in the film, but it sadly needed to be a two film arc if it was even going to be bothered with.

You could have had the meteor impact in one film (drastically different than the comics, but I liked it), have Peter get the black costume, feel the strength, etc.  In the second film you would have Peter’s further descent into the evil side of the suit.  You would also have Brock in the first film and carry over to the second, and everything would have felt a lot less rushed and more fleshed out.

Could we go one movie without the villain(s) learning his secret identity? - So, one villain finally got away knowing who Spider-Man is.  Great.  Could we go one movie withot his mask getting trashed and the bad guys always learning who he is?

The dancing scene - Have Peter make out with Gwen while MJ sings her song on stage, show MJ going on with the show while in pain, but having her completely shut down for one of the most ridiculous moments ever in a movie was just painful.

So, was there anything good about the movie?  Well… hmm… I like the fact we’re still getting the Dr. Conners cameos, but maybe we can finally get him to play his bigger part in the next one?  (Won’t spoil what’s up with him for the non-comic book readers in the audience)  Beyond that, that was really about it.

I think this whole debacle was caused by little to no self-editing.  It almost felt like every first idea they had they ran with it without thinking anything through.  There was just no passion for this project it seemed from anyone involved.  It even visually looked lackluster compared to the first two, this one seemed very cartoonish, over-the-top from costuming up through lighting.

Now comes the bigger question why I would bother ranting about a year old movie.  Well, I just finally saw it this weekend, and Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have just recently signed for Spider-Man 4 & 5.  There is no word yet on Kirsten Dunst, but considering hwo much Sony wants to keep the team together, I imagine they will be offering her enough to lure her back.  There are also rumors the two movies will be shot back-to-back to cut costs, so if #4 goes wrong, that pretty much assures #5 not being that great either.

I probably wouldn’t care so much if I hadn’t actually enjoyed the first two films, but the third one just went so horribly wrong on every level, it makes me worried they won’t be able to stitch it back together for two more.

October 15th will agaib be Blog Action Day, and as opposed to last year being about how to be more green with your life, this year will be focusing on the subject of poverty.

While I’m not sure that this year’s subject has the potential for quite as much impact.  Don’t get me wrong, I think poverty is an important issue, but it is harder to get people interested in a subject that does not directly impact their well being and every day life.  Most people will immediately think the only difference they can make is by making donations, but hopefully the thousands of posts that will come out that day will make some people think about the differences they can make.

If you blog, give some thought to signing up to participate, and if you are just a reader, expect to see a lot of posts about this subject that day.

It’s episode 9… and a return of me coughing about halfway through I’m afraid.

Besides the voice issues, this week is about the following:

- When is Microsoft just going to admit they messed up with Vista as opposed to just throwing money at people to convince them to accept it?

- A very short bit on why the new iPods disappointed me so much and what it may mean for the future.

- Hardware, hardware, hardware. It’s developing so fast, how does anyone keep up with it? Should you? How do you keep yourself educated?

Here’s a link to the MP3 for those who wish to download it.

I debated all day if I wanted to say anything this year or just continue with my normal BS posts, but you obviously can tell what won out.

As I said last year, 9/11 has come to mean many things to me, it changed my life in a number of ways; it probably led to me finally sealing the idea I would close my retail store to concentrate on other venues, but it also brought about other changes I am more reluctant to discuss.

For whatever reason, it seems to bother me more with each passing year instead of gett