I had a birthday yesterday and it gave me an excellent time to reflect on how much changed in a year.
My work was the same but I had more to work for. I had an amazing day, thanks to the beautiful Liz Homsher. For someone to plan such an awesome night - sushi which I love but she hates, Robocop which she had no desire to see - is the sign of something, someone special.
A lot changed in a year but it was for the good.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Another example of free content paying dividends
Yes, I'm self interested in pointing out why it's a good idea for content creators to give away free material. I could never afford to read everything I do, since I go through about two books a week. So I live off of libraries.
But it pays dividends for good authors. Take Jonathan Maberry with his Rot and Ruin series. I read most from the library but bought a Kindle copy of the last book, Fire and Ash. I also bought hard copies to get signed.
And I just checked out Rot and Ruin from the library for my nephew. If he likes it, I will buy him the set.
That's five confirmed sales with another four potential, all off of free content.
But it pays dividends for good authors. Take Jonathan Maberry with his Rot and Ruin series. I read most from the library but bought a Kindle copy of the last book, Fire and Ash. I also bought hard copies to get signed.
And I just checked out Rot and Ruin from the library for my nephew. If he likes it, I will buy him the set.
That's five confirmed sales with another four potential, all off of free content.
The Cowardice of Mammon
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love
the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon." James 6:24
No truer proof of this phrase can be seen than in Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1062. This came after a howl of protest and boycott threats to the state, including the potential loss of the Super Bowl.
Business will always look out for business. The bottom line is what matters. That's one of the things that makes capitalism work, enlightened self-interest. But sometimes self-interest in one area, profits, trumps the public interest, freedom of religion.
This is the reason that conservatives and libertarians should not reflexively treat business interests as natural allies. We may occasionally have mutual interests but often do not.
Think of the big government bailouts of banking or car companies. No conservative can easily stomach the use of taxpayer funds to so blatantly interfere in the free market.
Think of amnesty proposals or the desire to flood the market with H-1B visas. Business interests want cheap labor no matter the consequences for American workers or what an influx of millions of voters who favor the expansion of Big Government will do to our political and social life.
And now think of betraying an effort to protect the religious liberty of Christians in an effort to stave off the threat of boycotts.
No truer proof of this phrase can be seen than in Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1062. This came after a howl of protest and boycott threats to the state, including the potential loss of the Super Bowl.
Business will always look out for business. The bottom line is what matters. That's one of the things that makes capitalism work, enlightened self-interest. But sometimes self-interest in one area, profits, trumps the public interest, freedom of religion.
This is the reason that conservatives and libertarians should not reflexively treat business interests as natural allies. We may occasionally have mutual interests but often do not.
Think of the big government bailouts of banking or car companies. No conservative can easily stomach the use of taxpayer funds to so blatantly interfere in the free market.
Think of amnesty proposals or the desire to flood the market with H-1B visas. Business interests want cheap labor no matter the consequences for American workers or what an influx of millions of voters who favor the expansion of Big Government will do to our political and social life.
And now think of betraying an effort to protect the religious liberty of Christians in an effort to stave off the threat of boycotts.
One color in the rainbow
So gay activists would have us believe they are champions of diversity and tolerance.
That is, unless you disagree them. That kind of diversity they cannot tolerate as we can see from the boycott threats that caused Governor Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062 in Arizona, the bill that would have protected the right of conscience of religious business owners.
Gay activists say that they want tolerance and that's a pretty reasonable desire. I don't think anyone, even those who take the Bible's strictures against homosexual activities seriously, would argue that we should treat homosexuals with any less respect than they would want.
By the same token, you would think gay activists would understand and extend tolerance to those who feel, for religious reasons, that they cannot endorse homosexual behavior.
They don't. It is not enough to live and let live. Gay activists want to literally force you to come to their parties, whether you're a photographer or baker. No matter that celebrating what the Bible clearly defines as a sin goes against their religious beliefs, if you do not celebrate homosexual relationships, you will be sued.
This is not tolerance. This is not allowing diversity of beliefs.
Gays took the rainbow as their symbol. But in their world, there is only one color.
That is, unless you disagree them. That kind of diversity they cannot tolerate as we can see from the boycott threats that caused Governor Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062 in Arizona, the bill that would have protected the right of conscience of religious business owners.
Gay activists say that they want tolerance and that's a pretty reasonable desire. I don't think anyone, even those who take the Bible's strictures against homosexual activities seriously, would argue that we should treat homosexuals with any less respect than they would want.
By the same token, you would think gay activists would understand and extend tolerance to those who feel, for religious reasons, that they cannot endorse homosexual behavior.
They don't. It is not enough to live and let live. Gay activists want to literally force you to come to their parties, whether you're a photographer or baker. No matter that celebrating what the Bible clearly defines as a sin goes against their religious beliefs, if you do not celebrate homosexual relationships, you will be sued.
This is not tolerance. This is not allowing diversity of beliefs.
Gays took the rainbow as their symbol. But in their world, there is only one color.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
The value of free content
I'm reading To Sail A Darkling Sea by John Ringo right now.
So far, awesome book.
And a testament to the profitability of free content.
I've read most of John Ringo's books from the library. But when I went to Jamaica, I bought Under a Graveyard Sky because I liked what I got from the library and the new book sounded awesome.
I've gotten To Sail A Darkling Sea from the library, so some might argue the point. But it was on my birthday wishlist. And if John Ringo comes to town, I'm buying hardcopy to get signed. So I will have bought three copies of two books.
Not bad for hooking me with the first taste for free.
So far, awesome book.
