My High Fidelity Moment

On my Facebook page, I recently posted this challenge: come up with your personal all-time top five albums.

The rules are deceptively simple, but very strict:

First, the album need not be by your favorite band; nor does it need to be by even a very good band.

Second, the album must be one that you can, and do, listen to from start-to-finish without skipping a single song.

It's pretty difficult once you think about it, because even really great, critically-acclaimed, "groundbreaking" albums will have one or two stinkers on them.

Here's my top five (in no particular order):

1. Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd

2. Siamese Dream - The Smashing Pumpkins

3. Pretty Hate Machine - Nine Inch Nails

4. The Joshua Tree - U2

5. The Bends - Radiohead

Is my blog boring?

I have recently realized that my blog is mostly words and, unlike many of my friends (Dear Deedle I'm looking in your direction) I have woefully failed to include any cool abstract photographs in my sporadic posts.

Does that make it boring? I've tried thus far to paint a picture with my words. I guess if my words were an artist they would be Jackson Pollack (and yes, I do mean self-indulgent and over-rated!).

Well, in any event, enjoy this pic of my best friend getting up from a nap!

Die englischen Lehrer überwinden!

The title of this post literally translates to "the English teachers will overcome!" (I think) and it most concisely expresses the fact that I am a language Nazi. Now that doesn't mean I want to go to war with my neighbors in order to exalt the great Noun, or that I advocate exterminating all those vile participles. And I don't belabor under the myth that "Verb makes us free!" Rather, there is just something that irks me - irks me to the core - about very public grammar mistakes.

First, a caveat: I know, I readily admit, that I am far from perfect, and have surely made my share of language mistakes. However, I am not paid to install restaurant signs, make TV advertisements or, for that matter, proofread the title sequences of TV shows.

What brought all this on, you might ask? Well, one of my guilty pleasures is to watch the dregs of reality TV on VH1, MTV, etc. So, this afternoon I was checking out the latest episode of the MTV series "From Gs to Gents" on my DVR. Now, for those of you unaware of the great metamorphosis that is "From Gs to Gents", essentially the idea is that Puff Daddy's (P Diddy's?) handmaiden Fonzworth Bentley lives in a house with about a dozen "gangstas" (hence "Gs") and is supposed to teach them how to become gentlemen (the Gents part). For all their hard work, the most gentlemanly G winds up winning a fair amount of money in the end.

In any event, I noticed today that the title sequence (which runs as an intro and outro for commercial breaks) is grammatically incorrect. That is, it is entitled "From G's to 'Gents". This latter apostrophe I can stomach, since it is indicating the contraction for gentlemen, but to have an apostrophe between "G" and "s" indicates that this program is about turning something that belongs to one particular G into a gentleman. Take, for example, if the show was entitled "From Whores to Housewives". Of course, putting an apostrophe before the "s" in "whores" turns the word into a possessive (something that belongs to one whore). Same thing for "Gs". If "G" is a noun - which, in this case it appears to be - then it's multiple is Gs, not G ' s.

This wouldn't have probably bothered me quite so much, except for the fact that last week's episode purported to teach the Gs proper grammar and diction. Perhaps Mr. Bentley needs to take the apostrophe out of his own G before he points out the incorrect grammar of his wards.

I am a Cat-astrophe

I like cats. O.K. that might be obvious to you since my profile picture is an American Shorthair silver tabby. But I really do like cats.



You might say, "Porphyry, you're just being lazy. Why not write about a more controversial subject, like lollipops, summertime, or attractive girls?" But, believe or not, some people actually don't appreciate our feline friends. Take my mother-in-law for instance. She can't stand my little buddy. She's not allergic to cats, nor was she gored by an Angora when she was a child. She's just a miserable cat-hater.



I realize there are dog people and cat people. But one would think each type of person would have a certain understanding, or at least detente, with a creature of the opposite species. For example, while I don't really get along with most dogs, I'm not afraid to pet a poodle, and I can see why many dogs' owners like them so much. So, in an effort to promote these great creatures, the following is my top-nine list - in no particular order - of reasons why I like cats (more than dogs or other pets).

