Mailbag - Green Energy

Operative BG writes in after jotting a bunch of notes on a chalkboard, brushing off the dust and scratching his head:

None of the stories of my tax dollars being wasted on bad green investments surprises me.

But when you present these stories to Obama's worshipers, they claim that these failed investments represent only a small part of the investments in so-called green energy. I have to acknowledge that that may indeed be true. Problem is, I don't know if it IS true, and neither do Obama's acolytes, because nobody seems to know how much of my money is being placed on Lucky Dan invested in green energy.

If Uncle Sam is betting $100 billion of my money on Lucky Dan to win green energy and only $2 billion turned out to be a bad investment, while $10 billion paid off, then it's money well-bet.

What happened to the other $88 billion?  Ah, right, government efficiency at work, maybe.

In essence, what I see here is a numerator without a denominator. Can you take a quick trip to the near future - say 2050? - and tell us what the score was in 2012?

GorT fired up the fission reactor and took a quick trip.  Here’s a quick look at this issue.  Basically, the Department of Energy has three loan programs:

• 1703 - Section 1703, Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, that focus on clean energy that include: biomass, hydrogen, solar, wind/hydropower, nuclear, advanced fossil energy coal, carbon sequestration practices/technologies, electricity delivery and energy reliability, alternative fuel vehicles, industrial energy efficiency projects, and pollution control equipment.
• 1705 – Section 1705, added to EPAct.  It is a temporary program designed to address the current economic conditions of the nation and authorizes loan guarantees for certain renewable energy systems, electric power transmission systems and leading edge biofuels projects that commence construction no later than September 30, 2011.
• ATVM - Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established an incentive program – the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program – consisting of direct loans to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States.

Currently, the DOE LPO site shows three 1703 programs.  Two are for nuclear power totaling $10.3B and one is for a company making energy efficient windows with a loan commitment of $72M.  All three are in a conditional commitment stage.

There are 26 programs in the 1705 category with a grand total of $16.111B in loans that have closed and that forecast a creation of 2,428 permanent jobs.  I remain a bit skeptical of the jobs numbers as one single solar project, Abound – the same one who just cut 70% of their Colorado staff – claims 1200 jobs.  At the higher rate, that’s over $6M per job created (a larger number of construction jobs are cited, but these are not classified as "permanent" jobs).  Let’s put our focus here as Solyndra, Abound and Beacon Power all are in this category.  The simple answer to the question is that the total loan amounts affected in the companies mentioned as having issues amounts to 10% of the $16.111B.  Maybe BG would approve of a 10% failure rate to date.   

However, there are deeper issues here.  Why should the government be in the business of choosing?  Why is GE getting federal loan guarantees when they have plenty of capital to cover the project, they supposedly aren’t paying any federal taxes (much to the disappointment of liberals)?  You won’t find it explicitly stated, but GE (and Google) is behind the Caithess Sheperds Flat project.  There are other examples like this and the real reason behind it is money.  With the federal subsidies and benefits, energy companies can realize a return on equity in the 17 to 22 percent range while typical returns on utilities are 7 percent.  Conglomerations of companies can be seen in the data as well – for example, Abengoa secured over 17% of the 1705 funding alone.

Mailbag - French Parenting vs. Freedom Parenting

Ok, ok, Dr. J. is still playing catch up on his mailbag, but our writers make for entertaining reading. Indeed, Dr. J.'s mailbag from last week got a shout out from his buddy Jamie Jeffords at the Eye of Polyphemus on his weekly Blogroll Spotlight. Thank's for the shout out, big guy!

Operative MC wrote in about a month ago the following missive:

Dear Dr. J., 

Check this out.

I call bullshit. The book's author (the article is a poorly-disguised book promo) lives in France, finds parents who are successfully raising well-behaved kids, and comes to the conclusion that French parenting is superior. Instead, she is discovering some eternal truths about parenting, one of which is that discipline is essential. Now if only you could prescribe something for the Czar's tax-subsidy blindness....... :)

So, basically, Mrs. Druckerman is an American writer married, I believe, to a Brit, and living in France. She found parenting challenging as her kids were feistier than average and she felt surrounded by all of these French families with calm kids who were more docile and let the parents have a conversation without being interrupted, and would go and play and be independent. So she asked herself what the hell she was doing wrong. And the French gave her some advice that sounded uniquely French.

The advice consisted of:

1) Being the parent, not the pal
2) Holding them accountable for having good manners
3) Having boundaries with the kids (i.e. Mommy and Daddy are going to sit on the porch and have a glass of wine and chat, find something to do for a while).
4) Chill out and don't be an MH-60 parent programing every waking moment of your kid's life.

Now here's the deal.

The grass is always greener on the other side. The Lil Resident and Lil Med Student can drive Dr. J. and Mrs. Dr. J. batshit crazy on occasion. They always want to hang out with us, and we have to get up early or stay up late to have a conversation that lasts longer than 5 minutes without being interrupted by them for something about 90% of the time unless we threaten them with punishment.

But you know what? Our kids friends parents, and friends and acquaintances, and even people behind us in line at the supermarket will compliment our kids because they seem so happy, they're full of life and they have personalities. The teachers and administrators at the Jedi Academy love them. Dr. J. is not trying to brag, but the point he is trying to make is the things that drive us crazy, others wish for in their kids and vice versa.

Reading this article, and subsequently receiving compliments regarding the Lil Resident and Med Student's strengths reassures him that he is doing his job well.

Dr. J. thinks that Mrs. Druckerman is simply a restless soul looking for something better than she has, not realizing that what she has in her husband and family are probably a great blessing.

For another example of Mrs. Druckerman's restlessness, check out this Marie Claire article in which she arranges a threesome for her husband's 40th birthday. Dr. J. suspects that it was that she this 'gift' to herself as much as she gave it to him.

Obviously, if any of your Gormogons asked for such a gift from their respective Mrs. Gormogons, they would be singing soprano.

Liberal Conudrums, Part Deux

In this installment, GorT looks a bit more broadly than his local democrat-run county and state.  This time, we'll turn and look at the conundrum facing liberals with regards to "green" energy, jobs and (insert trumpet fare here), the environment. 

