Category: Random Thoughts

Excuse me, what exactly are some of these people thinking? I have just read that CSI is the least family friendly show on prime time television. What on earth makes any rational adult think that a show whose title is “Crime Scene Investigation” would be fun for the whole family? Do these same parents lament that they just can’t get close enough to actual crime scenes with their children?

The “10 worst” list was essentially 10 shows I would not dream of letting a small child watch. It includes “Fear Factor” and “NYPD Blue.” If I am not mistaken, most of these shows are on at the last available prime-time slot, 10 PM Eastern and Pacific. That means that just maybe the younger kids should be asleep already, or at least getting ready for bed. Their parents probably wonder why they have trouble paying attention in school too.

Equally surprising to me is that some obvious candidates are not on this list. What about “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit”? That is a show so hard edged that I no longer watch it, even though I really like most of the characters. Let me know if they ever start “Law and Order: Munch and Tutuola Ride Around in a Squad Car All Day Talking About Stuff.” For that matter, what little I have seen of the new “Dragnet” series marks it as “not family viewing.”

These people are the reason Cartoon Network has to preface a show with a disclaimer to the effect that it is intended for mature audiences, despite the fact that it is in a block of shows titled “Adult Swim” and in shown at midnight. What? Am I saying that just because it is animated doesn’t mean it’s child friendly? Darn right, that’s what I’m saying.

What point is there in having a TV rating system if we cannot agree that anything that has been rated “TV14” or “TV MA” is simply not appropriate family viewing? Isn’t that what these designations are for? For goodness sake, the people who made the show are begging Mom and Dad to not park little kids in front of these shows.

Here’s a radical idea: how about the parents of the world exercise a little bit of common sense.

The last Volkswagen Beetle has officially rolled off the assembly line. In production continuously for the last seven decades, this is truly the end of an era. Over 21 million Beetles have been manufactured over the years. It holds the record for most vehicles of one name without a substantive redesign, having surpassed the Ford Model T: a record unlikely to be broken again. It has inspired customization for decades. Even though the original Beetle has not been available in the United States for over 20 years, owners still love them, covet them, trick them out, keep them running. There are at least 2 magazines devoted to them, and countless small shops that do everything from selling replica bud vases to engine and transmission building to complete restorations. The original Beetle was a great car, and an engineering masterwork.

Maybe you remember having owned a VW. Maybe it was a bullet-proof single owner air-cooled model that faithfully got you to school or work for years and years. Maybe you even got it from your Dad, who only grudgingly handed you the keys after having loved it for years himself. Perhaps it was a used air-cooled model which required service so often you kept a toolbox and a copy of the Muir book in the trunk. Maybe it was a Rabbit or Jetta that you literally drove until the wheels fell off, and you were a little sad the day you finally traded it for something newer and more “practical.” Maybe it was a Jetta or Scirocco you are sorry you ever laid eyes on. Maybe it was a fully restored beauty that you built from the formerly rusted-out floorpan on up.

I have historically been a Volkswagen person myself. About a dozen have graced our driveway over the years, from Beetles and Superbeetles, Microbusses, all the way to Jettas and New Beetles. We have owned so many various Volksies that I was once asked by a VW mechanic if there was any VW I had not owned. This being said, I do not think I will be owning another Volkswagen any year soon. There are two reasons. First there is the issue of quality. German engineering just isn’t what it used to be. The brilliant Porsche designs of yesteryear are forever gone, leaving only a mystique in its wake. My last VW was, granted, purchased used, but in 6 months I spent half its initial cost in repairs. The moment of truth came the last time I left the service department, having just paid $500 for a repair I knew cost as little as $100 on other vehicles. On the way out the service manager was kind enough to remind me that I was almost due for a routine service checkout — an additional $500. The next day, I bought a new car, the kind with a  warranty. I am not the only person whose mechanic influenced a change away from Volkswagen. I realize that anecdotes are not data, but the various automotive reviewers seem to think that reliability is an issue, too. It is telling that even Hyundai offers a longer warranty than VW.

The second big problem with VW is the price tag. What are the competitors to the Jetta? I think most Americans would agree that the short list includes the Honda Civic, the Toyota Corolla, and maybe an American model like the Dodge Stratus. All small but not teeny sedans. All available with a variety of amenities. However, all of them can be had, comparably equipped, for several thousand dollars less than the Jetta. That’s a lot of money for what is arguably a less reliable vehicle. Of course, that difference is before the generous purchase incentives that VW is not offering, while its competition is.

The comparisons get worse should you move up to the Passat, a beautiful if overpriced larger sedan. For Passat money, you have to seriously ask yourself if you shouldn’t at least drive by the BMW or Mercedes dealer. You might end up with a slightly smaller vehicle, but with oh so much more perceived class.

