Outsourcing

So, one of the key buzzwords for this election is outsourcing of jobs. I can't say that I'm in favor of it, but I at least understand it. In the Simpsons episode "A Milhouse Divided" Marge is throwing a dinner party and is picking up things she would like to have. She picks up an oyster mallet and then puts it back after seeing "Made in USA" on it. Funny yes, but it speaks to a much larger problem. American products are often seen as shody and overly expensive. Unions demand that they get high wages, benefits, lots of overtime, and also no members get cut at any time. Companies also need to report profits to the shareholders. So, you have to pay 4 times what you might for an object as opposed to if it was made in China. Of course, the companies are paying so much to make the product so they cut corners by getting inferior materials. Couple that with a general malaise that comes with workers who are trying to squeeze every overtime dime and a total lack of fear that they might be fired due to ineptness, and you come out with a bad, high cost product.

That's manufacturing. Now, outsourcing of white collar jobs is a much dicier issue. Right now, a lot of engineering and technology jobs are going to places like India and Poland. They do the work for so much less money, but you have a problem in the quality of work. In my job, I review data packages that come back from places like these and while the technical knowledge is sound, a lot of the decisions related to it are not sound. An example would be a case where an analysis was run on a disk. We wanted to know specific properties related to a new type of machining. The model they ran was quite good, but they returned the wrong type of stress numbers and also didn't catch a simple engineering logic flaw: that if you place a raised point on a curved surface, the stresses around that surface will be higher, not lower. To use an overused phrase, you have to think outside the box to solve problems.

I have to actually do work now. I'll follow up with solutions in a later post.

Remembering Good Friends

Moving around sucks. My dad was in the Navy for almost 18 years and we regularly moved around all over the country. Now, there are benefits to that: cultural awareness, diversity in life, getting to know people all over the country. The downside is that you can't let yourself get too attached to a place or to people. If you do, you miss them much more when you have to leave.

I currently live in Cincinnati now but I'm a recent transplant. I moved here a little over a year ago to be closer to family and so that my fiancee and I could get married. It helped that Cincinnati is a major location for jobs in my field. Now, I would never say that I don't like it here, I do. But every once in a while, you miss the things you've had in other places. Mountains are a good example. Not too many of those out here.

Really though, its mostly people. You make good friends in other places and you exchange e-mails and stuff, but its never quite the same as walking over to their desk and just shooting the breeze. I have two good friends, Beth and Lance, whom I sat next to at my old job in Hartford, CT. I get e-mails and its a lot of fun reading those and just imagining how it would be like to still be there. Beth and I actually had a great routine of every week putting up some kind of quote outside our cube. One of my favorites was "Sarcasm: Just one more service we offer."

But change happens. Beth was actually moved to a different department and Lance and his wife just had a baby so things would have changed even if I hadn't moved. So when you are getting blue about how things change, just remember that things do change and the important thing is that you have the people you care about most around you.

Also, a belated one month birthday to Lilian Corrice (Jan. 22). Don't drive your dad too nuts yet. I need him alive in September ;)

What is Truth?

So, The Passion was released today in limited release and in broad release tomorrow (I know, a lot of releases). I imagine I will go see in sometime in March, on a Tuesday when I have nothing better to do. I don't know exactly what I will think of it. A lot of reviewers have decried it as a gore fest. Personally, I think the event was probably very gory and that Gibson is correct to properly show the event in all its blood drenched glory. I'm also intrigued by the thought that its all in Latin and Aramaic.

My general reservations deal mostly with compression necessary for movies and Gibson's treatment of Pilate. From what I've heard, Pilate is portrayed as having great reservation and compassion for Jesus. Two traits that I believe that the man had rather small quantities of. Very few people know this, but I have been working on a story of the life of Pilate as told by a slave of his. I've only got about halfway through the Passion sequence and a little bit of a sketch on his childhood. I do have a basic outline of how I want to push his life based on limited historical knowledge and my own personal opinions of the man. Anyway, in my reading of the Gospels, Pilate seems more removed and disdainful of the situation. I've been imagining it as though the Jews are a nuisance and the only reason he doesn't deal with them more harshly, is because he's been getting in trouble with Rome. There is an exchange in John where Pilate is asking what charges have been brought against Jesus and the Sanhedrin gets very defensive, as though Pilate is out of line. Its little things like that that make me think that Pilate could have been offering mercy to Jesus, just to irritate the Sanhedrin and show that he is not their tool. I believe this is the heart of the offering of Barabbas to the crowd in an attempt to thwart the Sanhedrin. Anyway, this is a long tangent on one minor reservation I have.