For those keeping track at home, we've got the following:

• Solyndra - $535M loan guarantee from the Obama Administration.  White House estimated this would create 4,000 new jobs.  In September, 2011, the company filed Chapter 11, laid off almost every single employee and the government taxpayers had to cover the loan.  In addition, the state of California granted Solyndra a $25.1M tax break.
• Beacon Power, one of 100 companies touted as part of the White House's Recovery Act companies that are changing America, filed chapter 11 in October, 2011.  It owes the federal government $39.1M and the state of Massachusetts $3.45M.  Recently, some of their assets have been purchased reducing this amount.
• Ener1, a company whose subsidiary EnerDel is a maker of electric car batteries and a receiver of $118M of federal funding, filed for bankruptcy in January 2012.
• The Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf sales have tanked.
• Abound Solar cut 70% of its workers at its Colorado facility this week.  It received a $400M federally guaranteed loan with a statement from the president that it would create "1,500 permanent jobs".  (around 3:08 on this video).
• Fisker Automotive received a $193M loan and after running into various problems, including possibly applying federal funds tagged for creating American jobs in their Finnish operations.  The remainder of the $529M loan guarantee to produce two lines of plug-in hybrid cars now has been halted.  It is likely that Fisker will falter without the guaranteed money and will likely take A123 Systems, its lithium-ion battery manufacturer with it.

That's not a great track record of sound investment of taxpayer funds for stimulating the "green" energy sector.  The joke that is recovery.gov shows 585 jobs for that $535M for Solyndra in many of the quarters in 2010 and into 2011.  The last quarter shows 185 jobs.  Now, the odd thing is that when one looks at that site and sees the grand total for the quarter, no where does it show the loss of jobs or a retroactive adjustment to the numbers.  But, we've covered how misleading recovery.gov is and the fact that it is little more than a taxpayer-funded propaganda piece for this administration.

Besides the conundrum of "green" energy and jobs, the liberals are also facing one with the environment.  Some cases in point:

• Wind turbines in California are decapitating golden eagles.  “Birds are smacked out of the air by the blades of high-speed wind turbines and are killed or horribly injured,” said a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  PacifiCorp, a large electric utility in the western U.S., was fined $10.5M for not taking precautions with its power distribution facilities to protect eagles from being electrocuted.  No word on how much the Pine Tree wind project is being fined....if at all.  Pine Tree received $25M of Recovery Act funding and, at its peak, reported creating 15.67 jobs (1.5M per job) and has since lowered that figure to 10.73 (2.3M per job).
• Solar farm projects are threatening baby tortoises and potentially disrupting protected kit fox populations and possibly disturbing a Native American burial site.  This farm project is part of three projects by BrightSource which received $1.6B in federal guaranteed loans. 

 You can read more on "teh Interwebs", but sufficed to say there is plenty of controversy here - linkages to Obama administration members, funding election campaigns, glossing over of federal regulations for the environment, etc.  Clearly (hold on, my tongue isn't quite in my cheek), we don't need something like the Keystone pipeline - technology we know works, jobs we know will be in the United States, and a result that will help the economy by lowering the gas price.  Right.

Oh, and a quick side note: GorT took one of his CFLs to the local home improvement store to "recycle" it properly.  Keep in mind that this is in a county where we pay a 5 cent per bag tax in order to reduce the plastic bags in our landfills, rivers and streams.  So the process is, take a plastic bag (provided at no charge), put a bulb in it (only one), and deposit it in the container.  Hmmm.

Dr. J. finally endorses a candidate for Super Tuesday!

It's been my experience that Senators are only focused on pleasing those who fund their campaigns... and they are more than willing to forget the niceties of democracy to get those funds.

Is It Getting Better....

...or do you feel the same?  Who knew that the Rev. Bono of U2 was so prescient when he wrote the song, "One".

Many liberal friends are pointing at the Dow as a sign of an economic recovery.  It's usually accompanied with some sort of quip about how sad it is that conservatives or republicans are "anti-recovery" for the political purpose of being bad for Obama.  Some liberals even claim that the democrat policies are kicking in now and the recovery is due to that - "Summer of Recovery III" ??.  Of course, they can't point at a concrete example.

First, let's be clear: regardless of whether it means that Obama would be re-elected or not, I truly believe that it is more important that the economy recovers and improves.  Capitalism has done more to benefit this world than any other system.  Strong economies, especially in this very connected world, are critical.

Second, it's all about the numbers.  The economy is going to be driven by participation.  Participation in both the investment (the stock market, bonds, etc.) side as well as the labor force side.  Correlate participation and behaviors with population data and you should be able to begin to see the problem.  A large portion of the American population is nearing and entering retirement, a point at which participation in both sides eases.  Add to that the state of the various entitlement programs in the country and it begins to look real messy.  Politicians for the most part are content to kick the can down the road and not address these programs.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (1980-2012)

Third, it really is all about the numbers.  So let's back up to the original quote, "Is it getting better...or do you feel the same?"  The administration is touting that unemployment is getting better.  A closer look at the numbers reveals some issues.  Starting with the January 2012 labor numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is factoring in the results of the 2010 Census.  This has adjusted labor force participation as well as population figures.  The initial message is that the adjustments don't affect the total unemployment numbers as the groups that had the population increases were in the the 16-24 and over 55 age groups.  Specifically, the BLS has adjusted the numbers adding 1,510,000 to the civilian non-institutional population which breaks down into the addition of 258,000 to the civilian labor force and the addition of 1,252,000 to the "not in labor force" population.  The net result is a -0.3 percent participation rate in employment, down to 63.5%.  This is the lowest this figure has been since May 1983.  By the government's definition of the unemployment rate, those in the "not in the labor force" do not count.

However, some of the numbers in the detail part of the report are interesting.  Consider the numbers for the 25 to 54 demographic, where the civilian non-institutional population was reduced by 299,000 (a reduction of 0.2%) but the civilian labor force was reduced more steeply (0.4%) by 408,000.  The employed count was also reduced by a similar steep value (0.4%) amounting to 370,000 fewer employed.  Savor that for a moment.  The employed and participation numbers were reduced by double the percentage of adjustment to the civilian non-institutional population.

Employment to Population Ratio (1980-2012)

In fact, the employment to population ratio has been hovering around 58.5% for the past years as can be seen in the second graph.  This figure historically has been three to six percentage points higher for the 25 years (ever since the dip around 1983).  It doesn't make a lot of sense to have this figure remain steady and claim recovery.  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that unemployment will stay above 8% until 2014.  This, of course, doesn't include those who have supposedly stopped looking for work or are part-timers that want more permanent employment (January's true unemployment would be 15%). 

Look, everyone should want the economy to recover but clearly the President isn't doing all he could to help it along.  Gas prices remain higher than they need to be and that affects more than just people's commutes - it factors into the transportation costs for goods and services, travel and the hospitality industry. 

