Just Plain Harris

This Blog Has Moved

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:14:00 +0000

For newer posts than those below, click here for this blog's new location.

All You Need Is Time

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:07:00 +0000

The London Telegraph has a story of a moment in Beatles history that's been untold until this week. It was the Summer Of Love, and the Fab Four were in an Abbey Road studio, hooked up to a worldwide satellite TV broadcast, performing "All You Need Is Love." In the US, it was seen on PBS stations. In the UK, it was on the BBC.

What you may not know is that the show included artists and performers from 14 countries, each chosen to represent their homeland: Pablo Picasso from Spain, Maria Callas from Greece, etc. The Beatles were the entry for England, and that did not go down well with some viewers.

In letters sent to the BBC -- revealed this week for the first time in response to a Freedom of Information request -- British viewers complained, "We did not do ourselves justice" and "Have we nothing better to offer? Surely this isn't the image of what we are like. What a dreadful impression they must have given the rest of the world" and "We flaunted The Beatles as the highlight of British culture, no wonder we have lost our image in the eyes of the world."

John, Paul, George, and Ringo were never told of the negative feedback. In fact, manager Brian Epstein was told by the BBC that the audience loved it.

That may have been true -- that the vast majority of the audience enjoyed their performance -- but there were then, just as there are today, a group of people who just weren't going to like anything "these kids" did. It may be difficult to believe, 43 years after Beatlemania came ashore, that anyone could view the band that way, but there were plenty of people on both sides of the ocean who felt threatened by changing tastes in pop culture encroaching on their safe world of entertainment. They were appalled by rock and roll, sure it was a horrible but passing fad, and determined to diss it whenever exposed to it.

Now, of course, the generation that grew up loving The Beatles has, in many cases, grown up to have adopted the same curmudgeonly attitude towards the musical favorites of the current younger generation: "Oh, these kids today, with their hair, and their music, and their clothes!"

Four decades ago, that meant rock and roll, hair to the shoulders, and pants that were too tight. Now, it means hip hop, hair that's different colors, and pants so loose they hang off the butt.

The real pressure will be on the next generation to come up with musical tastes, hairstyles, and fashion choices that offend their parents. All you need is....time.

Federal Fat

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:24:00 +0000

Just days ago, I wrote about the uselessness of Kellogg's announcement that, to help fight the child obesity "epidemic," they would make their cereals healthier -- an effort I believe will have no effect on the eating habits and size of American children. Now, a report says federal programs, at a cost of over a billion dollars each year, do not convince kids to eat more nutritiously, either. The Associated Press reviewed scientific studies of 57 programs targeting nutrition education, and found that 93% of them failed. Only four showed any success in changing the way kids eat.

One program gave free fruits and vegetables to fifth-graders, but the longer the program continued, the less they ate. Why? They didn't like the taste. Another program rewarded kids who ate fruits and vegetables, but guess what happened when the rewards stopped? So did the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Their eating habits hadn't been changed at all.

Have none of the people behind these programs ever been a child? Do none of them have children?

What's ironic here is that, while kids aren't changing their eating habits, those intent on affecting behavior still refuse to change their own -- they'll continue to throw good money after bad.

That money, of course, is really your tax dollars in action. And you were going to spend it in the produce aisle this weekend, weren't you?

Intestinal Fortitude

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:57:00 +0000

Lots of reaction to my comments on KMOX yesterday about Abbey Taylor, the 6-year-old girl in Minnesota who had her small intestines sucked out by the drain in a wading pool.

I said that the golf course where the accident took place shouldn't hide behind their lawyers and deny that they'd done anything wrong. Instead, they should get ahead of the story, apologize to Abbey and her parents for this horrific accident, and promise to help pay her medical bills for a long time.

I understand about fiduciary responsibilities, and getting the insurance company's liability people involved, and all the rest. But we're talking about a little girl who, through no fault of her own, started out playing in the water and ended up with a lifetime of colostomy bags and intravenous feeding.

I felt the same way last month after Kaitlyn Lassiter lost both her feet when the cable snapped on that Six Flags ride in Kentucky. If you're the CEO of that company, you shouldn't wait for the lawyers and paper-pushers to vett what you're going to say. You immediately issue a statement offering your sympathy to the girl and her family, promise other Six Flags customers that you'll conduct a full safety investigation (of not just that ride, but every ride in every one of your parks), and you offer to pay all of Kaitlyn's medical expenses related to the accident forever.

In other words, you act like a human being who cares, not like some bureaucrat worried about the corporation's bottom line. Worse, in too many of these stories, you end up in court fighting the family with a team of lawyers, all to save a couple of million dollars which, in the end, won't bankrupt you, but will make their lives a little better.

It's not like there's an epidemic of intestine-sucking going on in America's pools -- there have been an average of 10 incidents a year since 1990 -- but, if there's any upside to this, there's the hope that other pool owners will hear Abbey's story and check the suction on their drains to prevent a similar accident hurting another kid.

And that someone in the management of that golf course in Minnesota hasn't had their heart sucked out.

Cereal Killers

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:05:00 +0000

I was raised in an apartment where we ate Cheerios, Special K, and Alpha-Bits for breakfast. We were allowed to sprinkle a little bit of sugar on the cereal for taste, but Mom wouldn't buy us the really sugary cereals.

One morning, I went over to my friend Mark's apartment. I'd already had my breakfast, but they were just sitting down to theirs. Mark and his brothers were eating Frosted Flakes, and his mother offered me some. Not wanting to be rude, and still a little bit hungry, I happily accepted and dug into the bowl of glucose-enhanced delight.

Oh my god!! It was the best thing I'd ever tasted. I could feel my teeth rotting in my mouth as I chewed, but I didn't care. This was the kid equivalent of crack.

Later, when we were away from the table, I asked Mark if he ate Frosted Flakes every morning. He answered that they had all sorts of cereals, and named several that were also full of that sugary goodness. I was incredibly jealous.

I hatched a plan to convince my mother to buy some Frosted Flakes. Unfortunately, I was about 7 years old, so the only argument I could formulate was "but Mark's mother lets him have them all the time!" Remarkably, this didn't win my mother over. Despite my repeated attempts (i.e. whining and throwing a tantrum), she wouldn't give in. The power of parenting.

Fast forward to this week, when that power became moot.

Kellogg's buckled under to the Food Police and announced that they would start making their cereals more nutritious and change the way they market their products to kids. It's to stave off a lawsuit by a couple of pressure groups who blame the company (and others) for making kids fat.

Of course it's Kellogg's fault! These kids must see the commercials for Cocoa Krispies, gather up their allowance money and go to the supermarket themselves, where they prowl the cereal aisle to find the ones with the most sugar and highest caloric content. Then they sneak them home and hide them, secretly munching away on their sweet treats when mom and dad aren't looking.

Or, maybe it's the parents of America who are buying this stuff for their kids, because of a national aversion to using the word "no." That, combined with a lack of exercise (forget about playing outside -- how many schools allow running at recess anymore, or have gym class everyday?) is why we have fat kids.

The Food Police don't dare blame the parents. It must be the big, bad cereal company that's liable. How dare they make something tasty that people enjoy eating? On top of that, they're forcing kids to watch television and be exposed to those horrendous advertising messages!

So let's invert the equation. Take every commercial for Cocoa Puffs and replace it with an ad for broccoli, complete with an endorsement by Shrek and Spider-Man. Would that make America's kids healthier? Funny, I don't recall a lot of my friends eating spinach just because of Popeye.

Where in all of this are the adults who might like a bowl of Frosted Flakes or Froot Loops? Don't their tastebuds matter? Or are we doomed to a future of Bran Flakes and Mueslix?

No, our future will more likely be filled with a spoonful of sugar, which we'll sprinkle over the newly reformulated versions of the cereals we used to like.

How To Have A Happy Father's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:57:00 +0000

On behalf of all dads, I'm going to share a secret that men have kept for centuries.