1. They're soft. Yes, some dogs have soft coats, but I have met few dogs that are as clean and soft to pet as a regular house cat. Usually a dog's fur is frankly greasy and matted. But a cat feels like a cozy blanket, or your grandmother's coat.

2. They're clean. Cats not only constantly lick themselves to clean off random dust and grime from their fur, but more importantly, they regularly use a litter box to expel and hide their waste. I can remember my kitten, at four weeks of age, never had a problem going to the bathroom in a litter box, which is more than I can say for most humans that age. And, of course, unlike other animals, they have the requisite decorum to hide their crap in a box, as opposed to leaving it in plain view of the neighbors.

3. They're largely self-sufficient. Even though one must feed an indoor cat, one can often leave them for a long weekend with a big bowl of food and water without any worries. Cats don't need to be walked, or coddled. While they like to play, they are just as content to take a nap.

4. They're generally quiet. Yes, I know sometimes they make horrific noises when they're angry, or get into a fight with another feline, but all in all, a loud cat is much more terminable than a barking dog.

5. They hunt things without slobbering all over the house. Of course, dogs hunt just as well - in some cases better - than cats. But I would rather have my faithful cat hunt spiders, ants, rolly-pollies, and mice inside my house than a golden retriever, because the latter seems to slobber dog spit all over everything. [CAVEAT - my cat does tend to puke hairballs a lot, which is, admittedly, equally as gross].

6. They're big enough to play with, but not so large that children and dainty adults need to fear them. I've heard tell of many a dog that grew to 100 pounds and above by age 2, causing quite a bit of consternation to its owners, especially if the owners had small children. Cats, on the other hand, generally don't get much larger than 30 pounds, and that's if you have a fat cat of the larger breeds.

7. Their small stature can fool your enemies. Our cat is not de-clawed, and even if he was, his jaws would still be a formidable weapon on their own. While a burglar or other jackass in one's home could quickly size up the danger of a guard dog, a cat can stealthily, silently creep from behind him (sure there are female burglars, but it's generally a him) climb up his back and claw his eyes out before he even knew what hit him. In short, cats are the ninjas of the animal kingdom.

8. Their purring is relaxing. Really dog lovers, tell me when the last time you enjoyed having your dog sitting on your lap and panting for hours?

9. They have an innate ability to know when you need them. Often, when my wife or I have been in a sour mood, our cat will jump up on the couch or bed and nuzzle next to us, seemingly knowing that we'd like his company. That's what I call loyalty and friendship.

How can anything with the word "protection" in it be that bad?

There's been a lot of talk recently with regard to the "dangers of protectionism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/worldbusiness/02global.html?scp=2&sq=protectionism&st=cse) due to the U.S. Congress' inclusion of a "Buy American" provision within the proposed economic stimulus bill. After all, if the United States limits imports of certain materials, it is argued that this would cause other nations to place tariffs on American exports, which would result in a protectionist race to the bottom. However, the alternative championed by international financiers seems to be limited to greater globalisation and freer trade between developed economies (the United States and European Union) and the developing economies.

However, I would like to propose a defense of protectionism - and perhaps a justification for its continued, even greater, use in the United States economy. Though I hold some advance degrees, I'm not formally trained in macro economics and am not trying to repeat the excellent arguments of Nobel Prize winners (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/protectionism-and-stimulus-wonkish/?scp=1&sq=protectionism&st=cse). I just want to offer my own interpretation of the economic mess plaguing the United States, and a suggestion for a possible way out.

First, let's be clear that I'm not saying that all of globalisation is bad; I thoroughly enjoy eating fresh strawberries in February, listening to music from Morocco, or drinking Bavarian Bier. Easily and quickly obtaining unique goods from foreign producers is a marvellous thing. But when foreign producers of fungible goods (steel beams, cars, televisions) are able to undercut domestic producers of the same good - and sell that cheaper good in the United States - it necessarily creates pressure on the domestic producer, which ultimately results in a net loss of American jobs.