To continue with Bono's song, "Will it make it easier on you now / You got someone to blame / You say." and "Did I disappoint you / Or leave a bad taste in your mouth."  Hmmmm.

Obama Gets a Five Minute Major for Cross Checking

GorT, and many others before him have discussed the 'Cass Sunstein' method of government nudging individuals to behave in the manner that they see fit.

Given the strong resistance to Obamacare, Dr. J. hopes to see a ramp up in attacks on the legislation after the Republicans have a nominee. As a parenthetical, he would very much like to see people stop calling it the Affordable Care Act, because neither affordability or care are involved in the legislation.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has given up subtlety with regard to implementing its Orwellian healthcare vision, beginning with the HHS Mandate (aka attack on religious organizations that do anything beyond preach on Sundays, Saturday nights and for some, Wednesday and Friday nights). This is not about that particular crosscheck to the head, but another one.

For those not in the know, soldiers and retired career military personnel are eligible for Tricare health insurance. Tricare is kick-ass health insurance for kick-ass individuals. Given what our military does for us day in and day out, and what our career military have given above and beyond those who served for a short time, the ability to participate in this program is the least we can do to repay them for their service.

As a consequence, this article from the Free Beacon made Dr. J.'s blood boil.

Basically, Obama, in his proposed budget wants to pay for military cuts in part by increasing the out of pocket costs of Tricare for military families and retirees from 30-78% in year 1 resulting in 94-345% increases over a 5 year period.

It also cuts benefits such as drug costs. Right now, Dr. J. has a patient on Tricare who pays $9 for 9 months of Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) for his atrial fibrillation. He is a high risk patient who enjoys a significant clinical benefit from this drug over warfarin. So, if he can't afford to stay on Pradaxa, he will be switched to Coumadin with a concomitant increase in stroke risk. He really can't afford the $30-60 a month copay without such coverage.

Clearly he hopes that the increasing their share of the expenses will coerce them into participating in Obamacare alternatives.

Adding insult to injury, President Obama's budget makes no similar concession for civilian Federal (read UNION) employees and retirees who also have good health insurance plans. Indeed most Federal retirees pay the same out of pocket expense for health insurance that their active co-workers do.

Now you are probably saying to yourself, "Dr. J., you are a big time fiscal hawk, you want spending cuts, and you hate insane retirement benefits, so aren't you just a hypocrite!??!?!!ELeVeNtY!!!?!!"

No.

While Dr. J. is fundamentally against inappropriate (Federal, State and Local) government spending, especially with regard to unsustainable pensions, national defense is the number one job of the Federal Government.

We can afford generous retirement packages that include health insurance and pensions for a select few individuals. Those individuals are people who have made a career of putting themselves in harms way on behalf of our nation, state and municipality, specifically the US Armed Forces, State and local Police departments and firemen.

We can't afford are unrealistic so-called entitlement programs that have not kept up with life expectancies and birth rate declines, farm subsidies, Abortifacients Uber Alles, green energy subsidies, pensions and healthcare benefits for every lucky SOB who was able to land himself or herself a guv'mint job loafing on the taxpayers time (and there are probably two of them working for the government, for every one legitimate employee).

If there are concerns regarding sustainablity, then the rules should be tweaked for those entering those career fields, but not those already serving. Perhaps 25 years instead of 20 to count as 'career.' Perhaps the pension should not activate until 65 or so. But this shouldn't be done for actives.

Fortunately, this budget will not see the light of day thanks to the 'Coolidge' Republicans in the House and Senate.

The Obama budget is not a serious proposal, but what it shows is who President Obama is, and that is someone who does not respect or appreciate those who have served on the frontlines to keep him and all of us free.

A Growing Conservative Wave

The Czar has spotted something with considerable regularity these days, and hopes that it is the sign of a newly emergent trend. If not, it soon will be.

Simply, note how Republican candidates—especially challengers—are touting their plans to cut spending, adopt a stronger conservative stance, and be more pro-jobs than ever. The Czar sees it in campaign literature, television commercials, and stump speeches. There are three outcomes:

1. First, the politician is lying. He might say these things to get votes, but has no intention of bucking the status quo. This is inevitable, but likely unsustainable: he will find himself replaced by the next guy, unless he changes course midstream.
2. He was a big government moderate, but now realizes he has several challengers on his tail. By adopting a smaller government position, he can use his name recognition to push back smaller newcomers. The Czar believes this is where Messrs. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich find themselves—newly converted, they drink the water. Unless of course they want to lose their jobs in four years.
3. Third, the guy means it. He knows that taking on a small government, pro-job position will gain votes and can use this to attack the fat and happy incumbent.

Any candidate who promises these things can be one of these three; but the important thing is how new this is (since 2008). The status quo is slowly shifting. Like any battleship, it will take time to turn; but turning it is. Candidates are now competing on how conservative they are. Can you imagine John McCain or Bob Dole screaming out how “severely conservative” he is? Of course, now you could, but prior to 2009, not at all.

This is all a good thing even if we are impatient with its progress. The small successes of more conservative candidates in 2010, like the sea turtles who make it to the water safely, inspire the rest to try. Even if the tide is still against them, the fact that candidates are pushing hard to convince us of their conservative credentials offers some reassurance for the future.

In a decade, maybe less, the GOP will again be a conservative party. Good things are happening, but the wait grows increasingly painful.

Star Wars: Episode 1 - Now with more Menace

Dr. J. has had a crazy weekend. Lil Med Student sustained a concussion food shopping with Dr. J. For parents out there, a real-life version of Shopping Cart Hero is not a good idea. Dr. J. appreciates all of the well wishes on twitter.

Just to tide you over until Dr. J. can write something of import, as The Czar and GorT have been doing the yeoman's work the last few days, this guy from Belatedmedia tells us how Lucas could have made Episode I great.

Dr. J. stands by the notion that a few simple tweaks are all that it needed to make it much better, but this guy gets what the studio should have told George Lucas to have put it on par with Empire Strikes Back.

It is worth a watch if you have 12 minutes to spare:

A Liberal Conundrum

Maybe I should have titled this post, "Liberal Hypocrisy" or "More of the Liberal Do What We Say, Not What We Do".

GorT lives in the very blue Montgomery County, Maryland (a/k/a MoCo).  Also the residence of two other primary residents of the Castle during their younger days.  Since 1978, the county has always had a democrat County Executive (the first County Executive was a republican and served from 1970 to 1978).  And as far back as GorT can remember, the legislative body, the County Council, has always been a majority, if not super majority, democrats (7 members prior to the mid-1980s and 9 members since).  In fact, since 2006, the council has been 100% democrats.  I tee up this information to put this post in context. 