Should we even discuss the new Touareg? With base price starting at over $35,000, this SUV is only a bargain when seen as a cheap version of the Porsche Cayenne. No matter what VW would like to believe, people contemplating the purchase of a Cadillac or a Lexus SUV are not considering a stop at the Volkswagen dealer. Not even to kick tires. Not even to play with the salesman’s head.

These facts have added up to bad financial news for Volkswagen. In addition, they have problems concerning the German economy, the exchange rate of the Euro, Brazilian land rights, and expensive labor. All of these make the quality and price problems even worse, of course.

I come to bury the Volkswagen, not to praise it.

Now make no mistake! I like my car, and I like driving it. I like getting around town whenever and by whatever route I choose.

The car has made suburbia possible, along with it’s unpleasant sibling, urban sprawl. It has given rise to great shopping palaces, and in some cases destroyed downtown retail districts. The car makes it possible to cross town in a timely fashion, regardless of bus schedules, and thus undercuts the feasibility of mass transit. The car gives unprecedented independence to millions of adults, including some who should possibly give that independence up, and those who perhaps should never have had it. While the car makes gainful employment possible for millions of people, they are expensive to purchase and maintain; they are a major budgetary drain on the finances of many families.

The car is also a source of pollution, including suspected greenhouse gasses. This has resulted in many states mandating regular emissions testing — a minor inconvenience to most, but a potentially disastrous expense for some. Cars are a contributor to American dependence on foreign oil. They are death on wheels to hundreds of thousands of people each year. Collectively, Americans lose years of time on freeways commuting in rush hour traffic. There is no positive aspect to counterbalance these issues.

Since it seems clear that the EPA knows more about making regulations than helping communities implement them, and that furthermore tax reform and simplification is not apt to happen any decade soon, I have a modest proposal. <Give a tax break to people who live within 5 miles of their primary work address. This can be verified by Zip code of employee and employer, although large multi-location employers may have to add the address of the work facility to the W-2 form. At the same time, a tax break could be given to both companies and employees that telecommute. Maybe even a plain old fashioned deduction for mass transit monthly passes, although I admit that many people who take the bus currently do not have enough deductions to itemize.

This proposal makes mass transit a reasonable alternative to driving oneself. It also makes car-pooling more realistic. It has the potential to revitalize urban areas. It opens the possibility that some people will choose to walk or bike to work. That could only have a positive impact on the American obesity epidemic. In any event, those who still choose to drive to work will spend less time in traffic — even those who still live relatively far from their jobs. In addition to wasting less time, wasting less energy, creating less pollution, workers may actually end up spending more time with their families, more time to participate in their communities.

Under this idea, nobody will be prevented from owning the biggest baddest SUV he can afford to gas up. Instead, individuals will be encouraged to choose complementary home and work locations. I doubt many people will move 3 miles to get the deduction, but for those moving to a new town it will be a valid consideration. It may encourage developers to think in terms of larger communities with nearby businesses and sidewalks, instead of a few hundred houses here and there.

Many thanks to those of you clicking through from other sources. In addition to those of you who came on the recommendation of JerryKindall.com, I’d like to welcome folks who came here via Technorati, Weblogs.com, Google, and Blogsphere. We are also now listed on MIT’s Blogdex project. I sincerely hope you find ShortWoman to be something you enjoy reading and thinking about.

Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) is a large, quazi-government corporation whose purpose is to make sure there is adequate funding for consumer mortgages. It usually does this by buying mortgages from lenders, freeing the lenders to go out and lend money to someone else (“making a liquid market in mortgage backed securities”). In the process, they are able to use economic means to stifle predatory and discriminatory lending practices. Fannie Mae also happens to make a lot of money doing this ($5.25B). Enough money that they can pay some $20M to the three-letter types and still send out an annual dividend of $1.56 to holders of their 978 million shares. That’s over $1.5 billion in dividends per year. The dividend alone is more than 4300 times the maximum conventional mortgage. FNMA is big. Some would argue it is too big to be allowed to fail.

But that is not today’s topic; instead I would like to direct your attention to their advertising. You wouldn’t think there’d be a lot of advertising, since after all they deal primarily with banks and mortgage companies. They actually have a surprising amount of advertising. Some of it is occasionally found on business and news oriented media. Some of it is in the form of sponsorship of organizations such as NPR. All of it is designed to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about home ownership.