When I have seen it, I'll offer my review. BTW, if anyone is looking for a complete telling of the Gospel story, and is not that interested in a lot of blood (plus having really good acting), I would suggest Jesus of Nazareth with Robert Powell as Jesus. Very good version and only a few deviances from Scripture. Not enough to warrant dismissal. Moving score as well.

Oscar Thoughts

Well, Sean Astin got his wish. I read an interview with him a few weeks ago where he discussed not getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the Oscars. He was a little disappointed but he said the award didn't mean that much to him. He was really setting his sights on Best Ensemble at SAG. Given that the Screen Actors Guild awards are voted on strictly by your peers, I imagine it feels a lot more rewarding to get those in the long run, although there is still all the glamour of the Oscars.

That Johnny Depp won the SAG for best actor is rather surprising. Indeed, it throws the best actor oscar up for grabs. Despite there being five people nominated, lets not kid ourselves. Only three are in contention: Depp, Sean Penn, and Bill Murray. Despite his SAG win, I just can't see the academy voting for Depp. The movie was a big Disney action-adventure and no matter how funny and enjoyable you are to watch, its just not the kind of movie that earns people Oscar statues.

So we're back to Penn vs. Murray. Penn would seem to have the edge. Gritty, tragic crime drama vs. aloof, quirky comedy. I also think there is some disdain for people who rise from the stand-up ranks in the academy. You have to be vetted through a different process to get real respect. That being said, I'm not giving the award to Penn yet. Murray still commands enough respect in some circles, plus there is a great like for Sophia Coppola running though Hollywood right now. I'd make her almost a shoe-in for best original screenplay. So, Murray could take it in a close vote.

I don't think there will be too many surprises this year. Unlike some years, there seems to be some very big favorites going into it. The other three acting statues should go like SAG and the golden globes: Tim Robbins for Best Supporting Actor, Rene Zellwigger for Best Supporting Actress, and Charlize Theron for Best Actress. I'm probably going to mute Theron's speech because I don't want to hear about her mother anymore.

But, does RotK take Best Picture and Director? I think so. Director seems the more sure thing to me. Because the academy has seen only to give RotK technical nominations, its running a bit like Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love right now: quite sure of director, not so sure about picture. If I'm right and Mystic River takes both male acting trophies, it may make its name known. However, I think it will take at least one more win to legitimately say that it can win Best Picture. As I recall, Shakespeare in Love took some costume and makeup awards as well. So, while I'm not as confident as some writers for Entertainment Weekly, I think RotK will come out on top next Sunday. Should be fun.

The 71 Gauntlet

Well, I'm back from the weekend. For those of you unaware of my travels, I usually go up to Columbus every weekend to visit my fiancee. We're waiting to get married until she finishes up with law school which will be this May. You can check in with her progress in this and with the wedding by going to Down the Aisle.

Naturally, all this travel gives me great time to think about things like the Columbus sniper. The first 20 or so shootings didn't really even register, but when he moved on to I-71, then I sat up a little more than normal. Actually, I even saw his work one afternoon. It was his first venture onto I-71. There is a point, about mile marker 70 or so, where there are two bridges from country roads that cross the interstate. This is all just north of an area where a lot of highway construction is happening. Anyway, while I was driving back to Cincinnati I saw a bunch of cop cars with their lights flashing. I slowed down a bit but didn't pay much attention because as its just north of construction, I assumed someone had been speeding in the zone. It was then that I saw the news van and someone setting up the big camera. I didn't fully put it together until I saw it on the news that evening. It certainly has made me look at the overpasses a little more. You also see more cops patrolling the area (and handing out lots of speeding tickets along with it). I even saw one squad car over an overpass and drive very slowly over it. I suspect, he had his radar gun out and was radioing ahead to anyone in waiting. Fortunately, I usually hold it around 70 on the highway.