Since the late 1990s, the county has been pursuing a "smart growth" transportation and development plan.  One can google it, but the basis of such a plan, is to create high-density developments around mass transit in order to prevent "suburban sprawl".  It hasn't worked overly well.  Often, the issue faced is the reluctance of Americans to want to live in such a setting.  Yes, there are those that would enjoy such a setting, but many still wish for private yards and gardens, the freedom and independence a personal car provides, etc.  So urban planners bent on this course of action, regardless of what their citizens want, began intentionally allowing congestion on roadways to increase.  Road improvement and expansion projects were put on hold or scrapped (evidence of this dates back to the 1960s in this area, where one could see 3 additional bridge crossings between northern Virginia and MoCo and the eventual "de-mapping" of these projects.  The opposition were largely environmentalists that spread fear of "sprawl" from any road project that created an additional crossing.  The "nudging" of people's choices in lifestyles had begun. 

This is continuing today.  Even at the presidential level, you can see the "nudging" in very clear terms.  The "smart growth" projects continue in MoCo.  The White Flint Mall in Bethesda is set to be closed and demolished (likely) later this year with a major project for dense housing and retail shops possibly with green space, although a few local community associations are questioning the plan.  The development board has largely opposed any post-project analysis of its traffic analysis assumptions.  GorT, himself, testified in front of the board asking for just that and was dismissed.  So when the county allows for added dense development and the residents decide that they need to drive because $11 of Metro fare plus the 2+ hours of commute time (assuming one lives in the dense development that's within walking distance to the station) might not compare well against an hour and a half commute time and 2 gallons of gas and the freedom to divert to take care of personal business on the way to or from the job (this comparison is a White Flint to Springfield, other comparisons will vary).  And there's the rub - higher gas prices start making the expensive mass transit more comparable.  However, higher gas prices also raise the costs of the mass transit operation.

So the conundrum: there is another project starting with the sector plan for a neighborhood near GorT.  The neighborhood is not near any Metro station but a MARC train station is at the center of this plan.  The area within walking distance to the MARC station is largely 1/8 to 1/4 acre lot homes with a few older, small apartment buildings.  The main streets are already over the severe congestion numbers that the development board uses.  The MARC station is about 1/4 mile from one of these main streets down a side street that is populated by small, niche stores.  The plan includes putting in 75' residential and retail buildings.  The mass transit is limited and with the already congested streets, bus options don't improve the quality of life.  The MARC trains are not light rail, rapid Metro transit and run on a less frequent schedule.  The public in the area, remember the demographics, is largely against this dense development.  I tend to agree that it makes no sense - but that is a side issue.  Here we have proponents of creating dense growth areas in order to prevent suburban sprawl but yet they oppose such a thing in an established neighborhood.  In their established neighborhood. 

Smart growth may work in a utopian environment where the slate is clean to start with and mass transit systems are developed and built to accommodate lifestyles.  But retrofitting established neighborhoods with residents who already have established careers, entertainment and shopping preferences is difficult at best and largely insurmountable, in my opinion.  The evidence continues when one looks at the "Purple Line" metro project between its potential to wreck a popular walking and bike path and a local country club's golf course (regardless of use, it is green space).

So how do liberals support the "smart growth" development in their communities?  Not well.  So why should they accept the "nudging" for higher gas prices when all it does is worsen their quality of life?  And why do they keep electing officials bent on pursuing a course of action with which they don't approve?

Dr. (KN)J on Teachers on Parents on Teachers

Dr. (KN)J, our Royal Mathematician, writes in:

O Most Dread and Noble, etc.

If my recent conversations with public primary and secondary teachers are any indication, you have left a "blame arrow" out of your diagram. All the aforementioned teachers with whom I have spoken place a large chunk of blame on parents who seem to regard K-12 education as a free babysitting service, with the additional requirement of feeding their kids (for parents on the lower socioeconomic stratum) or boosting their precious snowflake's self-esteem (for parents on the upper socioeconomic stratum). To be clear, they acknowledge that there are lots of terrific, involved, supportive parents out there - maybe even a strong majority - but the bad parental apples cause enough disruption to the system so as to be a significant problem.

I'm not sure that this affects your central point at all - less (or no) federal/state involvement means more control of the situation for teachers, who are the only ones really positioned to deal with the rogue parents, though they have little leverage over them. It may be, however, that the collapse of the system currently in place will be a sufficient "2x4 upside the head" for the problem parents that they may have an incentive to work with the teachers in building the system anew. One can always hope...

Dr. (KN)J,
Royal Mathematician to the Gormogons

The Czar Will Not Be Watching the Oscars

Hollywood is all excited about the Oscars tonight; so much so, they will all be stunned about the incredibly low ratings certain to follow. What on earth is wrong with you people, the networks will ask about us. We are giving you are best; talk about pearls before swine.

Well, maybe the low ratings are caused by the same reason that no one is bothering to see your films anymore, Hollywood. Not, not Redbox or Chinese piracy—it’s because you keep putting out an inferior product.

Here are ten ways you can improve the Oscars and bump up your ratings.

1. Start using real actors and actresses again. Take a look at the current nominees: George Clooney? Meryl Streep? Brad Pitt? Max von Sydow? Christopher Plummer? You don’t see a problem here? These folks have been around forever. And the reason you nominate them is because they actually know how to act. The rest are all total newcomers or outsiders; and this is because most of your current crop of actors and actresses are talentless meat puppets. Instead of using the same names over and over, and rewarding the outsiders for their...what is it, bravery? Courage?...start using people who can act.


2. Stop nominating stupid films. Let us predict: which of the following imaginary films would be nominated:
   1. Rumpus. An old-fashioned comedy of errors, in which a woman accidentally inherits her late mother’s advice column, and discovers mom was into some bizarre things.
   2. Thumpers. A doctor races the clock to find a cure for a fast-acting illness before it goes pandemic.
   3. Mercy’s Puppets. A gay grandfather comes out of the closet, only to find his grandson, a war vet disabled by a backstabbing colonel, is a transvestite.
   Not too hard to guess, is it? And that takes all the excitement out, when you consistently go for the implausibly agenda-driven film.


3. Eliminate thank you speeches beyond “Thank you.” No more political grandstanding, no more liberal outrage statements, and cause-of-the-month telethons. Get on, get off. You put people with attention demand disorder on stage, and then wonder why they keep talking? Because you keep the camera on them! This is like pouring gas on a fire, directors! Get your winners off the stage and they go back to their introverted, self-hating neurotic selves, nice and quiet, smiling politely at a tribute to a Bulgarian director they never heard of.