That's because there is an inherent inequality in the global economic system. That is, in a perfect market, the input costs for producing a good (let's say TVs) is roughly the same for everyone. Of course, some producers may have more ready access to the raw materials to make TVs, but the workers' wages would be the same, the laws and taxes imposed on the companies would be roughly the same, and even the commodity prices of raw materials would be roughly the same. In such a system, the only way to gain an advantage in the market would be to be more efficient (find a better process for producing TVs or encourage your workers to work harder) or create a higher quality good (again, through better planning or harder work).

However, the current global economy is far from a perfect market. Even though bankers and financiers extol how the economy would function so well if all tariffs and limitations on imports were dropped by everyone, the developed world would still suffer with staggering job losses. That's because the input costs (taxes, minimum wage and hour laws, environmental regulations, etc.) are so much lower in the second and third world, that, any company functioning in the West would be unable to compete - without, of course, moving their production jobs to a foreign country with lower input costs.

When I was a child I remember that my father was a big supporter of H. Ross Perot. I can recall watching one of his campaign commercials in which he discussed how the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would destroy American manufacturing by allowing U.S.-based companies to use cheap labor in Mexico (do you hear that giant sucking sound?). The situation today is even worse as CAFTA, the WTO and a general relaxing of trade barriers with the developed world, combined with the greater ease with which technological goods and services can be transferred across borders, has caused companies to offshore thousands of previously United States-based jobs.

So what's the answer? As I said, in a perfect world, the input costs to produce fungible goods would be roughly equivalent. So, in this utopia, all nations would agree on (1) minimum wage laws; (2) maximum hour laws; (3) minimum environmental regulations; (4) minimum standards of goods (such as no lead in paint or melamine in milk); (5) minimum worker safety / workers' rights laws; and (6) property, corporate and sales taxes. In such a system, there would be no rush to the place or places that have the lowest input costs absent some natural advantage (such as the fact that it is naturally impossible to grow bananas in Alaska) or the efficiency of that place's labor pool.

But utopia is a no-place. Therefore, if nations will not agree to minimum standards to provide roughly equivalent input costs to businesses, those businesses that produce things in the higher cost - predominantly Western - nations will be at a disadvantage. This will lead to a continued increase in unemployment in the Western world, which will further erode our economies.

I recall that an answer that champions of globalisation often proffered against the pre-NAFTA Ross Perots, was that, "sure, some manufacturing jobs will be lost, but American entrepreneurs will invent new businesses in this hyper-free economy, which will create better jobs for our citizens." Well, they were partly right. The development of a technologically advanced information economy did arise in the late-1990s and early 2000s in the United States. However, we have seen even these jobs transferred overseas because of the large pool of educated, cheaper, labour in China, India, and other developing nations.

With this in mind, I think a little protectionism might be just what the United States needs to create greater employment. But this will require a more inventive situation than mere tariffs on foreign-produced goods. After all, what use is a General Motors or General Electric to the United States economy, if, while putatively American, all their research, development, and production is performed by foreign labour? (Okay, I know there would still be some good, but it would be limited to stockholders and the government).

Therefore, I humbly suggest a macroeconomic and microeconomic solution. First, the macroeconomic solution: The United States should provide a real tax incentive for employing a larger number of American workers. This should be both a carrot and a stick. That is, instead of the current proposals to give a corporation a few thousand dollars of tax breaks per worker employed in America, the government should offer a 0% tax rate for companies in which 100% of workers are employed in the United States, a 10% tax rate for companies with 90% American workers, and so forth. If, however, the business employs only 10% of American workers, their tax rate should be raised to 50% or more. Of course, to take into account the senior executive salaries that have been so railed against, this calculation should exclude senior executive staff, but you get the picture. If a 50% tax rate causes a business with less than 10% American staff to leave the United States altogether, that would likely be preferable to the waste of federal, state and local resources on such a business.

On the macroeconomic level, one possible solution in which we can all take part, would be to, not necessarily "Buy American", but, more specifically, "Buy Locally". Whether it's in-season produce, locally created crafts, local beer, or any other good, buying within your local economy (1) helps local businesses stay afloat; (2) possibly helps your friends and neighbors stay employed; and (3) ensures that the money you spend will assist others in your community rather than an international corporation or foreign government.