Moment of Clarity?

Last night, as I was debating whether to get fast food for dinner, I had a minor revelation. It wasn't about fast food, but about health in general. I did the math and realized that if I had a child tomorrow, he or she would turn 18 when I was 49 years old.

To me, at 31, an 18-year-old isn't very old. I remember being 18 and not knowing squat about zilch. And if I have kids, I'd really like to be around to help them out with that kind of thing.

I haven't given much thought about having kids, except to assume that at some point I will. But I have never considered whether I will be around to see them become adults. Given my family history of leaky heart valves and other such things, I am already at a slight disadvantage. The fact that I outweigh my father by 10 pounds is another bad sign.

So this "revelation" became a personal charge to myself. Healthy is better. I am still plenty young enough to change my habits, and in fact have already been doing that. No more fast food (not even "only once in awhile"). More running--daily when possible. Less couch potato-ish activity.

Part of this is because I finally realized how I can accomplish this. It's less about saying "never eat unhealthy again, ever" and more about saying: tonight, do I need a hamburger from Wendy's? And the answer is always no. Baby steps to the elevator, yo.

I don't have kids yet. Hell, I don't even have somebody who wants to birth any of my children.* But I'll be damned if I'm going to let my laziness in 2008/2009 screw me over in 2027.

*This is just shorthand. I am entirely in favor of adoption. Please don't yell at me about skyrocketing population or something.

Brief Update Regarding Two Items

First -- and I hope that this is the last I will say on this -- I'm going to talk about newspapers failing again. Mostly because Weingarten discussed it in his chat today.

I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"

But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.

We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.

What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.

Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

The Slow Death of the Newspaper

From the Washington Post's weekly chat with media man Howard Kurtz:

Howard, could part of the problem be that because consumers already pay for online access that we don't also want to pay for online content. I spend $50/month for online access. I can't see myself paying any additional $ for online content. To say that everything online is free is not quite accurate. It's just that the service providers are the ones making the money, not the content providers.

Howard Kurtz: Fair point. Everyone pays for Internet access. But that's like saying you already paid to buy a TV set, so why should you now have to pay for cable? (And look, some people don't.) I grew up thinking television would always be free, and now people pay cable providers--and pay extra for premium channels--because they think the content is worth it. Computers and online access aren't cheap, but content also costs money, and iTunes is but one example of how people are willing to pay for what's important to them.

Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.

The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.

What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.

I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.

iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.

I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.

Short Cuts

• Swine flu! Swine flu swine flu, swine flu. Swine... flu? Swine flu: porcine influenza.
  
  
• I am 10 movies away from having 1200 on the list. Will I be able to knock them all out in California? It's a race to the finish!
  
  
• Hitman, yo. Let's see if I can place it in a line-up of similar action movies. It would go something like:
  Live Free or Die Hard > Brotherhood of the Wolf > Deathrace > Hitman | Doomsday > Wanted > Max Payne
  
  
• Yes, Hitman and Doomsday are about the same. Die Hard is like an 8 on the trashy action movie scale, but like a 5 on the "movies in general" value continuum. So you can evaluate from there.*
  
  
• I've been at my job for 2 years today. Happy anniversary to me!
  
  
• Maude died. That's too bad. Bea Arthur was a pretty awesome chick. You know she could kick YOUR ass, dude.
  
  
• Network TV season is winding down. Looking forward to season finales of: The Office, 30 Rock, LOST. Will probably watch the finale of Heroes (tonight) but hate myself for doing so. What will happen on Biggest Loser?
  

*this sentence mysteriously disappeared when I posted the first time. What's up, Internet mafia? WHY YOU STIFLING MY RATINGS.

And Then I Thought Better Of It.

I was mentally crafting a post in my head about feminism and the pain that seems to exist when a feminist tries to get married. There have been a couple of great articles on the subject online, and it got me thinking.

Then I remember that I know no fewer than 5 women who are getting married in the next 12 months, all of whom probably have strong opinions on various aspects of weddings and who may read my blog. And if I post something with my personal opinion (about things like wearing white, or churches, or married names) it might be taken as a slight against someone who doesn't hold my same opinion.

So ya'll get nothing!

Well, not nothing. I could rant about the Tigers and their inability to beat the lowly Angels (1-2 in the last series), or how they were screwed by having seriously piss-poor scheduling (3 games in a row at 10pm EST, and then they have to go to Kansas the very next day? I call bullshit, Angels. No reason to schedule those games so late.)

Or I could talk about the latest movies I've seen (Pineapple Express - bit of a letdown but funny; Choke - unimpressive but hey, boobs; Aqua Teen Hunger Force - as weird as you'd expect).

Or I could just mention that I have to work on Sunday, in a pathetic attempt to drum up sympathy.

I choose secret option D: Friday afternoon laziness!