4. Get over your goddamned selves. Seriously! Have you morons figured out how Sasha Baron Cohen has been playing you perfectly all week? And he is going to get what he wanted in the first place? Because you are so tightly wound about how brilliant and professional you all are, you forget to step back and realize how stupid and small-minded you really are. Step back and drop the nose-in-the-air attitudes. Know why you can’t find a decent host, year-after-year? Because you can’t find one the audience likes who will play by your ridiculous hands-off rules.


5. Stop with the nonsense tributes. Remember that Bulgarian director? No, of course not. Your audience, who by the way pays your bills, not only has no idea who Slovodan Kashkiromov was, but will never see one of his films. Frankly, they’re glad he’s dead. The only reason you spent four minutes on his film Two Slavs Drink Coffee is because you are desperate to convince America that you are artists who care little for tentpole popcorn pictures for the filthy lower classes. All you actually do is convince them that you watch stupid, boring movies and care little for your audience.


6. Stop using presenters with double-digit IQs. She strolls out in her silvery dress, and he is to-the-nines in a black tux. They stand nervously, stare at a teleprompter they have never seen before, and read pitifully written dialogue off it. She speaks in a flat monotone, while he visibly moves his eyes from side to side reading the words. Meanwhile, your few remaining viewers do two things: mentally dismiss them as fakes, and also realize these two are serious putzes. If you can’t find Hollywood types who can perform basic reading, go back to a single MC who did it all.


7. Lose the schtick. The problem with schtick is that it is predictable. Let us guess: tonight, Billy Crystal will do a spoof song and dance number. Jack Black will come out and do a juvenile bit. Ben Stiller will come out dressed in a costume and try to make awkward look funny. Tomorrow you will wonder how the Czar knew you would do this; the simple answer is you do it every year.


8. Give up the obvious message. And now the Academy pays tribute to the latest liberal pet cause, by showing how thirteen movies had scenes covering it. No matter how you window dress it, morons, your audience will roll its eyes and go the bathroom. And ironically produce better material than you.


9. Stop insulting the audience’s tastes. Well, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules made more money than all other movies released that month...so we can nominate it for Best Sound Editing With a Melon. And the last Harry Potter movie crushed us badly, so give it a nod with Best Graphic Effect Using Non-Compositional Green Screen. And Captain America made a hell of a lot more money than every anti-war film since 2001, so give it Best Period Costume in a Background Shot nomination. That oughta shut up the riff-raff who pays our salaries.



10. Stop showing awards that no one gives a crap about. The only reason you televise some of these is because if you didn’t, The Help would be all people would see covered. And again, it is because your selection of quality films is so poor that the only way to break up the monotony is to nominate a bunch of other films in categories no one understands.

Yes, Hollywood, you are why the Oscars’s ratings will be lower this year than last. And will continue to drop as your cultural contributions drop to zero.

Dysfunctional Blame Dynamics

As most of ye know, many of your Gormogon spouses are either teachers or work in education. Not Mrs. Volgi. The Czar is not sure what she does, but it appears to involve an odd combination of vivisection, golf, and mining.

Your very Czar’s sainted Царица was describing a strange story from her school, which the Czar regrets he cannot relate because it involves another teacher, strange accusations, and disciplinary hearings that are ongoing. No, no children were harmed by the teacher; in fact, the teacher in question was attempting to help a non-English-speaking student who was about to be railroaded by a painfully incompetent district official about to send the boy to red tape hell. The teacher was accused of insubordination for interfering with the process, even though the process was painfully incorrect and transparently so. The union stepped in and challenged the action, and word is that the teacher will receive a non-binding reprimand and be left alone. Insanity.

But the point of the story is interesting enough. While we like to think in our right-wing bubble about how bad teachers unions are, and how they are admittedly uninterested in teaching kids anything, the Czar has realized (thanks his eternally patient spouse) that we may have oversimplified the problem with education. Rather than thinking of education as a unions versus students, the real problem appears to be a complex dynamic like this, at least based on the patterns the Czar spots in story after story:



Here is what you have. Blame arrows are in red. Support arrows are in blue.

And so the parents blame the unions for everything, but generally support the teachers. The teachers, in turn, blame the state guidelines and constant standardized testing requirements for most of their woes. The teacers also blame and support their unions about 80% to 20% respectively. Teachers also blame the red tape and procedural nightmares put on them by the bureaucrats (school boards, superintendents, principals, and administration). The unions support their teachers—dues first, of course, but they will go to bat for every complaint large or small directed at a teacher; unions also blame the bureaucrats as well for being money-hoarding management types. Bureaucrats support the dollars dumped on them by the federal government, and the federal government loves the red tape and procedural nonsense the bureaucrats are so good at.

Crazy. But notice what we have intentionally left out: the state doesn’t seem to support anybody. Nor do they blame anyone: they dwell in their own mirage about what constitutes educational standards and let the pieces fall where they may. Parents unwisely never seem to blame the state or the feds or the bureaucrats for their woes. The unions are alo comfortable with the state and the feds (and often get along well), and care not a whit about the parents. And so on.

Don’t dismiss this graphic as frivolous. Indeed, the next time you hear one of these groups complaining about another, this graphic will match up.

So let us consider. What would happen if, as both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich independently suggest, the federal government got out of the education business? And, if (they further suggest) the state backed out gradually as well?

Bureaucrats would lose their chief source of funding and direction, for one thing. With the loss of power, bureaucrats would become more answerable to parents—who presently have little interaction with parents on an organizational level. The unions would lose leverage against them as well, since they would have no one to blame but themselves. And teachers would be able to better control their unions, as the majority of teachers dislike their unions but currently view them as a necessary evil to oppose the bureaucrats.

This idea of forcing the feds out of education basically collapses this dysfunctional dynamic. The Czar has to think that the transition would be rough, but would ultimately benefit the one category not shown here: the kids.

Raising Millennials

Times change and parenting adapts, maybe somewhat like the law with technology, slowly to the shifting landscape in which we raise our children.  Borrowing a theme from a recent speaker on internet and child safety and aligning it with some recent GorT family goings-on, I thought I'd post a few thoughts.