Will he be caught? Eventually. But only after doing more damage. The talk at work has him moving from I-71 on the south side, out to I-70 on either the west or east side. I lean towards the East side as traffic is heavier there. I also believe that this guy is really dangerous because he's not a real marksman. If he were a real marksman, he would have killed more than one person by now. In each of his hits, he's been about a second early and hitting the hoods, rather than through the windshield. So he's reckless and that is even more dangerous. But for now we must wait on the courage and intelligence of the Columbus Police Department.

God help us all.

Fried Rocky Mountain Oysters

Anyone who knows me, knows that I can have a bit of an evil streak. Many times that evil is justified. Many is the time when I've cursed the 8th amendment for tying our hands. Example: Tim McVey should not have been executed. His true punishment should have been to be locking in an 8x10 room, 50 feet below the surface, with no lights. A small door would have allowed bread and water to be given every day until he died of scurvy or some other nasty disease. The true punishment would have been to allow the world to forget him. But, because this might be considered "cruel and unusual" we would have had to just store him in a maximum security prison where he would have full access to proper food, medical attention, and cable TV. Stupid system.

Anyway, McVey is not the true point of this post. This morning, I was reading Three Hell, a blog run by one my fiancee's law school friends, Mer Mer. Mer Mer had a good rant going on about Gary Barnett, football coach at Colorado. I must say that many of the things she says are correct, but I don't think they go far enough. The fact that the university used sex, alcohol, and strippers doesn't bother me. Most of us have been to college and I believe we would all be fools not to recognize that many of these things go on with frats to begin with. That the university uses it to lure football players is just another rung on the decadence ladder, which college allows most people to climb.

However, rape is another issue. I take a very strong objection to anyone (male or female) forcing someone in that way. I also feel that our laws are not Draconian enough to stem this problem (Ohh, you raped a woman. Well, just pay this fine and we'll have to put you in prison for a couple of years, or maybe just probation). Anyone found guilty of rape should be taken to a public place and have his balls hacked off (see Turkish scene in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). Then you sear the wound with a hot iron to make sure he doesn't bleed to death. If the shock doesn't kill him, he'll have to live the rest of his life as a eunich. I'm sure we could devise something suitable in the instances of a female rapist as well.

Now, what about Barnett. He's either guilty of accessory and supression of sexual harassment and assault, or he's only the most ignorant, oblivious coach I've ever seen. I tend to favor the former as most coaches know more about their players than they will readily admit. So, in order to protect his own arse, as well as his players, he lies, covers up sexual misconduct, and then has the gall to claim that he's the victim in all this. The man should be fired and then tarred and feathered at the least.

The really disgusting thing is that even if Barnett is fired, he will probably be flapping in the wind for a couple of years and then get hired by some college who choses to remember the Northwestern program, but forget the Colorado one. I wish the NCAA would put up a program for coaches that when they show, at best, extremely poor judgement and, at worst, complicity in criminal acts, they should be permanently banned from sport. Period. It probably won't happen, but here's hoping.

TV Tales

Old television shows on DVD are a wonderful thing. Some are not worth watching, but then, you don't have to buy those. I've been very distracted over the past two days because I just got Futurama: Season 2 in the mail on Tuesday. I'm about halfway through the season already and then I'll have to watch them all again because all the episodes have commentary that is often interesting and as funny as the actual episode.

Between the two of us, my fiancee and I now have all the issued collections of The Simpsons, Futurama, Friends, West Wing, and Family Guy. I also have about 20 episodes of The Twilight Zone and if the prices ever come down, I would like to get The X-Files.

One thing that I suppose is a bit sad about all this is that more and more people are turning to watch old episodes of a show rather than watching anything new on. For the most part, its because what's on just isn't up the standard of those classic shows. Even good shows are declining in value. Watching season 4 or 5 of Friends can often be much funnier, even when you can quote the jokes, than most of the new episodes of the same show.

Then you have the problem that the quality of what is funny has just gone downhill as well. The current champion of comedy is "Everybody Loves Raymond," a show that has serious comedic flaws in my opinion. Raymond comes off as a jerk who knows nothing except how to complain about his wife and beg for sex now and again. At least Al Bundy could have a good comic one-on-one with Peg. Both would get good sniper shots off that would leave them both wounded. The delivery in that show was also better in my opinion. Ray's wife just comes across as an oppressive, nagging bitch who takes no joy in anything. Ray's parents are the redeeming factors, but they really are just one trick ponies. Once you've seen one episode, you've seen all their material. And yet this show is proclaimed to be in the same league as "Cheers" or "The Dick Van Dyke Show." Have we really lowered our expectations this much?