And a testament to the profitability of free content.
I've read most of John Ringo's books from the library. But when I went to Jamaica, I bought Under a Graveyard Sky because I liked what I got from the library and the new book sounded awesome.
I've gotten To Sail A Darkling Sea from the library, so some might argue the point. But it was on my birthday wishlist. And if John Ringo comes to town, I'm buying hardcopy to get signed. So I will have bought three copies of two books.
Not bad for hooking me with the first taste for free.
Does a Washington Post icon have an excuse for writing a column completely devoid of facts?
Facts are tricky things. I mean, they're actually right or wrong. That's intimidating.
So if I were E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, I'd maybe have an intern or two do some fact checking before I hit send on a column.
Mr. Dionne is currently calling to repeal stand your ground law based on the George Zimmerman and the Michael Dunn case.
Small problem. SYG had nothing to do with either case.
So either Mr. Dionne is lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Or maybe both.
So if I were E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, I'd maybe have an intern or two do some fact checking before I hit send on a column.
Mr. Dionne is currently calling to repeal stand your ground law based on the George Zimmerman and the Michael Dunn case.
Small problem. SYG had nothing to do with either case.
So either Mr. Dionne is lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Or maybe both.
USA takes another step towards banana republic status
Per Mediaite (I'd link to the Wall Street Journal piece but it's behind a paywall) the FCC wants to put monitors in the newsroom to study these issues:
I'm sure the idea, as proposed on paper, is to gather important information for a great study that will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and will hopefully be put in a file cabinet a la Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Or not.
For broadcast media, an FCC license is life. Losing it is a death sentence.
So what happens if the government decides it doesn't like who decides the content of stories or what the content is?
Paranoia?
Ask the conservatives audited by the IRS.
We are witnessing the weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy. Citizens in Ukraine are rising up against that.
What are we doing?
- What is the news philosophy of the station?
- How do you define critical information that the community needs?
- Who decides which stories are covered?
- Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management
I'm sure the idea, as proposed on paper, is to gather important information for a great study that will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and will hopefully be put in a file cabinet a la Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Or not.
For broadcast media, an FCC license is life. Losing it is a death sentence.
So what happens if the government decides it doesn't like who decides the content of stories or what the content is?
Paranoia?
Ask the conservatives audited by the IRS.
We are witnessing the weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy. Citizens in Ukraine are rising up against that.
What are we doing?
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The Killing
Been binge viewing The Killing and it's pretty good. The first two seasons follow a single case and have some interesting twists and turns. I don't want to put out any spoilers but it will keep you guessing.
Season three is underway on our Netflix and I hope it keeps up the qualitry.
Season three is underway on our Netflix and I hope it keeps up the qualitry.
Stupidity or strategy?
Phyllis Schlafly, via National Review, explains why amnesty is a loser for conservatives. Note that I don't say GOP or GOP leadership because, unfortunately, these are becoming two very different things.
Her thesis is simple. The tsunami of illegal immigration we have suffered has come from countries where the culture accepts, and even demands, bigger government. We would simply be importing liberal voters.
Democrats realize this. Do you honestly think they would be championing amnesty if they thought we were legalizing at least 11 million new conservatives? Of course not. Although conservatives such as Michael Medved claim that the purportedly conservative social values of the amnestied will have them lean Republican, there is little empirical evidence to support the notion this will outweigh the desire to have bigger government.
Indeed, one should look at the Catholic Church, another mover behind amnesty, and notice that its anti-abortion but very liberal in economic policy. The Pope's current "economic analysis" shows that we are only in for more on that front. And, it should be noted, that the Pope formulated his distrust for private enterprise in Argentina.
So why would the GOP go for this?
Follow the money. Regularizing millions of low skilled laborers depresses wages. Increasing H1-B visas for technically skilled laborers serves the same purpose. The GOP leadership class lives in a world where they don't cut their own grass, wash their own dishes. So they sympathize with the notion of bringing in millions of liberal voters to get their hands dirty.
That leads to the dirtiest secret of all. The GOP leadership is happy with their place at the trough. Bigger government means more favors to dole out to their own allies and cushy lobbying jobs upon retirement.
It was once said if you don't like the election resutls, replace the electorate.
The GOP leadership looks ready to do just that.
Her thesis is simple. The tsunami of illegal immigration we have suffered has come from countries where the culture accepts, and even demands, bigger government. We would simply be importing liberal voters.
Democrats realize this. Do you honestly think they would be championing amnesty if they thought we were legalizing at least 11 million new conservatives? Of course not. Although conservatives such as Michael Medved claim that the purportedly conservative social values of the amnestied will have them lean Republican, there is little empirical evidence to support the notion this will outweigh the desire to have bigger government.
Indeed, one should look at the Catholic Church, another mover behind amnesty, and notice that its anti-abortion but very liberal in economic policy. The Pope's current "economic analysis" shows that we are only in for more on that front. And, it should be noted, that the Pope formulated his distrust for private enterprise in Argentina.
So why would the GOP go for this?
Follow the money. Regularizing millions of low skilled laborers depresses wages. Increasing H1-B visas for technically skilled laborers serves the same purpose. The GOP leadership class lives in a world where they don't cut their own grass, wash their own dishes. So they sympathize with the notion of bringing in millions of liberal voters to get their hands dirty.
That leads to the dirtiest secret of all. The GOP leadership is happy with their place at the trough. Bigger government means more favors to dole out to their own allies and cushy lobbying jobs upon retirement.
It was once said if you don't like the election resutls, replace the electorate.
The GOP leadership looks ready to do just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)