Your Gormogons are all "Gen Xers" (I'm not up for debating that label nor its common perceptions or misconceptions) so as we grew up there were two ways into the home.  Into meaning to meet in some way to discuss the social plans of adolescents. First, there was the front door.  Friends (including boyfriends or girlfriends) would go to the front door and be admitted.  For the most part, the parents knew who was coming in and out of the house.  Second, there was the house phone.  Most of us grew up with two phones in the house - the first was in your parents' bedroom which was either off-limits or avoided and the second was the "house phone" located in a central location like the kitchen or family room.  It was a corded phone so conversations took place in or near that central location.  Plans were made "in person" (either by a person to person conversation or face to face) and largely within earshot of other family members.

Our offspring have a different landscape and one that proves difficult for parents.  There are multiple ways "into" the home: the front door and house phone still exist (although some houses are ditching the "home phone" and going all cellular) but now we have cell phones, game consoles, networked devices like the iTouch or iPad, computers, laptops, even your BluRay DVD player or TV may be networked and your satellite or cable provider provides internet or internet-like access via those devices.  Compound all these access methods by the instant gratification services that social networking provides (Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Flickr, etc.) and it gets complicated fast.  We still deal with similar issues that face our parents and their parents before them: drugs, alcohol, sex.  But we need to deal with it in a new way.  Our job is hindered, to some degree, by a push for individual privacy - which is kind of a joke when one considers just how much information we willingly put out to publicly available places.  There have been successful experiments to guess the older mode of Social Security Numbers (newer SSNs don't use the same issuing-location prefixes that the older SSNs do) using what people have publicly put on their Facebook pages.

What GorT has observed in his neighborhood, is a range of parental responses.  These likely map to parental responses to raising children in the past - but the amount and means of information exchange has exploded.  First, there are the parents who attempt to stay informed and provide the boundaries for their children.  These parents might limit access to some things (cell phones, SNS sites, etc.) or do so with some oversight - sharing of login information, reviewing text messages sent & received, etc.  The perception of a child sitting in some corner of the house or in their room, texting to make plans is one of secrecy.  It goes further when one considers the slang and shorthand used by children some of which are explicit warnings about parents observing their behavior.

Second are the parents who talk like they are the parents above, but fail to execute.  Sometimes, it's simply that the child knows the technology better than the parent and the parent can't anticipate or learn it quickly enough.  Some will rely upon the first set of parents to help while others will operate more like the next set of parents.

Third are the parents who don't seem to care.  Yes, they love their children but in practice they are either too naïve or they are guilted into allowing behavior that they would otherwise not allow by their children ("my friends are allowed to do it" (lie - it's likely the other children's parents wouldn't let them either), "everyone else is doing it" (insert lemmings/cliff speech that we've all heard here), etc.  Problems arise when a child of the first set is friends with a child of the third set. 

If it isn't clear, GorT strives to be in that first group.  And it's constant work.  Do we slip up?  Sure.  And to those that may take issue with us reading childrens' text messages, Facebook posts, etc., I'd say: (a) they are our children and our responsibility and (b) the phone service, internet service, computer, etc. that they are using has been paid for by us so technically, they have no cell phone, they are only borrowing mine.

Recently, a group of boys in GorT's Replicant #1's class were observed wandering the local streets at a very late hour and it later came to light that they had helped themselves to some Vodka from one of their parents' cabinets.  In a tight community such as ours, word got around fast and I can't begin to imagine the embarrassment this caused the parents as I'm sure wind of the various rumors made their way through the neighborhood.

Now abstract that to behavior with a social networking site or text messages or even picture/video texts.  How well does your child control what their friends do with a text or picture that they willingly send to them?  Do they know who else gets it?  Do they know how it's presented to others?

This is hard stuff to deal with but if you're a parent willing to let your 13 year old daughter wander the streets of the local city in the dark, even though it's a decent neighborhood and not a really late hour, with people that you are unaware have been invited and with no set plans, you may want to give it a second thought.  I'd wager she fed you a lie or provided some vague description about what she's doing.  And if you believe that she'll make the right decisions, then why isn't she being upfront with you?

I use the term "millennials" loosely to mean those born roughly from the mid-1980s until the early 2000s.  Others may differ, but this suffices for this post.

Quinn Flexes Tiny Muscle; Not Impressed

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, who has been lovingly described as politics’ biggest coward—well, heck, you remember him. He led the revolt against Blagojevich, took the title of governor away, announced widespread reforms, and promptly began doing the same crap every Democratic governor does: he raced other states down to the 50th spot. He is now a dismal little man, who solves every problem by throwing money no one has at it.

But not any more! Liberal Chicago-based media wants you to know that he is now one tough hombre. Why, he released his budget and announced that serious cuts are coming! We live in dark times! No more of this free money nonsense! He is closing some mental health facilities and a handful of under-utilized prisons.

Big deal. To his credit, he has actually done this. To his further credit, Quinn has announced that this isn’t anything; the entire issue of pensions, which seems to be the one thing bankrupting Illinois, must be dealt with sooner rather than later. Of course, he hasn’t done anything so far but worsen them; he only gets credit for admitting that public-sector unions are a bad idea.

Worse, Quinn must realize he lives under the haunting specter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who actually did do the courageous thing by fighting union greed in his state. Although it may—may—cost Walker his job, he reformed the union pension plans and in less than two years turned a nearly bankrupt Wisconsin into a state with a surplus. Smartly, he hired union teachers with some of that money, which puts the union in a hypocritical position. If you want your pensions back, we fire the teachers you claim you need. If you want to keep the teachers, which you say is your number one goal, you forfeit some of your union rights. Choose.

That is political courage. And Quinn knows it; whether he decides to emulate his tougher brother to the North is up to him. The Czar isn’t betting a Democrat will.

The Least American Thing We Do

For many years, the Czar didn’t think much about abortion; pregnancy was not a position he was likely to be in, after all. We certainly knew that a male could have any opinion on it he wanted, but ultimately only a pregnant woman—complete with physical, emotional, and hormonal changes that come with pregnancy—would ever really understand all the ramifications.

Curiously, this is the opinion of many liberals; these folks advocate pro-choice, eschew the government putting its “hands on women,” and that a woman should be in control over her own body. Beyond that, you never want to think past this superficial point. But this, of course, is a crock—there are two other people involved: the father, to some degree, is affected by the decision, but most critically, the baby is affected by the decision unlike no other.

There is an old story about the chicken and the pig, discussing breakfast. The chicken complains that she has to lay an egg every day for the farmer’s breakfast, and that she has no say in this. She would appreciate having some choice in the matter. The pig laughs and says he has the worse end of the deal. “After all, you’re involved,” agrees the pig, “but I’m committed.”