There are still a few good shows but they always seemed to be either dwarfed by something else or the network is too stupid to know how to use it. Take ABC. They have a good concept reality show: "The Mole." Its a little more intellectual and interactive than others. Yet after two seasons, ABC tossed it aside and is only using it for fodder trying to get B-grade celebrities to make minorly funny comments from time to time. Another one is "The Amazing Race" on CBS. Despite good ratings last summer, CBS thought about killing the show until it grabbed the Emmy for Best Reality Show.

I suppose a point will come where we decide that there is nothing good is being made anymore and we just watch our DVDs with an occasional release to watch sports or the talking heads on some news show. At least we now have those DVDs.

@##%^*! Yankees

I'm going to start off by saying that this post is by a biased writer. I'm a Boston fan. I was lukewarm growing up and then got really into Boston when I was living in Connecticut. I lived just to the north of the Munson-Nixon line where it can get real divisive between Yankees and Red Sox fans.

So the Yankees now have Alex Rodriguez (I don't like ARod; he has a name). Of course as a Boston fan, this irks me to no end. I disagreed with the idea of going after him in the first place. Maybe Manny was unhappy, but if he is, you go after an outfielder. Nomar is good enough that you don't need to throw him out in favor of someone a little better, more hyped and a lot more expensive. Then the deal falls through and the Yankees suddenly have Rodriguez show up on the radar. Would they have gone after him if Boston hadn't tried, probably not. Idiots.

Several sports writers have been going on how this is a good thing for baseball. That baseball is best when the Yankees are strong. I don't really agree with that. Is it better when you have a team to hate like New York or Atlanta? Sure. We love the underdog and love to hate the really good team. But you can't tell me that its a good thing when any one team dominates the sport to a point where it starts to suffocate. When you start to see the same team all the time and the result never changes, people get tired of it.

I do give the Yankees teams of the late 90's their due. Those were great teams, but they were also home grown teams. Paul O'Neil, Scott Brosius, and several other names that people just don't remember anymore. These were good players, not great players, who worked their way through the ranks and united as a team. They suffered the terrible defeats of the early and mid 90's and then started geling. But players started retiring and they were replaced by highly paid stars. New York seemed to be the place to go to grab yourself a ring before you retired (see LA Lakers, Colorado Avalanche, and Detroit Red Wings). Now, you have a northeast black hole where high-priced, over-hyped players come to die. I include Boston in this, because they have to keep up with the Yankees. So they grab Curt Shilling and pursue Alex Rodriguez, which started this whole rant.

Now someone is going to point out that in the past three years, the big spending Yankees and Red Sox didn't win the world series, so it really isn't a bad thing. Its true, they didn't. But the Yankees did make the 2001 and 2003 series and could have won them both. Because they've been on the cusp, it continues to fuel the idea that they just need one more player, one more player. So the small market teams are left in the cold. You grow good talent, but right when its ready to go, some big market team sweeps in and steals it away. So we constantly give ourselves pats on the back for how good teams like Minnesota and Kansas City do and then smile politely when they fall just short again to the big market clubs.

The only people who want dynasties are the fans of those teams. I personally think parity is a very good thing. Does it dilude the sport a bit? Yes, but I'm willing to take a year or two of average play once in a while, if it means my team can get itself back on its feet and have a realistic shot of being competitive next year. I don't see that in baseball. The Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, or Braves may not win the world series this year, but I think the trend is only going to get worse, until we see total domination by just a handful of teams. Basketball has already moved in that direction and baseball is close behind.

So Mr. Rodriguez, you can now have your cake and eat it too, but be warned, decay and death are on the horizon.

Greetings and welcome to Shaving My Shoulders. For those of you who are not familiar with that phrase, its a nice little song sung by Homer Simpson in the bathroom. You'll find that I do have a random habit of tossing quotes from all kinds of sources, especially Simpsons, in the mix.

Anyway, what do we do here? Well, nothing really. I post about random topics that I like: news, history, sex, unions. Then you may comment, where I will subsequently berate your ideas and tell you why you are wrong.

So, I hop you like it. I know I will do what I can to keep the masses entertained, but I make no promises. So, on with the show...