We appreciate it. We really do. We know you want to do something special for us on Father's Day.

So, you and the kids are planning to get up early Sunday morning and sneak into the kitchen to make us a big breakfast, with all of our favorites. Then you'll load it onto a tray, bring it into the bedroom, gently wake us up, and present the food to us.

We'll love the smiles on the kids' faces as they hop into the bed with us, singing "Happy Father's Day, Daddy!!!" and handing us cards they drew themselves. It'll be a very nice family moment. There's only one problem.

The whole time you're presenting this nice celebration, we really have to go to the bathroom.

It's not our fault, it's simply biology. Ask any man. When we wake up in the morning, the first thing we have to do is pee. Doesn't matter how old we are, or how happy we are to see you -- nature calls.

So, now you know that the look of joy on our faces is genuine, but it's mixed with a certain level of discomfort. Armed with that knowledge, I ask a favor on behalf of every member of the human male species: please come in and give us a few minutes' warning. Tip us off that the "surprise" is coming, thus giving us an opportunity to run into the bathroom, take care of business, then jump back under the covers and pretend to be asleep in time for the kids to bring in breakfast. We'll still put on the whole "wow, what a nice surprise!" act, and everyone will be happy -- and a lot more comfortable.

Do this for us, and we'll make it up to you next Mother's Day. Maybe we'll even remember to make reservations for a nice brunch at a nice restaurant instead of having those last-minute kid-recipe pancakes again.

Happy Father's Day!

Putting the F in FCC

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:21:00 +0000

The FCC issued two disturbing proclamations this week that should bother anyone who believes in freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin issued a press release condemning the decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the comission's rulings over fleeting use of profanity, which Aaron Barnhart and I discussed yesterday.

In that release, the commish uses the f-bomb and s-word over half a dozen times -- more than I ever have on this site, or anywhere else in print. Funny that he finds those words so indecent when broadcast on the public airwaves that the government must step in, but not so indecent that they should be left out of an official government document (isn't that public paper, Kevin?). Oh, I guess children don't read FCC press releases, so he can use whatever language he wants.

Note how Martin repeatedly refers to the "New York court." That's right-wing code for "liberal, Northeastern, probably Jewish." It's a cheap and deplorable phrase used to pander to other conservative extremists, especially those in the special-interest pressure groups that Martin constantly kowtows to. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is not a state or city court. It is a federal court, one level below the US Supreme Court.

Martin also uses this press release as an opportunity to promote the idea of a la carte pricing for cable and satellite, claiming that "permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns." False! The content that Martin and his cabal have tried to regulate was on broadcast channels that would still go into those homes, regardless of whether they were paid for in a bundle or a la carte. Letting people decide whether to subscribe to HBO or HGTV would have no impact on Bono dropping a fleeting F-bomb during an awards telecast on NBC. Martin should also look into a new Forrester Research study regarding a la carte pricing.

Meanwhile, another FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, wrote a New York Times op-ed this week insisting that, when deciding whether to grant renewal of broadcast licenses, the commission should consider whether the license owner "served the public interest." That's not the same as offering programming that "interests the public." As with so many in government, he's sure that he knows what's in your best interest better than you do, so he wants to force-feed you programming you're not going to watch.

Here are some of the points Copps wants considered, in italics, with my response following:

Did the station show programs on local civic affairs (apart from the nightly news), or set aside airtime for local community groups? While those groups may be doing good work, there's surely no audience for this kind of programming, which is why it's so often relegated to the less-viewed and less-listened-to dayparts, such as early Sunday morning. Would the commission force stations to air these programs in primetime? Listeners and viewers would tune out in droves. How is that in the public interest?

Did it broadcast political conventions, and local as well as national candidate debates? Political conventions are a moot point these days, with the nominees decided long before during the primary process. The four-day events are nothing more than political grandstanding put on by each party, offering nothing of any news value except for an occasional important speech (e.g. Obama's coming out party in 2004).

Did it devote at least five minutes each night to covering politics in the month before an election?
Most of that coverage is now of the horse-race variety, telling us who's ahead in the polls and what slick campaign line a candidate has repeated for the umpteenth time. Does Copps seriously think there isn't enough coverage of national campaigns? The problem is there's too much of it, starting 18 months before a presidential election, when no one but the most hardcore is paying attention. Would a station have to cover local candidates and issues ad nauseum, and if so, down to what level?

These are decisions to be made in newsrooms, by people who are in the business of providing television to a mass market, not by some political appointees sitting high and mighty in their offices at the FCC. We now have a wide variety of media that offer anyone who wants more information the opportunity to discover anything they like about any kind of candidate. Telling broadcasters that the renewal of their license is dependent on their coverage of the electoral process is a misuse of the commission's own public trust.

When it comes to broadcast regulation, the government's sole responsibility should be to make sure that the technical rules (staying on frequency and within power specifications and coverage areas) are adhered to -- nothing else.

Hands off the content!

Radio Delay

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:47:00 +0000

My friend Mark Evanier in Los Angeles asked on his blog today why Dodgers games on the radio are now out of sync with the live event:
Is it being done intentionally to discourage people from listening to Vin Scully on the radio while they watch the game at the stadium or on TV? I can't imagine why Vin Scully would need to be broadcast on a delay, nor can I fathom why anyone would care if you listened to him this way. Can anyone clear this up for me?
A reader named Dave Sikula wrote to Mark and explained that the game (and all other live programming) is on delay because radio owners are afraid a prohibited word will be accidentally aired and they'll be fined by the FCC.

That's true, but it's not the complete answer. There's also the technical matter of broadcasting in HD.

Although the technology hasn't really caught on with consumers, most AM & FM stations in the major markets now have an HD signal, and the digital processing inherent in transmitting that signal creates an extra delay of just over 8 seconds. So, even if there were no content-control delay, you still wouldn't be hearing Vin Scully's call of the Dodgers game in real time. And when you hear the top of the hour tone on my KMOX afternoon show just before the hourly CBS Radio newscast, the combination of the two delays puts that tone some 14 seconds after the true top of the hour.

However, there's one positive side effect of the HD signal for those of us doing the shows with airborne traffic reports. Before, when we were only using the content-control delay (the one with the "dump" button that we very rarely had to use), we couldn't go to Captain Rodger Brand and John Larrabee -- the guys who do our traffic reports from a helicopter and a plane -- without coming out of delay. They were monitoring the over-the-air signal, and if we kept them in delay, they'd hear their own voices coming back at them several seconds later and likely spiral out of the sky and into the Earth. To avoid that nasty scenario, I had to pause each time while we dumped out of delay, then introduced them, had them do the reports, and then we'd start building up the delay again during a commercial break so it was there when I went back to taking phone calls or whatever.

Now here's the benefit of the HD signal -- even on AM, it comes with a sideband signal that we use to send them a pre-delay audio feed directly from the studio, which we couldn't do before, and which they hear through an HD receiver. That way, we never have to dump out of delay and they still get to hear everything we're doing in the studio as it happens. Considering we do "traffic and weather together every ten minutes" in the last two hours of my show, that's a dozen times a day we no longer have to worry about going in and out of delay. On the other hand, it means that when they describe an accident they've just spotted on Highway 40, you won't know about it until 14 seconds later.

Note that there is an even longer delay when you listen to my show live via KMOX.com, because that digital processing of the streaming audio takes even more time.

Interestingly, many people with Dish Network or Direct TV were already out of the loop when it came to watching games on TV with the sound down so they could hear their favorite radio play-by-play guy describe the action. There's a delay inherent in the signals bouncing to and from the TV satellites that would add a couple of seconds, too. Radio broadcasts are almost all done via ISDN phone lines, which move the audio much more quickly. So, for instance, during a Rams game, you could hear Steven Jackson go off-tackle and gain four yards, and just as the whistle blew at the end of the play, you'd see the play start on TV.