The point of this parable is to remind listeners that the hardest working person in a situation may not be as important as the one most affected. In business, this is a vital lesson. In discussions of abortions, this reality is denied by the Left. The mother may request a choice, but what about the baby?

If you are an American, you likely grew up in a culture that continually pushed for the underdog. As an American, you were told time and again to stick up for the little guy; protect those who cannot help themselves; help the helpless. This theme repeats itself throughout our history, our popular stories, our etiquette, and even our sports—not many folks around the world applaud when an injured member of the opposing team gets up and signals he’s okay, yet fall eerily silent when the injury occurred. Being an American means protecting the ones who need protection.

Turn that idea back to abortion, and you see why so many people have a hard time talking about it. Abortion is the least American thing we do: you can draw a smiley face on it and call it pro-choice, and say it is all about the mother protecting her body (from what, by the way?). But ultimately it is a violent, abhorrent murder against the absolute most defenseless people in our society—the sleeping fetus.

The Czar expresses some satisfaction that a growing number of conservatives and anti-abortion liberals are changing the terminology away from pro-choice, since the term is meaningless when the fetus has no choice. Instead, the terms pro-life and pro-infanticide are gaining currency. This has a powerful psychological effect in the discussion because it kicks away the crutch that this is only about women.

Calling this a pro-infanticide position names it exactly what it is, and makes the superficial thinker realize the reach of the conversation. The Czar suspects that most people who tolerate abortion do so only because they limit their thinking to what they can accept: a medical procedure done to a woman. But get them to realize the impact to the fetus, and you jar their thinking along more responsible lines.

Does it work? Right now, Americans are statistically moving away from abortion: the margin is too slim for our tastes, but currently more Americans reject infanticide than accept it. The shift has begun, and that means there is momentum.

Arizona Debate Roundup: Wow, the GOP is Sick

CNN hosted what they called the last debate of 2012. Promises! Except of course Oregon has one scheduled for March. Anyway, in the order they were seated at incredibly tiny tables, here is your debate roundup.

Ron Paul was very much his old self. Ask him about immigration, he talks about pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Ask him about education, and he talks about Washington politics. Rambling, incoherent at times, and still very much the guy at the barbershop who has a simplistic opinion on everything, Ron Paul continues to convince voters that he is woefully out of touch with what is happening in the real world, and only a stubborn purchase of simplistic ideas will work. For example, when asked post-debate whether his trillion-dollar cut would hurt the economy, he said it didn’t after World War II, when spending was cut 60%. But that was a vastly different situation; look at 1991-1992 when defense cutbacks helped kick us into a bad recession. Now septuple that. Ron Paul’s act is getting tiresome.

Yeah, things didn’t go well for Rick Santorum tonight. Sure, he knew he was going to get dog-piled, and he had an answer for everything. But that’s exactly the problem: he had an answer for everything: a long, carefully worded, exceptionally claused answer. Ron Paul quipped, very accurately, that Santorum always seems to have an excuse for everything. Look, it isn’t that Santorum was wrong on any of his answers; it’s just that his responses were too focused on the reality of politics—yeah, earmarks are part of the job. Yes, he voted for Title X only because he wanted funding for a competing program. Yes, he supported No Child Left’s Behind to be part of the team. Alas, when a candidate is that obsessed with real pragmatism, it generally means he or she lacks vision. Ron Paul is popular in some circles because he continually asks why and why not. Santorum needs to realize that not every answer needs to begin with Because. The Czar likes the guy, but tonight Santorum looked like a guy being overly evasive on a job interview.

Mitt Romney brought a bit of heat against Santorum tonight, and had a lot of supporters cheering for him, but he still comes off as arrogant and rehearsed. He still has no answers to serious questions about his more liberal record, still copies a lot of the other guys’s answers, and still seems like he is experimenting with clever catch phrases. And the more he insists he is the most conservative person there, the more awkward it seems. Hey, have you seen the photos of Mitt Romney when he isn’t acting like a plank of wood? Maybe he could be that guy during his debates and he might come out looking like, well, a person. The granddad in these pictures looks like a totally likeable guy. So where is he?

Also, Newt Gingrich was there, and CNN learned to give him as little time as possible. Nice touch, when CNN cut to the audience to show Rick Perry and Mrs. Gingrich looking completely bored while Newt Gingrich was speaking. Gingrich certainly seemed to spend a lot of his little speaking time agreeing with the other candidates, which basically makes him unnecessary at this point except for hammed up cheap shots at the media. Nothing new with Newt Gingrich, and based on some of his other literally lunar claims, that was refreshing.

Best moment? The discussion on Iran and Syria. Santorum, as an expert on the subject, lit up and explained a lot of technical information quickly and easily; Romney and Gingrich concurred completely. Ron Paul looked incredibly nervous and did his plea for transparent cowardice. As president, he doesn’t want to go to war because it would bring back the draft, which he hates. Paul, who exactly is commander-in-chief during your presidency? The only one who would bring back the draft is you. Admit it—you lack the stones for the job.

Worst moment? The discussion on birth control. The audience booed CNN for asking it, but no matter: they all decided to talk and talk and talk...and talk and talk...about how they shouldn’t talk about it.

GOP: you failed to talk about President Obama enough. Here is what the public heard: Paul is a whackjob, Santorum will give you a long answer about why something is never his fault, Romney likes ObamaCare, and Gingrich has some thirty-seven-part program to fix something or other. Oh, and the economy seems to be completely fixed thanks to Obama.

The Czar is stunned that it is nearly March, and the President’s national polling numbers are actually above 50% over any of these guys. They should be in the teens, gentlemen. Start controlling the messages.

It Ain't Working There, Why Would It Work Here?

The U.K. instituted a type of "Buffett rule" last year:

The new rate will affect the 300,000 highest earners in the UK, out of the 29 million people who pay income tax.  It will be levied on taxable incomes greater than £150,000 a year and aims to raise an extra £2.4bn by next year.
The 600,000 people who earn more than £100,000 a year will have their personal tax allowance eroded too, raising £1.5bn for the government.  Together with increased tax on pension contributions, which starts next year, the UK's top 600,000 earners are expected to be paying an extra £7.5bn a year in tax.

It was cautioned against there but the government pressed forward and instituted it.  Now, the first signs of its effects are coming to light as the self-assessment forms are coming due in the U.K.  

The controversial 50p tax band is 'not working' and revenues have fallen since it was introduced, new figures suggest.
In January, the tax take from those who do self-assessment tax returns collapsed by more than £500million, compared with the same month in 2011. They fell from £10.86billion to £10.35billion.
The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

Cut spending, stupid.  Address the core problem: entitlement programs, stupid.