Missing the Big Picture

I saw a new (to me) "Mac vs. PC" ad this weekend. The PC decides to use a time machine to travel to the future to see if the "problems" with PCs have been worked out. Of course, when he arrives future PC freezes in mid-greeting. Haha.

First, my PC never freezes. I have three if you count my work computer. I don't know anybody who suffers from this problem, unless they have spyware or other malware on their machine.

Second, I think the Mac guy inadvertently missed a big point in the ad: the PC built a goddamn time-machine. I think the winner, no matter who freezes up or has stability issues, is the company that can TRAVEL THROUGH TIME.

Seriously, Apple. I love my iPhone, and the iPod is great, but you all are some smug assholes. I don't see myself ever buying a Mac, and part of the reason (beyond the exorbitant price and the fact that I don't do any video editing) is that you guys are dicks.

The More Things Change...

There was a bit of a scuffle at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this past week because the cover of their weekend magazine (at least, I think that's what it is) featured an interracial couple. The story was about "best places to kiss", which is a fairly stupid idea for a story, and not at all about interracial couples or dating.

St. Louis was not in an uproar, but it was noted on the paper's blog that they received more than a few comments and criticisms of the decision to use an interracial couple in the cover photo. The ensuing comments on the blog are a real treat if you want to read some backwards-ass thinking, but to be fair, there were far more positive comments than negative.

I bring this up not to bemoan the state of race relations or progressive attitudes, but to celebrate them. I read through most of the comments about the picture on the P-D website, and the arguments against interracial marriage were put forth by only 6 or 7 people. The vast majority of the replies and other commentary were positive and from 10-20 times as many individuals.

I think, then, that we can begin ignoring the vocal minority in this matter completely. There is a time when you must strive to educate and change people, so that you can achieve a progressive-thinking majority. But in the area of interracial coupling, we've got that. Something like 3/4 people think interracial dating is fine. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that a good portion of that remaining 1/4 are older folks who just won't change. But they will shuffle off this mortal coil. So why argue this? There is nothing to gain, as those final holdouts are either ignorant racists or stubborn. And we don't need them. They are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

If St. Louis, a "flyover city" with significant racial tensions, can only serve up only 1 racist for every 10 progressives (on this topic, anyway), we are probably okay.

Also, the next time you have to argue gay marriage with someone, anti-miscegenation laws would be a great comparison to make. The exact same arguments applied then: it was against the natural order, it would lead to immorality, and so forth. Those who oppose gay marriage now will, in 30 years, be in the same position as those who opposed "race mixing". We will pity you and wonder how you could not see beyond your own prejudices.

Worst of all, you will be viewed just like anti-interracial types are viewed today: irrelevant.

The Easter of the Non-Religious Single Man Who Lives 2,750 Miles from His Relatives

I woke up around 8 a.m. I can't shake my inability to sleep in, and now wake up consistently between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning. It is a shame.

Half-heartedly checked what was on TV, before remembering it was a) Sunday and b) Easter. Lots of church stuff; eventually left it on Meet the Press or Face the Nation or one of those shows.

Ate cheerios and played some Warcraft. I am bored with it, and do not have the interest to do anything beyond a few dailies and some old-world content for the Achievements.

Surfed the web, but with purpose. Purpose that won't get a lot of play on here because I'm not sure who reads this blog. I found some good stuff though and will be working on that this week. Vague enough for ya?

Exercised some. Also ate half a chocolate bunny, thus negating said exercise. It was only situps/pushups and free weights, though. Watched a good portion of "Just Friends" on Comedy Central at the same time. Meh.

Went to the grocery store, which normally I would never do on a Sunday because I hate the crowd, but I figured on Easter Sunday I might be safe. I was right; it wasn't desolate but it was quick and easy. Enjoyed the nice weather.

Talked to dad on the phone. Wished him belated happy birthday, but I'm not a terrible son because I also called the day before, and the day before that, to express the same sentiment. He was dodging my calls cuz he's a playa, son!

Watched two more episodes of The Tudors. I think Rhys-Meyers overacts. Everyone else is pretty good though. And to be fair, Rhys-Meyers wasn't bad in these two episodes either.

Talked to breezy east coast friend online, till the east coast headed for bed. They do that, often as a group. Sometimes I wonder if everyone on that coast is in cahoots to keep me bored at night.

Perused iTunes Store for about an hour, looking for gems. Downloaded a few songs but nothing to write home about. Still owe someone a CD, but it still isn't ready. I suck. She probably doesn't remember I owe her a CD, though.

Watched an hour of television before accepting that nothing remotely interesting was on. Did see ex's baby daddy beat some jerk up on MTV. I'll go ahead and let that stand as written.

Went to bed and read more of The Worst Hard Time. Really makes one realize that things could be so, so much worse. And how stupid people are when left to their own greedy devices.

Easter!