One other quick story. When I did mornings at WYNY/New York in the mid-80s with Rick Harris (no relation), NBC had never had a morning show that took listener calls on the FM station, and they were scared to death someone would say something wrong. Thus, we were prohibited from taking those calls live until they installed a delay unit. Rather than ordering a new stereo unit from Eventide, their engineers borrowed two mono units from our AM sister station WNBC, wired them in (one for the left channel, one for the right), and told us to go ahead and try it.

The next morning, when we began the show at 5:30am, we punched in the delay system and went about our normal morning silliness. In less than a minute, every hotline number on the phone bank was ringing like crazy. We were still talking on the air, listening to ourselves in pre-delay and thus didn't know what was wrong, but it had to be something major, so we went to a commercial break quickly.

Off the air, Rick answered one hotline and I answered another, to find the chief engineer and the program director both yelling at us to dump out of delay immediately. It turned out that the two mono units weren't slaved together, and their delay wasn't in sync. None of the engineers had considered this possibility, and they hadn't tested it on the air until that moment.

The effect was to create an echo from the left channel to the right channel that was unlistenable. We turned the units off completely and had to do yet another show with no live phone calls. Two days later, a stereo unit arrived, the engineers put it in, and everything worked just fine -- except we had an airborne reporter then, too, which meant going in and out of delay all morning for his reports.

I was not all that surprised when NBC got out of the local radio business less than two years later.

John Edwards Feels Pretty

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:00 +0000

If John Edwards is going to get a $400 haircut from a Beverly Hills stylist, he ought to have his own theme music, provided in the video below.

The whole notion of having a "stylist" is alien to me, as it probably is to most men. I get my hair (what little there is, so go ahead and accuse me of jealousy) cut by a barber. That can be a man or a woman, but it's always a barber, and never in a "salon." As for the $400, that may be more than I spend on haircuts in an entire year, even with a generous tip.

Recently on my KMOX show, we had a discussion of the question that is inevitably asked of all presidential candidates: "Do you know how much a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread cost?" Rudy Giuliani got trapped by it last week, guessing way low, although he did know the price of a gallon of gas. For politicians who have reached the level where they're running for president, they don't know that stuff because they don't do their own shopping, and haven't for many years.

I wonder whether that question and answer are factors in how anyone votes. There are so many hot-button issues exploited on the national level, and there's very little any president can do about the price of consumer goods. Knowing the correct retail price of grocery items is a good way to meet Bob Barker, but is it a valid test for candidates?

To be honest, I'm not always sure what those things cost, because when we need milk, I go to the store and buy milk. I'm not going to shop around to find the place that has it for 6¢ less. I know we're fortunate not to have to watch every penny -- but if I don't, then Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, and Obama certainly don't.

That said, you'd think this would be one of the first things they'd learn before starting their presidential campaigns. Maybe, on the way to the big kickoff announcement, they could have a staffer run to the store and do a price check, and then memorize it for the inevitable press opportunity when the question comes up.

Of course, if the question is, "How much does a hair cut cost?" and your answer is in the triple digits, you may have an even more serious relatability problem.

Now, see how far you get into this clip before you say, "Leave the hair alone, John! It's fine!"

Movies & Missouri Values

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:07:00 +0000

Last year, I wrote about spending time with Aaron Eckhart and others while they were making the movie "Bill" here in St. Louis, and how the producers told me that Missouri has been used so seldom as a movie location that it leaves open myriad possibilities for future projects.

It would be nice to lure more movie productions here, but the economics of the business means they won't come unless they're given tax credits. Those are currently limited by law to $1.5 million a year, an amount so small that it gets used up very quickly, thus limiting the number of film projects that come to the state (last year, some $50 million in movie money didn't come here because the tax credits had been exhausted already).

Rep. Ed Robb agreed, and in January introduced House Bill 360, which would raise that tax credit to $10 million. Unfortunately, another legislator named Trent Skaggs threw a wrench in the whole works by offering an amendment that would limit movies eligible for those credits to those that reflect "Missouri values."

Values. The word makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It's another of those vague terms that politicians like to throw around to pander to their supporters, but which would be impossible to enforce. Who decides what "Missouri values" are? Are they the values of people in the Ozarks or in the Central West End, inner-city St. Louis or upper-class West County, multi-cultural University City or highly conservative Cape Girardeau?

Filmmaker Brent Jaimes, who has worked on many movies and videos shot in St. Louis and throughout Missouri, was on my KMOX show to explain the impact of such a "values" restriction. As he wrote to Rep. Skaggs:

Your amendment to award the tax credits only to film projects that espouse "Missouri values," that recognize the sanctity of life, that do not portray violence or sex, would essentially make the bill worthless and impossible to administer. I have no idea who would make these determinations and I don't believe your amendment offers any guidance on this issue. Any determination of what these Missouri values are or what these other terms mean would be vague, arbitrary and capricious. It would be impossible to enforce or administer and would certainly be struck down by any court. Surely you know how your amendment would effect this bill and how vague these ideas are.

It appears that your proffered amendment is only an attempt to make the General Assembly and Missouri filmmakers look like laughingstocks to the rest of the industry and the nation. At the same time, it offers you the chance to point out how those who might vote against your amendment are clearly against "Missouri values" and supporters of some unsavory life style as portrayed in current films.

His last point resonates. I can already hear the negative campaign commercials claiming that "John Jenkins voted against Missouri values; John Jenkins is bad for Missouri" -- when John Jenkins was truly voting for freedom, for the Bill of Rights, for keeping political posturing out of free speech decisions, for telling lawmakers that censorship is bad.

Politicians like Skaggs don't give Missourians enough credit to make their own entertainment choices. I'd bet you that Skaggs doesn't even go to the movies -- he's like those people who don't have a television but want to tell you what you should be allowed to watch.

I have asked Brent to keep me posted on any progress the bill makes, and whether other Missouri legislators will stand against Skaggs. I'll post any future updates here.

Listen.

High-Speed Trains

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:59:00 +0000

In May, 1986, my wife and I were in Vancouver for the World's Fair. One of the top attractions was a Japanese mag-lev train, which uses electro-magnets to hover over the rails.

The line to get on for a demonstration ride was too long, so we did some other things for a couple of hours and then stopped for lunch. We sat at a table next to a chain link fence without looking to see what was on the other side. A few minutes later, I heard a "whoosh" behind me. When I turned to see what it was, I saw one of the mag-lev trains racing past. There were none of the normal train-on-track sounds, just the soft whoosh of air displacement as the train passed. I thought, "that's a technology that has a great future, and I can't wait until it comes to the United States."

Here we are more than two decades later, and that technology hasn't taken hold here, but in Japan, the bullet train moves people quietly, at high speeds, throughout the country. Meanwhile, in France, their version of the bullet train -- which does ride on rails, rather than above them -- just broke a speed record by going 357mph. And China is investing heavily in high-speed rail, with thousands of miles of tracks under construction.

So, why hasn't the US jumped onboard? It would take a massive investment in infrastructure, of course, and would have to overcome tremendous pressure and opposition from the airline industry and others. But I'd like to see us undertake a national commitment to high-speed rail, similar to the interstate highway system a half-century ago.