All these are quotes from their website: “The American Dream of home ownership.” “Because having a safe place to call home strengthens families, communities, and our nation as a whole. ” “Revitalizing neighborhoods and creating affordable housing opportunities for over 20 years.” “A home of our own is a dream come true and symbolizes who we are.” “Homeownership has the power to green-line both neighborhoods and nest eggs.” A past ad even suggests that homeownership is directly linked to better schools.

Implied is the idea that owning real estate will magically make life happy. A house should be the foundation of your finances! You are nobody unless you own a house! Do they really think you are stupid enough to think nobody owns houses in crime-ridden, run-down communities? Are they saying that apartment dwellers are somehow not holding their own in American society? That renters by default do not live in safe places or strong neighborhoods? That anybody with stable finances should surely own, not rent, their residence?

As someone with experience in property management, I find these implications insulting, as should you. There are people who own houses in bad neighborhoods, and people whose houses are a drain on the finances, people for whom this particular American Dream is a nightmare. There are people who rent houses and apartments in good neighborhoods, and people who rent for a variety of reasons, few of which are monetary.

FNMA does some good things. They do not need to tug on Joe Average’s heartstrings to make the mortgage market liquid. Should there turn out to be a “housing bubble,” such sentimental claptrap must be accorded a fair share of the blame. They should lose these ads now.

Workplace violence is a depressingly common occurrence. Most of it is small stuff, but occasionally something so large happens that it makes national news. Such a thing happened this week. An employee at an aircraft plant stormed out of an ethics and sensitivity seminar, shouted “Y’all can handle this!” and returned minutes later with both a rifle and a shotgun. He killed 5 people and injured 9 others before taking his own life. Nobody yet knows why.

This was apparently not the first time Mr. Williams had such counseling. He was said to be a hothead who had problems with black people. The union steward for the plant says there have been many “concerns” expressed by his coworkers over the years. Afterwards, none of his coworkers were surprised who the shooter had been. One victim’s husband had heard her concerns that he would hurt someone several times over the years. He described Williams as “obviously sick.”

Security expert Gavin de Becker, in his landmark book The Gift of Fear, tells us that normal, sane people do not lash out in violence unless pushed to the point that violence seems the only logical choice. Williams was by all accounts not a normal, sane person. De Becker furthermore posits that the vast majority of workplace violence can be prevented by adequate employee screening. In short, if you pay attention during the hiring process — check references, note reactions to questions — you can weed out the people most likely to become violent in your workplace. If this is not a laudable goal, then I don’t know what is.

Williams’s bosses put up with behavior that caused his coworkers to worry for a decade and a half. This surely impacted the workplace, possibly drove away really good people who went on to jobs where they did not have to deal with this nut. And this was before he killed, wounded, and gave post-traumatic stress syndrome to his coworkers. I am willing to bet he wasn’t very productive either.

If you are in charge of hiring, you cannot afford not to pay attention.

I have spent the last little bit of time reading HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux. This proceeds from the thesis “Why are there so few women in Linux” to the obvious subsequent question, “What can be done about it.” Unfortunately, the author fails to ask “Is there really a lower percentage of women in Linux than other areas of computing?”

In the introduction three overheard questions are posed:

My girlfriend hates Windows, how can I encourage her to use Linux?” This is rather like asking “My girlfriend is unhappy with her car. How can I encourage her to get a Mustang just like mine?” A more enlightened person might wish to know why she hates her current operating system, why she is still using it, and what alternatives she has considered.

“Almost no women attend my local LUG [Linux Users Group]. How can I fix this?” How does this compare to the gender breakdown of other local inherently geek-laden events? Or is it possible that your local LUG meeting is at a time or place undesirable to female geeks? Like the same evening across town from the Marion Zimmer Bradley Fan Club Meeting? Identify the problem and its cause before seeking solutions. That’s called “Science.”

“Why aren’t there more women in open source?” Why aren’t there more women in programming in general?

Luckily for us, the author addresses my rebuttal question in chapter 2. The valid points are unfortunately interspersed with red herrings and spurious arguments. It boils down to a collection of sexism both real and imagined, seasoned lightly with both real and perceived differences between men and women.

Chapter 3 is our handy Do And Don’t List. To be brief, Don’t be a sexist or a jerk. Be a decent human being. Indeed, these are fine tips for any workplace. Please, don’t save them for the Linux Users Group meeting.

I am only a feminist inasmuch as I think being a woman should not automatically close doors to me or insure that I earn less. Oh, and I think it would be great if there were less violence in the world in general, particularly against women. Sexism is real, but in the end I feel this article sees a lot more sexism in the world than really exists. Of course no mere man is allowed to say so; it takes a woman. I furthermore think that most of the examples of sexism used in this document could be neutralized with a slightly thicker skin and a witty retort.