There's much ado in the news today, but do I care? The only thing that really matters today is that the final episode of Battlestar Galactica, revised for the 21st century, is airing this evening. Fortunately, I am in a time zone that does not need to wait till nightfall. Better still, I am on a schedule that does not mind. See, there can be an upside to lack of gainful employment, onerous as ungainful employment may be...
The original series aired during my first years out of college, when I was beginning my great adventure also known as independent adulthood; hence, I was able to watch what I would. As such, I chose to fritter away my time on that first series, waiting hopefully for the promise of the premise that never quite materialized. Now, on the other side of my work experiences, I find myself without quite the same ease of access to indiscriminate programming selections, even as the re-envisioned series has finally found writers worthy of its promised premise. Tonight the series will end as it should have the first time around, instead of spinning off from ponderous to ludicrous, although I did just see an ad threatening a prequel series... But I digress (as usual)
This is a most excellent time to be alive, global economy notwithstanding. After all, the first series also emerged in a time of economic recession. Coincidence? Hm... Anyway, now is a time when reruns are readily available, when cable channels regularly hold series fests preceding finales (or just to entice holiday viewing), when catching up with missed episodes can be done online, when episodes are available both on dvd and for downloading from online distributors. So coming to the series even as it is ending is not a problem, aside from trying to grasp the scope before tonight's big sendoff.
It's all good: I regularly play catch-up with series after they become popular, either midstream or just as they are about to close out their original runs. Most recently there were the collected works of Roger Zelazny, the Harry Potter series, and now this. That's the epimethean in me.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
My Turn for Cynicism
The news is abuzz today with talk of righteous indignation over the awarding of incentive rewards, a.k.a. unmerited bonuses, to AIG, the insurance company that was allowed to grow too big for anyone's britches, anti-monopoly laws well circumvented (as they weren't the only kids on the block screwing every available pooch in the increasingly complicated global financial neighborhood). Truly we are long overdue for an overhaul of regulations, legislations, and governance last updated before too many of us were even a glimmer in anyone's eye.
But I digress (as usual)...
My cynicism today comes at the "breaking news" that the Obama administration knew about the awarding of the protested incentive payments last week, at least a weekend before Monday's official protestations of outrage. Some news anchors were almost wetting their pants with excitement as field reporters eagerly sought the source of the disavowed clause that provides the loophole by which AIG was able to cut the checks that distributed the disputed "bonuses" in the first place. One of my hypotheses was that some ambitious clerk had slipped the clause into the formal write-up of the legislation after the final draft was submitted for preparation of publication. Then came word that the Executive branch had foreknowledge. This, of course, supports my faith that someone there actually read the final copy before signing, just as several earnest reporters did in feverish preparation for the official signing following a three-day weekend.
Now, however, I have another theory, one that I don't really believe but which makes for interesting speculation and possible fodder for post-term publication: what if the Administration knowingly let AIG cut the checks precisely because it anticipated the public outrage? The checks had to be distributed in order to fulfill the letter of the law and prevent potential civil suits. Now, however, public opinion is available to coerce the return of at least some of those funds, while the financial giant that has dipped so irksomely into public resources is offered up as a cautionary scapegoat for all others in the financial world who have been sitting on funds and toying with creatively self-serving ideas. And who has wielded the sword of public opinion as effectively in the last half century as our very own fearless leader? Or is someone else hoping to wield him? Hm...
I gotta get a life...
But I digress (as usual)...
My cynicism today comes at the "breaking news" that the Obama administration knew about the awarding of the protested incentive payments last week, at least a weekend before Monday's official protestations of outrage. Some news anchors were almost wetting their pants with excitement as field reporters eagerly sought the source of the disavowed clause that provides the loophole by which AIG was able to cut the checks that distributed the disputed "bonuses" in the first place. One of my hypotheses was that some ambitious clerk had slipped the clause into the formal write-up of the legislation after the final draft was submitted for preparation of publication. Then came word that the Executive branch had foreknowledge. This, of course, supports my faith that someone there actually read the final copy before signing, just as several earnest reporters did in feverish preparation for the official signing following a three-day weekend.
Now, however, I have another theory, one that I don't really believe but which makes for interesting speculation and possible fodder for post-term publication: what if the Administration knowingly let AIG cut the checks precisely because it anticipated the public outrage? The checks had to be distributed in order to fulfill the letter of the law and prevent potential civil suits. Now, however, public opinion is available to coerce the return of at least some of those funds, while the financial giant that has dipped so irksomely into public resources is offered up as a cautionary scapegoat for all others in the financial world who have been sitting on funds and toying with creatively self-serving ideas. And who has wielded the sword of public opinion as effectively in the last half century as our very own fearless leader? Or is someone else hoping to wield him? Hm...
I gotta get a life...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Just No Pleasing Some Folks
Listening to the news incessantly can be irritating. Yes, stating the obvious does seem foolish, but there you have it.
When Obama was running for office, critics said he was inexperienced and naive. When he took office, nay sayers continued to criticize both what he hadn't gotten to yet and what he proposed; that continues. Evidently the courtship was so intense that they've no desire to await any sort of honeymoon period.
Then there are those in Congress for whom no concessions will suffice. Cooperation is a word they understand they need to use, but matching action seems beyond their reach, and always will be, much like fruit and drink to the Greek Tantalus. They prefer to offer themselves up as impediments, their only proffered resolutions to be the lack thereof...
Then there's the afternoon tv critic who simply refuses to be pleased. Evidently the government is not tough enough on criminals and illegal aliens, not adequately staffed or supplied, too involved in job creation, too bureaucratic. The economy is recovering too slowly because investors don't trust what they're hearing and seeing, yet when investors step forward, interested in the creation of energy alternatives, they are unwelcome because they are not American - you know, those sitting on the fence, feeling the pinch, wiped out by recent events...
Nothing's ever right, no one's good enough, nothing's gonna get better...
Okay, Pollyanna isn't what I'm advocating here, but would a little more even-handedness be so terrible? Probably, for such critics' ratings, anyway...
Who's cynical?
When Obama was running for office, critics said he was inexperienced and naive. When he took office, nay sayers continued to criticize both what he hadn't gotten to yet and what he proposed; that continues. Evidently the courtship was so intense that they've no desire to await any sort of honeymoon period.
Then there are those in Congress for whom no concessions will suffice. Cooperation is a word they understand they need to use, but matching action seems beyond their reach, and always will be, much like fruit and drink to the Greek Tantalus. They prefer to offer themselves up as impediments, their only proffered resolutions to be the lack thereof...
Then there's the afternoon tv critic who simply refuses to be pleased. Evidently the government is not tough enough on criminals and illegal aliens, not adequately staffed or supplied, too involved in job creation, too bureaucratic. The economy is recovering too slowly because investors don't trust what they're hearing and seeing, yet when investors step forward, interested in the creation of energy alternatives, they are unwelcome because they are not American - you know, those sitting on the fence, feeling the pinch, wiped out by recent events...
Nothing's ever right, no one's good enough, nothing's gonna get better...
Okay, Pollyanna isn't what I'm advocating here, but would a little more even-handedness be so terrible? Probably, for such critics' ratings, anyway...
Who's cynical?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