With customer complaints about airline travel rising every week, and concerns about gas prices and fuel consumption making headlines every day and changing America's travel habits, now might be the time. Other reasons:

Less vulnerable to terrorism. It's awfully hard to take down a skyscraper with a train. True, they're vulnerable to the kind of attack we saw in Madrid a couple of years ago, but so are Amtrak trains currently, and we haven't had to ramp up security to ridiculous airport-like levels for that. Imagine being able to travel quickly between US cities without having to remove your shoes for a TSA screener.
Train travel is more comfortable, with more leg room, and more room to get up and walk around. Listeners who have been on the Japanese bullet train tell me that you don't even feel any vibration or tilting during the trip -- one guy said he didn't even notice a ripple in the glass of wine he had with lunch. Others who have traveled on the French TGV report a much more comfortable ride than on any commercial flight.
With average speeds of 180mph on long hauls -- trips of over an hour -- you could travel from St. Louis to Chicago or Kansas City in about 90 minutes. Take an Amtrak train today and the ride takes 5-6 hours, no better than you'd do in your own car. That's why so few people ride the rails now, because it doesn't save time.
Unlike air travel, the train can go from downtown to downtown, a big plus for business travelers who have to waste time getting to and from the airport at each end.
Eminent domain would have to be used to create the right-of-way for the new track that would have to be laid. But better to use it for this than for the $1.1 billion boondoggle that kicked families out of their homes in Bridgeton (MO) to make way for a new Lambert Airport runway that no flights land on! Why do we need new track? Because the current rail system is set up to facilitate freight transport, making passenger travel a secondary priority. We'd have to eliminate those waits on side tracks while a freight train rolls through. We'd also have to eliminate all those grade-level crossings, to make the ride as secure and simple as possible.

For political support, we'll appeal to Democrats' environmental sensibilities. For Republicans, we'll appeal to their patriotism, telling them there's no reason to be behind the dreaded French in anything (we could even call our high-speed rail The Freedom Train!). For both of them, we'll talk about creating jobs and new technologies, rather than relying on decades-old methods of getting from place to place.

In the 21st century, Americans want everything to be quicker -- here's one more way to make that happen.

Thoughts?

Department of Duh

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:03:00 +0000

Item # 1: The Kaiser Family Foundation has discovered that, in TV programming aimed at kids, there are lots of commercials for junk food but, shockingly, not a lot of commercials for fruits and vegetables. They claim that's a major factor in childhood obesity in this country.

That's what's making kids fat? Bring back those Jolly Green Giant cartoons and kids will start running to Mom asking, "Can we have more of those French-cut green beans, please?" I don't think so.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that if kids are eating more junk food, it's because adults are buying it for them. You don't see a lot of 8-year-olds doing the family shopping. Sure, they may nag Mom to buy them the crap they see advertised, but then it's up to Mom to say the most horrible word in the English language: "No!" It's not the food companies putting extra pounds on kids -- and I don't even buy the now-standard line about child obesity, but still -- it's the parents who feed them.

Item #2: Getting kicked in the head can hurt your brain. That's what researchers in Turkey have concluded after a massive project that evaluated a huge number of kickboxers.

Okay, it was only 22 of them. Probably had a hard time recruiting more people who wanted to get kicked in the head. The more important question is, who funds research projects like this -- and how can I get some of that money? I'm thinking of studying the effects of being kicked in the nuts, and I doubt anyone will volunteer to be a subject unless I pay them. A lot.

Item #3: And finally, a shocking discovery by ABC News -- some sodas contain caffeine, which can be "a quick pick-me-up," just like coffee. Next week, they're going to investigate the theory that showers can make you cleaner.

Mail Call

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:08:00 +0000

On the day the US Postal Service unveiled its Forever Stamp, a couple of months before the price of first class postage goes up another two cents, Randy Fuller e-mails a good suggestion:
In light of the internet, direct deposit and on-line bill paying, the daily mail has become mostly "junk" mail. Not 1 piece of mail that I receive is so important that it couldn't wait a day or so. So, instead of raising the rates, why not cut the service?

Make residential delivery every other day. 50% of homes would be delivered M-W-F and the other 50% T-Th-S. I see this as an economic and environmental move. The Postal Service could reduce their manpower greatly, maybe not by 50% but certainly by a respectable number; thus saving on the payroll. This could be done by attrition. They could then also reduce their vehicle fleet, vehicle fleet maintenance and the fuel consumption, probably by about 50%. Just think of how many gallons of fuel would be saved annually and how much the emissions from their fleet would be reduced.
I like the idea. We get very little personal mail at our house. Most of our bills now come via e-mail, and we handle them with online banking or electronic fund transfers, never seeing a piece of paper from those corporations. For the few companies that still handle business offline, I could wait another day to get their invoices. The same is true of the bulk of our other mail, which is, well, bulk mail. Junk mail. Never opened, straight into the trash, a waste of effort and time. Why is it so important I receive that everyday?

Don't take this as attack on letter carriers. I don't envy them the job, particularly those who walk their routes, which can be like doing a half-marathon every day. I have respect and admiration for what they do, and I know their industry has been affected by competition from UPS, FedEx, and DHL. But with so much business being done online, it wouldn't bother me a bit to have the mail delivered to my home on alternate days.

There's virtually no correspondence going on, with the exception of birthday greetings and holiday cards. Being a proud member of Boy World, I'd handle those occasions with a quick e-mail message -- my brother has no problem with me remembering the day of his birthday in the middle of my show and sending him a greeting via e-mail -- but my wife lives in Girl World, where doing so is still considered a major breach of etiquette.

Sending out cards also allows my wife to engage in stamp shopping, which is different in Girl World. You see, in Boy World, any stamp with the correct postage will do (I'm leaving out philatelists and the accompanying jokes). I'm happy to buy a roll of the standard self-adhesive US flag stamps, as long as they'll get the letter where it's supposed to go, and keep using them for years and years. I can honestly say that I have never looked at the stamp on any envelope or package I have ever received. In Girl World, that's a missed opportunity -- she'll go to the post office and spend several minutes considering the possibilities and then buying whichever stamps look prettiest. All hell will break loose when I mistakenly use one of the "pretty" stamps for something as mundane as a tax return or mutual fund deposit. To me, it's a financial transaction. To her, it's a statement of beauty.

It's been more than a generation since The Marvelettes, The Boxtops and RB Greaves had hit songs about letters and postmen, because technology has helped us move forward to quicker ways of communicating. Many of us don't even check the mailbox every day. Gone are the days when a kid would send a dozen cereal box lids to Battle Creek, Michigan, and then run to the mailbox each day after school to see if their Tony The Tiger whistle had arrived. Now, that kid is running inside to the computer to see how many friends have joined their MySpace page.

For those who still want to put pen to paper, or do business by mail, go right ahead, but I put the question to you -- would you really mind not having the mail delivered daily?

Planes, Twains, and Liquid Soap

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:25:00 +0000

Just back from a weekend trip to Hartford, Connecticut, home of the emptiest airport I've seen in a top-fifty city. If there were 200 people in the entire terminal, including the staff of the pretzels-and-newspapers stand, I'd be amazed. This place is so empty, you have to call for a cab, because there's no taxi stand -- the drivers could lapse into a coma waiting for a fare.

One problem the lack of passengers creates is boredom among the TSA personnel, who seem to fill the time by searching more bags by hand. Naturally, one of those was my wife's. No problems, but it was nice to note that they now do the bag search on a counter with a raised front, so passers-by can't just look over and check out your underwear or other personal items.

The flights there and back were on the Most Uncomfortable Passenger Plane In The World, an Embraer 50-seat regional jet that American Airlines squeezed us onto. This is the only option when flying nonstop from St. Louis (a city that used to be a hub but isn't anymore) to Hartford (a town that used to be a city but isn't anymore). The jet is so small that anyone over 6' tall can't stand up straight -- at 6'4", if I stood up straight my head would be outside the plane -- and the seats are designed so that, regardless of your height, you leave with a backache. I couldn't help but wonder who the pilot of this flying cigar tube had pissed off to get stuck on this route.

While in Hartford, my brother-in-law and I took our daughters to the Mark Twain House. Although I lived in that town for 4 years in the early 80s, I never went, and now know that I didn't miss anything. The woman who took us through the house may be among the worst tour guides on the planet. Oh, she told us about the architecture and furniture, but seemed unsure of every fact she spouted. Worse, she offered us no insight into Twain's work. We could just as easily have been taking a tour of any generic Victorian-era home. At one point, my brother-in-law asked her what which Twain book was his first real breakthrough. She replied, "Gee, that's a good question. I have no idea, but it was probably one of his popular ones." Ya think?