Abundance

Those that follow us know that I'm a big fan of technology.  Not technology for technology-sake nor for the lay-about's benefit, but rather technology to improve and address problems we face.  Furthermore, those that know me, know that I'm an optimist.  So this timely piece in the WSJ book review (courtesy of GorT, Sr.) hit home.  A few excerpts:

If every image made and every word written from the earliest stirring of civilization to the year 2003 were converted to digital information, the total would come to five exabytes. An exabyte is one quintillion bytes, or one billion gigabytes—or just think of it as the number one followed by 18 zeros. That's a lot of digital data, but it's nothing compared with what happened from 2003 through 2010: We created five exabytes of digital information every two days. Get ready for what's coming: By next year, we'll be producing five exabytes every 10 minutes. How much information is that? The total for 2010 of 912 exabytes is the equivalent of 18 times the amount of information contained in all the books ever written. The world is not just changing, and the change is not just accelerating; the rate of the acceleration of change is itself accelerating.

Information: A Masai warrior with a smartphone on Google has access to more information than the president of the United States did just 15 years ago.
Technology: Today more people have access to a cellphone than to a toilet.
Computing: In 15 years, the average $1,000 laptop is likely to be computing at the rate of the human brain.
Education: The Khan Academy's YouTube tutorial videos on more than 2,200 topics, from algebra to zoology, draw two million viewings a month from online students around the world.
Medicine: The field of personalized medicine based on genetic information—an industry that didn't exist a decade ago—is now growing at 15% a year and will reach $452 billion by 2015.
Aging: The centenarian population is doubling every decade; it was 455,000 in 2009 and will reach four million by 2050. 

Given all the talk nowadays about income inequality, the authors' discussion of poverty is especially instructive. The number of people in the world living in absolute poverty has fallen by more than half since the 1950s. At the current rate of decline it will reach zero by around 2035. Groceries today cost 13 times less than 150 years ago in inflation-adjusted dollars. In short, the standard of living has improved: 95% of Americans now living below the poverty line have not only electricity and running water but also Internet access, a refrigerator and a television—luxuries that Andrew Carnegie's millions couldn't have bought at any price a century ago.

It sounds like a very interesting read.

Mailbag - Phantom Menace Edition

Dr. J. received a couple of missives regarding his post last week regarding The Phantom Menace in 3D. The first is from none other than Merlin, himself. You can read him at Merlin's Musings. And you should check in daily. We do...

He writes:

Dear Dr. J, 

It is with much trepidation and trembling that I write in to offer a possible correction. 

I ask that you excuse all the lighting rods currently in my office. My heart is still occasionally arrythmic from your last, ahem, demonstration of the power of the dark side. 

Now, where was I? Ah, yes. 

You mention that SW:TPM was filmed on 35mm back in 1999. 

That is not my recollection. 

I can't find the articles now, but I have distinct memories of Lucas using all-digital cameras for all the prequel movies. In fact, there was only one screen that showed the movie where I lived at the time, because it was all the theatre could afford to upgrade to the digital projection equipment. I'm pretty sure that it was actually never released on standard film at all, but remained a 100% digital movie. 

There's also the fact that northward of 90% of the movie was full-on digital, whether scenery or other CGI effects. 

Sincerely, 

-- Merlin  

Dr. J. was getting ready to strike him down, so that he could become more powerful than you could possibly imagine, and he wrote back.

Well, it appears that I was wrong. 

"Though it boasts over 2,000 visual effects shots featuring digital animation, environments and compositing, Episode I was captured and released on film."

Feeling merciful, we shall move on...

Operative JA also wrote in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin 

Operative JA

Interesting that you bring this up. Yes, Dr. J. spelled Pidgin wrong. He was tired, and it was late.

But Dr. J. also found this paper, some guy wrote for his linguistics class and published on his blog.  The author's thesis is that when you look at the script (or in Dr. J.'s case, the novelization), Jar Jar makes sense and doesn't come across as a total buffoon. That is because Gungan Basic (the Pidgin dialect that Jar Jar speaks) has rules.

The problem is that Ahmed Best, the actor who portrayed Jar Jar ad libed, and his consequent breaking of the rules made it even more painful for us to put up with him on screen than George Lucas's direction was already doing for the character. George should have realized he was f-ing up and make him stick to the dialogue as written.

Our language centers are very finicky things and we can call shenanigans on jibberish. This is why Klingonese, and Tolkien's Elven resonate with their fan bases, and also why we loathe Esperanto.

Despite being synthetic, each of them work as languages. Even Gungan Basic was crafted to work, but an ignorant actor and inattentive director messed it up.

Remember, man.

Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris

 Remember, man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return.

Welcome to the 2012 Lenten season!  A season that starts today, Ash Wednesday.  For you non-Papists out there, that's why you'll see a number of folks walking around with smudge marks on our foreheads.  These ashes are traditionally made from the blessed remains of burnt Palm Sunday palms from previous years and your parish may not collect palms to burn in order to make their own.  A word on your old palms, they are blessed and should be burned when they have reached the end of their days in your home.  The ash may be sprinkled in your yard or garden.

Oddly enough, today is not a Holy Day of Obligation in the Roman Catholic Church.  Catholics are encouraged to attend Mass and receive ashes.  Catholics between the ages of 18 and 60 are called to fast - eating only one full meal with up to two other smaller meals (some believe that the sum of the two smaller meals should not exceed the size of the large meal to provide a scope to the meals).  Catholics who are 14 years of age or older are required to abstain from meat today (and on subsequent Fridays until Easter).

Worth noting, Lent is said to be 40 days which confuses some.  First, let's start with the date of Easter.  It is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox as set by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.  This is why its date varies in the Gregorian calendar.  But that gives us 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday - what gives?  Well, Sunday is the sabbath, so Sundays are removed from Lent leaving 40 days.  Now there is one wrinkle: St. Joseph's Day (once the Solemnity of St. Joseph, but it has been relegated to a simple Feast Day) is celebrated on March 19th in the Roman Catholic Church (or moved for specific calendar circumstances).  If that day falls on a Friday, the abstinence requirement is lifted.  In some dioceses, bishops may grant dispensations from abstinence on St. Patrick's day as well.

So, when you see someone with ashes on their forehead, wish them a good Lent rather than the: hey, you've got dirt on your forehead or is that dry erase marker on your forehead or the plain eyes darting back and forth from your eyes to your hairline.