On this trip, I learned a new word: heterosexism. That's the new incredibly-PC term for anti-gay attitudes. It was in the brochure for a private school which also bills itself as "anti-racist," making it markedly different from those schools that promote themselves as "blatantly racist."

One final thing to squawk about. My mother-in-law, in whose house we stayed, has no bar of soap in her shower, preferring to use liquid soap. The problem? There are about seven different bottles filled with fluids of various colors and purposes, but since I don't wear my reading glasses while bathing, I couldn't figure out which one was the liquid soap. Could be the red one, could be the green one, could be the yellow one, could be the chalky-white one.

In the end, I'm pretty sure I cleaned my body with hair conditioner. Fortunately, no one in the family said anything about the nice lavender aroma emanating from my armpits the rest of the day.

Sit-In

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:23:00 +0000

About a dozen St. Louis public school students have been staging a sit-in in Mayor Slay's office since Wednesday afternoon. They're upset that their school district might lose accreditation, that the adults in town can't seem to play nice with each other long enough to ensure the kids a good education, and a couple are worried about the impact the loss might have on their college scholarships.

There are a lot of things wrong with the city's schools, and these kids had a lot of questions that the grown-ups aren't answering. I'm not saying that the sit-in is a good idea, or that they're likely to effect any change with a Mayor who has no direct power over the schools, but it has gotten them quite a bit of attention, including a couple of hours of discussion on my KMOX show the last two afternoons.

So, what does the public think? The number one comment was, "why aren't these kids in school?" My colleague Kevin Killeen put that question to the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Diana Bourisaw, on Thursday afternoon, and she replied, "That's up to them.....there are all sorts of educational opportunities that go on outside the classroom." She was vilified for not insisting immediately that these kids get back to class, so she changed her stance and urged them to return to school on Friday.

Those complainers are acting like the school day is holy, and children should never miss a minute. The truth is that kids are out of school all the time for non-educational nonsense. In St. Louis, it is not unusual for parents to pull them out in the middle of the day to take them to an afternoon Cardinals game. I know of some kids who were allowed to leave school early -- or miss it altogether -- the last two days because they wanted to stay home and watch March Madness. And we have friends who think nothing of taking their kids out of school for an entire week because that's when the parents can get off from work and take them away on vacation.

Even my daughter isn't immune to it. Her 7th grade classes were skipped on Friday so they could go on a school-sanctioned field trip to an ice rink, where they skated for charity for a couple of hours, then went to a mall food court for lunch (and a quick visit to the arcade). This is the same school that last month took all the kids in her grade to see the movie "Charlotte's Web" during the day. Of course, none of the students complained but, as a parent, these non-educational excursions during school time made me raise an eyebrow.

Predictably, on Friday, several students from other city high schools tried to join the protest. Some of them may have been earnest in their support, but I'd bet that many of them just wanted an excuse to skip school, too.

When I was in college, there was a big protest over the administration changing the academic calendar. Instead of finals taking place before winter break, they moved them to January, which meant we'd have to study on vacation, an ugly prospect when all you want to do is get away and have some down time. When the university president wouldn't sit down and talk to student leaders about changing the calendar, a few dozen students decided to express their displeasure by staging a sit-in at the administration building.

Word quickly spread on campus, and within an hour, there were hundreds of kids camped out in the lobby, the hallways, and some of the offices. I was there, too, covering the event for the college radio station, and can tell you that a very large number of the students there had no idea what the protest was about. All they knew was that there was a large gathering of people from all over campus, and they joined in. By the second hour, the crowd had swelled to at least a thousand students. The administration decided it would be impractical to force everyone out, so they just called in more security to make sure the place wasn't vandalized and no one got hurt.

I think the whole thing lasted into the next afternoon, when many of those who had gone for a party, not a cause, got bored (or ran out of drugs and batteries for their radios) and went back to their dorms. A small band of die-hards stuck it out for a couple of days and finally met with the school president, who never did change the calendar back. At that point, the dissatisfied protesters dispersed and life went back to normal.

The real test for the juniors and seniors hanging out in Mayor Slay's office is whether they make it through this weekend. Instead of skipping class, that means sacrificing their own free time, which at 17 and 18 is precious.

Gauging Gouging

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:17:00 +0000

Dozens of members of Congress have signed onto legislation that would make price gouging by oil and gas companies illegal at the federal level, with criminal penalties and large fines for offenders. There's just one problem -- they don't define "gouging."

Is it gouging when prices go up ten cents a gallon as they did yesterday at gas stations here in the St. Louis area, to around $2.45? That's up more than a quarter in the last month, so does it qualify? Michigan representative Bart Stupak said he is worried that "this summer, prices may once again exceed $3/gallon." So, is that the gouging milestone?

In most places in the country, price gouging laws only kick in during an emergency. In a natural disaster, stores that sell necessary daily supplies shouldn't be allowed to jack up the prices to take advantage of people at their neediest.

Price gouging isn't simply the law of supply-and-demand. Conditions matter, and we have to see the difference between gouging and legitimate business conduct, even when it affects our own bottom line. Standing on a street corner on a hot summer day selling bottles of water for $3, when you bought them for 50¢? That's not price gouging, it's seizing a sales opportunity (as retail outlets, movie theaters, and sports stadiums do every day!). No one is surprised that patio furniture is more expensive in June than it is in December, and the reverse is true for snow shovels. But we would all agree that charging triple the regular rate for a motel room when hundreds of people have had their homes wiped out by a tornado or hurricane does qualify as gouging.

Oil and gas are an intrinsic and important part of our lives, so at what level are the prices set by their sellers considered gouging? Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP-Amoco, and the other oil hyphenates are making record profits and are thus a likely target for the gouging gun, as are OPEC suppliers. Where's the line for them -- $70 a barrel, or $75, or a $100?

As retail gas prices climb back up from their sub-two-dollar lows of this winter to the inevitable over-three-dollar highs of this summer (yes, California, I know that you're already there!), let's try to keep some perspective on who's to blame and who can change things. We have to look in the mirror and remind ourselves that the best way to pay less for gasoline is to use less gasoline. Deep down, we know that, yet Americans have been slow to jump on the fuel efficiency bandwagon (it's only in the last year that we've made the bandwagon a hybrid vehicle). Some automakers have noticed and begun to change, but there are still a huge number of gas guzzlers being sold. Until we accept that responsibility and make fuel efficiency our number one prerequisite when buying, the demand side of the equation will lose.

If we're not willing to do our part -- collectively, not individually -- let's not rely on politicians to rescue us. The last time we tried that, during the 1970s, we got price controls that led to massive oil shortages, lines around the block, odd/even rationing, and headaches from coast to coast.

I don't mean to come off as a defender of Big Oil. I do mean to come off as a defender of laws that work, rather than laws passed to make people feel better.

The anti-price-gouging proposal is not effective legislation. It's political pandering. As every American knows, there's no end to the supply of that.

Airport Facelift

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:43:00 +0000

Lots of debate on my KMOX show about the five-year, $105 million facelift that's been announced for Lambert Airport. The basic thinking seems to be that we need a better, prettier airport to show visitors and business people that St. Louis is a city they should be happy to come to.

That won't be accomplished by beautifying the airport. That will be accomplished by having more flights landing and taking off from here -- and more real planes like the 737, as opposed to the 50-seat flying cigar tubes we have to endure for many trips now. Since American Airlines downgraded us from a hub, and the number of daily flights dropped by a couple hundred, we have a lot fewer people passing through, and thus the build-out may not be justified. If another airline committed to more flights more often, then it would make sense, but I doubt that will happen just because the terminal has a few more amenities.

All I want from an airport is to move through security quickly, have the plane on time, and get to wherever I'm going. Of course, I want my flight to be at Gate C1, not C33, and if I have to connect somewhere, I want to land at C1 and then depart from C2, instead of coming in at A22 and having to run a marathon to get to my next plane at gate D49.

When I return, I have no interest in lingering in the terminal -- I'm headed for the door, then to my car, then to my house. I'm not stopping to see what the stores are offering today.

The proponents of the plan talk about adding more retail and restaurant space. I know this has been done elsewhere, but I've never understood it. I don't go to the airport to go shopping. It's good to have a place where I can get a newspaper or magazine, some candy, and a bottle of water (that'll be $19, please!). I understand the place that sells cheap, cheesy local memorabilia for those on a business trip who remembered at the last minute that they promised to bring home a present for their kid and are now in desperate need of a Cardinals shirt or a Gateway Arch snow globe.

But I don't know who is shopping at the golf store (what, you forgot your plaid pants and had to have them for this trip?), or making last-minute jewelry purchases, or visiting most of the other retail outlets I've seen in other airports around the country. Frankly, if I'm at the airport, I'm probably going somewhere on a vacation that already is costing me more than I can afford, so I'm not looking for opportunities to spend a few more dollars before I even leave my hometown.

That's not to say there aren't things that should be fixed at Lambert that would make the experience of using the airport better for everyone. These are basic, functional problems that should be addressed before you build a mall inside the terminal:

Get the luggage to baggage claim faster. There's no reason people have to wait over a half-hour for their bags to come down the chute. No wonder so many of us cram all our stuff into carry-ons.
Fix the parking garage once and for all. You've been working on the thing for almost a decade, and it's worse than ever. While you're at it, get the cabs out of there. Set up a real taxi stand that's easier to access.
Fix the signs. I challenge anyone, on their first visit to Lambert, to find the main parking garage without having to go around the loop at least once.
Move the bagel place to the other side of security, so when I have to take an early morning flight and want to pick up breakfast, I can also get a bottle of orange juice without worrying about setting off the TSA's liquids-and-gels security alert system.
Tell the employees to smile every once in awhile. The airlines are in trouble because flying has become a pain to most passengers. It wouldn't hurt to have the people who are paid to work there show us a little courtesy and thanks for keeping their industry propped up. If you want to scowl at someone, wait for Carl Icahn to get on a commercial flight. In the meantime, show me a little appreciation -- I'm your customer!

Goose Bump Beach

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:03:00 +0000

When I go out of town, I want the weather in the place I'm going to be better than it is at home. If I go to Florida, I want it to be 80 degrees and sunny every day -- but while I'm away, I want St. Louis to be cloudy, windy, and 10 degrees. It's nothing personal against friends and colleagues here, but what's the use of going away if I'm not going to enjoy a better climate than if I had stayed home? I want to hear, "Wow, you picked the perfect week to go away, because it was nasty here the whole time!"

My wife and I don't have a great track record in this regard with our winter vacations. It's not that the weather at home isn't as bad as we want it to be, it's that the conditions in the supposedly sunny, warm destination aren't as good as we hope it will be. We went to Hawaii for a week and it rained for five days. We went to Grand Cayman for four days and the sun didn't come out until the last one. We went to Cancun and the wind blew so hard the trees were parallel to the Earth, not to mention the rainstorm that hit just as we got to the top of the Chichen Itza pyramid. One year, we went to Antigua (in the Caribbean) and suffered through a cold drizzle while our hometown enjoyed a historic January heat wave.

This weekend, we went to Florida to celebrate my only surviving aunt's 90th birthday. Family members came from all over (even Paris!), and we had a very nice time seeing cousins and others we don't get to see that often. My brother was there with his wife and two young sons, and we figured we'd take our daughter and his boys to the beach at least once, where we could lay in the warm sun while they frolicked in the surf and sand.

That was the idea, anyway. The reality was that, the day before we arrived, the high temperature in South Florida was 82 degrees. The day we touched down in Fort Lauderdale it was 42, and didn't get much above the mid-fifties all weekend. Still, my nephews had never had a winter beach vacation, and since we live in the middle of the country, being on a beach isn't an everyday experience for us either.

So we hopped in the rental cars and drove over to Delray Beach, which would normally be packed with similarly-minded vacationers at this time of the year. At the very least, we figured the kids would play in the sand, dip their toes in the Atlantic, and that would be about it. Instead, the kids peeled off their clothes and jumped into the water, ready to do some wave-jumping and body-surfing, while my brother and I exchanged glances that said, "If anything goes wrong, you dive in with all your clothes on and I'll be your backup."

Although the water wasn't as cold as we thought it would be, as adults, our body thermostats had ruled out the possibility of actually getting wet. We knew that, despite the not-so-frigid water temperature, the air was cold enough to cause shrinkage all by itself, an effect that would only be heightened when moist. But kids have a different tolerance level for that sort of thing -- witness any number of goose-bumped children whose lips have turned a deep shade of blue while insisting to their parents that they weren't even mildly chilly. They played in the ocean for quite awhile before our parental instincts forced us to wave them ashore, at which time they were swaddled in more layers than a newborn at the North Pole.

It wasn't exactly the beach vacation the adults had hoped for, but smiles shone on the younger faces, which is what counts. Considering all the cheek-squeezing they had to endure at the hands of their relatives during the weekend's festivities ("look how much you've grown!"), it seemed like a good trade-off.

Naturally, as soon as we left our South Florida vacation behind, their daytime highs returned to the upper 70s and low 80s. The good news is that, now that we're home, St. Louis is getting over its own cold snap and warming up to the upper 50s this week.

My daughter will probably want to wear her swimsuit to school.

Stop The Buck Here

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:37:00 +0000

By our apathy for the Sacagawea dollar and the Susan B. Anthony dollar, you'd think the Treasury Department would have learned its lesson, but they haven't.

This Thursday, the latest attempt at trying to convince Americans to use dollar coins instead of bills will begin, when new $1 coins will go into general circulation -- despite a new survey that says 3 out of 4 Americans don't want the change, both literally and figuratively.

This time, the government hopes to stimulate your interest by putting the US Presidents on the coin, releasing them in chronological order every three months (George Washington's first, then Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and so on). By my math, they'll get to the George W. Bush coin in the fall of 2017, just about the time we start withdrawing some of our troops from Iraq.

The hope is that you'll collect them, because they can just sense that you're clamoring for more Zachary Taylor and Chester A. Arthur memorabilia. Creating collectibles should not be the business of the US Mint -- leave that to companies like the Franklin Mint.

There's an old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's clearly the case here. I mentioned the Sacagawea and Anthony precedents, which might lead you to believe that this is only the third time the dollar coin has been foist upon us. In fact, it is the fourteenth dollar coin series in US history!

Through all those attempts, the Treasury Department has ignored the public's indifference toward a huge pocketful of change, just as it has dismissed the lack of cooperation from the private sector. Most vending machines still don't take dollar coins. Nor do parking meters. Slot machines are going coinless and using paper instead. Moreover, we have moved on to using plastic for a larger number of our purchases -- even fast-food places have accepted credit cards for years. For many of us, it is not unusual to go through an entire day without using any coins or currency, so why invest more in an outdated technology?

Clearly, the Treasury Department has lost its mind, along with huge amounts of money -- your tax dollars. With each failed attempt at launching a dollar coin, the federal government has lost more and more money. It takes time, manpower, energy, and materials to make those coins -- and then they have to find a place to store them when they fail and are pulled from circulation.

They'd better start building some new warehouses -- they have ordered 300,000,000 George Washington dollars so far, approximately one for every single person in the United States who won't use them.

Offending Commercials

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:02:00 +0000

I'll admit that I don't understand what was so offensive about the Snickers commercial that ran during the Super Bowl. The company has pulled the ad because some gay advocacy groups complained that it was homophobic.

This is the ad that showed two men working on a car. One of them takes out a Snickers bar, sticks it in his mouth and starts chewing from one end. The other mechanic leans over, bites on the other end, and they chew towards the middle until their lips touch. They reel back in shock and one of them says, "I think we just accidentally kissed." The other replies, "Quick, do something manly," and the two proceed to rip off some chest hair.

It may be only mildly amusing, but where's the offense? Neither of them says anything negative about gay men -- they simply act the way many men would act if they accidentally kissed someone on the mouth. That doesn't mean they're against other men doing it, it's just that the act feels out of place. Are they not allowed to feel uncomfortable in that circumstance?

Let's change the scenario. Make one of the men gay, and the other person a lesbian (of course, you can't tell their sexual orientation simply by looking at them, so let's make it two people who are already out, like Carson Kressley and Rosie O'Donnell). He has no interest in kissing a woman, she has no interest in kissing a man. Yet their lips touch, and they recoil.

What's the difference? Does that mean they hate heterosexuals? Absolutely not, anymore than the Snickers spot is about two guys who hate gays. In fact, it's about two guys who are morons, and nothing more.

Besides, the entire premise is a direct rip-off of a famous scene from "Planes Trains & Automobiles"...

Are Steve Martin and John Candy homophobic, too? Should that film be removed from circulation? Of course not. This is just another case of people who are looking to be offended, and they were.

I'm with Cyd Zeigler, co-founder of Outsports.com, a website for gay sports enthusiasts, who told USA Today that he saw the Snickers ad at a Super Bowl party with 30 gay friends, and none of them had a problem with it: "I just don't see how a couple of mechanics pulling out chest hair because they kissed is offensive."

Meanwhile, an Imo's Pizza ad has been pulled off local St. Louis TV stations because of bad timing. The spot, which was shot months ago, shows a prison inmate breaking out to get Imo's Pizza. He meets an Imo's delivery guy outside the prison, takes the pizza and says, "Same time next week," before slipping back to his cell to enjoy his meal.

So, what's the timing problem?

The commercial debuted just a couple of weeks after the arrest of Michael Devlin, the man accused of kidnapping and sexual assault in the Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby cases. Devlin was the manager of an Imo's Pizza place in Kirkwood. Even though Hornbeck's family and their attorney all say they're not offended by the spot, Imo's has yanked it anyway out of sensitivity for the situation. You can't blame them for not wanting their business associated with that case anymore than it already is.

Update 2/8/07 10:50am: Now a suicide-prevention group is insisting that General Motors pull their commercial that shows an assembly line robot making a mistake and getting so upset that it dreams of jumping off a bridge. The group says the ad may encourage people to commit suicide as a solution to their problems. As of this morning, GM is refusing to yank the spot. I hope no one at the suicide-prevention group gets so depressed about this that they end up doing something desperate, like getting a freakin' life. In their honor, here's the spot...

Lose The Loss Limit

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:29:00 +0000

Today on my KMOX show, I had a debate about Missouri's casino loss limit with Evelio Silvera of CasinoWatch.com. The disagreement was over a proposal by State Senator Charlie Shields to do away with the ridiculous $500 limit imposed by the state on everyone who goes into one of Missouri's casinos.

Here's how it works, or rather, how it doesn't work. To gain entrance to a casino in the state, you have to show ID and get a player's card. That card is then swiped at a turnstile before you're allowed on the casino floor. Once inside, you can play any game(s) you like, as long as you don't buy-in for more than $500 in a two-hour period.

However, that two hour period doesn't start when you play your first game, or even when you walk in. It starts on every even hour. So, if you went to a blackjack table and asked for $500 in chips at 6:01pm, you couldn't buy any more chips until 8:00pm (regardless of whether you win or lose at that table or anywhere else in the casino). But if you got there a little earlier, and made your initial $500 buy-in at 5:59pm, you could then purchase another $500 in chips at 6:00pm, when the clock resets. That's not two hours; it's not even two minutes!

Those of us who are regulars at the local casinos know this, but newcomers are always startled by this system, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in the gaming world. The regulars also know that, since there are no surveillance cameras in the bathrooms, you can often go in there to buy more chips from other players who may have them. And many of the high-limit players simply take their winnings home in chips, so that they can start their next session with more than $500 without having to deal with these obstacles on each visit.

In other words, the current system doesn't work. But its advocates say that keeping a limit on the amount people can gamble will cut down on the number of people who develop gambling addictions and lose money they can't afford to lose.

Sorry, but that's not government's job. It's your money, and you can do whatever you want with it. There is no limit on spending for any other recreational activity -- no law tells you how many baseball tickets you can buy, how many movies you can attend, or how many rounds of golf you can play. There is also no cap on the number of lottery tickets you can buy, because that form of gambling is not only sanctioned by government, it is actually run by the state!

In our discussion, Silvera invoked "organized crime" and "terrorism," two phrases that have a lot of heft but not a lot of relevance to the current state of gambling. These casinos are run by large, publicly-traded companies that want nothing more than to make money. For that reason, they are especially careful about keeping an eye on what goes in and what comes out, because any hint of money-laundering or other criminal activity could subject the corporation to legal actions that could affect the bottom line.

Senator Shields' proposal would, in exchange for removing the loss limit, add another 1% tax on casino profits, which would be directed to a newly created Smart Start Scholarship Fund to assist high schoolers who go on to college. This is where he may run into some opposition, because Missourians will forever be skeptical of promises to divert gaming money to education, after the initial guarantees that allowed casinos in the state proved false, and there was no windfall for Missouri schools because of some fancy financial footwork by the politicians in Jefferson City.

The casinos, on the other hand, would be glad to pay that additional 1% tax if the loss limit was gone. They would save money (on overhead, for example, when they don't have to check and count each admission or watch what each player buys in for), and the additional revenue flow would mean an estimated 6-7% increase in profit. It would also allow the casinos to market themselves as a destination for high-limit players throughout the Midwest, and could even mean bringing a major poker tournament to St. Louis (Harrah's would jump at the chance to host a World Series of Poker satellite event here).

Loss limit proponents keep harping on the notion that people who can't afford to lose a lot of money will do just that. But what about people who can afford it, who either know how to play within their own limits or have plenty of cash to throw around? I've played poker several times with Nelly, the rap superstar, who can certainly play at higher limits than the state allows without feeling pinched. Charles Barkley recently talked about the huge amounts he has won or lost, and pointed out that, since he has plenty of income, even his biggest losses haven't been put a crimp in his life.

What right does the government have to tell them or anyone else how much they're allowed to bet? Yes, some people be hurt when they gamble and lose, but the government doesn't stop them from buying a bigger car than they can afford, or charging so much on their credit cards that they get upside down on their finances. That's because Americans believe in a large measure of personal responsibility, particularly when it comes to your own money.

It's time for the loss limit to go in Missouri. If I were a betting man (and it turns out I am), I'd wager that this is the year it happens.

Listen to my conversation with Silvera.

Un-Electable

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:52:00 +0000

Following up on my column earlier this week about whether cigarette smoking would be considered a disqualifier when voters consider a presidential candidate, I got to thinking about what else the American public would hold against a politician in a national election.

Let's leave out illegal activity, or a criminal record, and let's consider this only in the present tense, not looking forward to how the next generation might vote. Let's also eliminate race and gender, which are still open questions, but may become central in 2008.

Would America elect as President someone who admitted:

Being an atheist? No chance.
Being a devout Muslim? No chance.
Being Jewish? Perhaps, but not orthodox.
Being Catholic or another Christian denomination? Absolutely.
Making proclamations beginning "God personally told me..."? No chance.
Being gay? No chance.
Having one or two lesbian experiences in college, but heterosexual since then? Probably.
Having one or two gay experiences in college, but heterosexual since then? No chance.
Having an abortion? Probably not, unless they publicly repented, but not if that turned her virulently anti-abortion a la Norma McCorvey, either.
Being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War? Possibly, if he hadn't led protests against returning Vietnam veterans (anti-war is okay, anti-troops is not).
Being single and sleeping around? Probably not.
Having an affair? Probably, unless it got messy because the spouse made a big deal of it.
Choosing to not have childen (rather than being physically incapable of procreating)? Sure.
Having used steroids? Probably.
Being an alcoholic? Yes, but only if it was long ago and you haven't fallen off the wagon.
Regularly performing in an adult entertainment venue, video, or website? No chance, regardless of when it was (keep that in mind, Miss Webcam America!).

Got one? Add it to the comments section.

Smoking Politicians

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:28:00 +0000

Would you vote for a candidate who admitted past drug use? That was the question this week after Lois Romano pointed out that, in his autobiography (published 11 years ago), Barack Obama talked about his use of cocaine and marijuana as a young man.

When I asked my KMOX callers whether -- politics aside -- that would be a disqualifier for their vote, only two callers said it would, while everyone else said it wouldn't matter at all. That vast majority also praised Obama for his honesty, pointing out that both our current president and his predecessor dodged and weaseled their way around questions about their youthful consumption of narcotics (Clinton famously claimed he hadn't inhaled, while Bush pulled a McGwire and refused to talk about the past).

Of course, that only applies to previous drug use. No one who is still openly using illegal drugs could get elected to anything in this country, with the possible exception of President of the Willie Nelson Fan Club.

But what about legal drugs like, say, nicotine? Could a cigarette smoker be elected president, governor, senator, or congressman?

In America, we're told as children that anyone can grow up to be President Of The United States. As adults, we know that's not true. To this point, you could only get the job if you were a white man. While that may change in this century, there will remain certain absolute disqualifiers in the American public's mind (for instance, no atheist has even a remote shot at the job). Is being an "out" smoker one of those political poison pills?
You never see politicians smoking anywhere cameras are present, and it's not just a matter of spending so much time in public buildings where smoking is banned. There must be many of them who still smoke (Obama is rumored to be a pack-a-day smoker, and Laura Bush is said to have snuck out to have a butt on occasion), but they only do it out of the public's view, just like Jed Bartlett on "The West Wing" stepping out of the Oval Office to light up.

That wasn't the case a couple of decades ago -- the cover photo of the current Newsweek shows the late Gerald Ford smoking a pipe -- but the smoking climate is markedly different now.

It's as if politicians have seen some focus group research showing that smoking has become so unpopular, that the simple visual of a politician holding a cigarette would be enough to dissuade Americans from voting for them.

Several of my callers did express distrust of smokers, questioning their judgement on other matters if they couldn't see how bad tobacco is for themselves. One listener said that, all things being equal, the fact that a candidate smokes might be the tipping point against them (in the next breath, he pointed out that all things are never equal). There's also the question of how a smoker would vote on legislation relating to health matters, or to banning smoking in public places. But the majority of people I've heard from -- smokers and non-smokers alike -- say that, as long as tobacco is legal, its use would not be a factor in who gets their vote.

Still, I doubt you'll see any of the 2008 candidates lighting up in public. It's as anathema to them as screaming like Howard Dean.

Leftover From The Old Year

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:52:00 +0000

Cleaning off my desk on New Year's Day, I find a few random thoughts I never got to in 2006...

Does wiping an apple on my shirt do anything? I don't know how old I was when I picked up that habit, but I find myself doing it unconsciously every time I have one. It can't be for cleanliness reasons, anymore than running it under the faucet for four seconds and wiping it off with a paper towel guarantees the fruit is now bacteria-free. Then again, in all these years, no apple has ever made me sick. Maybe Taco Bell and Olive Garden should have their kitchen help wipe their vegetables on their shirts to guarantee they're e-coli-free.

Among life's little online frustrations is printing out several news articles from websites, only to discover after you've closed the windows and gone on to other things that some of the articles didn't print out at all. Instead, you ended up with the ad from the top of that website, with none of the text you wanted. Now you have to go hunt up the link for the article again. That's almost as annoying as spending an hour printing out a couple of dozen items, only to find that your printer was so low on toner that every page has a big blank streak down the middle. And you don't have any new toner cartridges. And you have to leave for work in five minutes. Argh!

The US mint is at it again, trying to push dollar coins on an American public that has rejected them twice before. This time, they're going to do it with coins honoring the Presidents and First Ladies, releasing four a year, in the order they served. They hope they'll find success where it eluded them with Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea, by getting kids and collectors to grab them up and hold onto them, as they've done with the quarters for all 50 states (a program that still isn't complete). However, the mint has failed to realize that the quarters program works because it was a coin already in circulation, and even those of us who don't collect coins still had to use them as regular currency. Vending machines and parking meters didn't have to be changed; it took no adjustment to our coin usage. Dollar coins, on the other hand, are not part of our daily life and aren't likely to become so anytime soon. If the mint really wants to honor the Presidents with coins, they should start and end with Harry Truman by realizing that The Buck Stops Here!

In the St. Louis region, our 314 area code was split in two a few years ago, and the 636 area code was added. Since then, there have been innumerable times when I've called someone in 636 from my 314 landline number and prefaced it with the digit "1" -- and every time, I get that error message from AT&T reminding me that I do not have to dial the "1" to this adjacent area code. I know, it's me, I never learn. The problem is that I do have to dial that "1" to adjacent area code "618" in Illinois, or if I call 636 from my 314 cell number, as I do whenever I call any other area code in the world. You'd think that, in a world where people have cell phones and other numbers they can keep with them forever, regardless of where they are (or have virtual fax numbers, like the 208 area code on my eFax account), that using that "1" would have become the industry standard and precede any ten-digit phone number I call. But you'd be wrong.

Blacked Out Rams

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Harris) — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:25:00 +0000

Thanks to the NFL's insane blackout rule, the Rams-Redskins game won't be on TV this Sunday because 3,000 tickets weren't sold by noon yesterday. This isn't the Rams' fault (or rule), it's the league's.

Today on KMOX, I told Bob Wallace, executive VP of the Rams, that the NFL should change the rule so that, instead of demanding that 100% of the seats be sold before risking the game not be televised, they lower the threshold to 90-95%. That way, they'd still have a huge crowd, but wouldn't risk alienating the hundreds of thousands of us who watch the games on TV. Wallace explained the team's view, why the Rams didn't buy up the leftover tickets, and the chances of the NFL changing the blackout rule for next season. Listen.

Several e-mailers are curious why KTVI-2, the local Fox affiliate, didn't buy those tickets, thus guaranteeing they could carry the game. It would have meant an expense of some $150-200,000, and I'm guessing they ran the numbers, gauged the small number of local spots they get during the game, the loss in revenue from switching to the Saints-Giants game, and determined that it just wasn't worth it. I'm told that there were a couple of games earlier this season when Channel 2 did buy up some tickets (as did Claire McCaskill a couple of Sundays before Election Day), but they weren't willing to do it again.

Now that the Rams have had a couple of lousy seasons, fan interest seems to be waning, but the blackout rule won't help that -- it will hurt, as history proves. Ironically, the rule was partly responsible for the Rams being in St. Louis in the first place. When they were in LA, they never sold out, so the games were never on TV, so they never developed a real fan base.

It's also entirely possible that the fan base here is of the fair-weather type, loving the team from 1999-2003 when it made the post-season regularly and won a Super Bowl, but just not caring when it has an under-.500 season. Even Steven Jackson calling them out didn't help. This is Cardinal Nation, after all, not Ram Nation.

The NFL is usually better than this at keeping its image polished. No other sport is more TV-friendly, yet no other league has a blackout rule. It might have made sense when they imposed it in 1973, when pro football was less popular and not as big a deal on television. But now, there are only two teams in the NFL that have averaged less than 90% attendance this year, so who would be hurt by lowering the blackout threshold?

Keeping it intact hurts the fans, the teams, and the league. Time to dump it.