This story could be about going to New York city in a 24 hour period, but it's not about that. That was simply a means to an end.
I woke up at 7:00 on Friday morning to go to work. I worked all day, and came home with the intention of going to Elich Gardens amusement park for some rides and haunts. It turned out that Brian was running late though, and so we decided to go to spider mansion haunted house instead. We went there and it was pretty good, better than frightmare this year. After that (and Brian making some cookies), I went home to get ready to leave. We were at the airport by midnight, and on the flight by 1:00.
We flew Jet Blue to NYC, and I must say that they are the best airline ever. Tickets were $100, and there was much more room than most planes. There was no first class, so everyone feels equal. The stewards and stewardesses were very friendly and helpful, and the choice of snacks and drinks is impressive, and made me forget that there was no meal. The best part of all though is you can watch direcTV the whole way for free.
After a delightful flight, we arrived at JFK airport, and took the AirTrain to the A-Line subway. We took the subway through Brooklyn and Manhattan (with a transfer to the 1) and finally arrived at 110th and Broadway, just a couple of blocks from Tom's Restaurant.
Tom's is famous to me because its the facade of Monk's coffee shop from Seinfeld, but others might know it as "Tom's Diner". I had been there before, and it was just as good as I remembered it. Rachel and I had the lumberjack breakfast which re-energized us for our day. After breakfast, we walked about halfway down central park, and then took a confusing number of subway trains to get to 51st and 5th. Rachel did some shopping, and then we headed to the Time Square area. We had some pizza (New York pizza is the best pizza, New York style does not cut it) and then hit Toys R Us before heading to 46th and 8th.
We walked up to the address expecting some sort of theater, or at least a sign. Instead there was a church, and a small placard that said "The Last Starfighter: A New Musical". We walked in the door, and headed up the stairs. This strange area seemed to be not part of the church, though it appeared that way on the outside. It was dingy, with peeling paint and a musty smell. The man at the desk looked very "theater" and I was happy that he was living his dream. He said the house wasn't open yet and so we waited on the benches.
By the time the house opened, there were about 20 people waiting, and that was pretty much the whole audience. We went into the theater, and I saw the Starlight Starbright trailer park in glorious plywood cutouts. And off to the side, a perfect recreation of the Starfighter arcade cabinet. At this point I was definitely impressed. The play began, and all the characters that I knew from the movie made their appearances, most were drastically different from the characters in the movie, and the lines were switched around. The strange thing is the lines were often nearly verbatim, but spoken by a different character. The songs were wonderfully cheesy, and the show was progressing just about how I imagined it.
Then Centauri drove in on a picnic table. The space effects were not very good, and for some reason, they just decided to use parts of town as space props. The picnic table was the starcar, and the gunstar. The star car, had absolutely no embellishments. It was just a picnic table. The gunstar at least, had a plywood cutout engine array, and a milk crate (undisguised) for the navigator to sit on.
The most troubling part of the play was that Grig was hurt in the initial attack, and so Centauri (who was only slightly injured by the zandozan) took up the role of navigator (Centauri and Grig were also brothers).
Overall, the play was hilarious and wonderfully cheesy. Seeing it was like some sort of feverish nightmare version of the movie. All the actors played two parts (trailer park, and space characters) which gave the play sort of a Wizard of Oz feel.
I am extremely happy that I saw the play, and I would do it again. I also recommend going to NYC for some weird reason in 24 hours to all of you.
Yes there are photos
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
The Case for Globalization
As I mentioned yesterday, I have a strong liberal/democratic tilt to my politics. I want better environmental policies, maximum spending, lots of government services, etc. The one area in which I differ is that of globalization.
Free-trade, globalization, whatever you want to call it has a history of explosive conflict and hot debate. I think that we can all agree (except for a small group of radicals) that no trade at all would be a bad thing, but the point at which globalization becomes an issue to many people is when they think that they (or a group that they speak for) are not getting good benefits from the trade. That reason is why there are tariffs on various imports in this country - to protect domestic production.
I agree that sometimes it seems like one group or another will get the short end of the stick from a trade, like U.S. car manufacturers during the import boom of the 80s, or south American sweat-shop workers who get paid a matter of cents per day. The inherent problem with this view, is that a successful world economy is a long-run proposition. We must make sacrifices in the present to realize a stable, healthy world economy in the future.
Of course, what proof do we have that the U.S. economy can rebound from tariff free imports, or that third world labor will ever advance beyond their meager salary? The answer to this question lies in the basic theory of economics. To explain this gigantic macroeconomic system, I will explain a much smaller system.
A small town named Burt is founded in an area with a pond. The locals live from meager farms and fish from the pond. The pond supplies only a limited number of fish because it is fed by small mountain streams. They are all reasonably happy, but their wealth is extremely limited. One day, there a merchant arrives selling fish. The fish are better than the people of Burt have ever tasted, and seem to have limitless quality. This is because the merchant is from the town of Reynolds which is far away on the banks of a river. The river supplies Reynolds with more fish than they can handle, so they sent out a merchant to find buyers. The people of Burt trade their crops for these superior fish, and the merchant goes home a wealthy man. At this point, it seems like Burt got fleeced and they traded extremely limited goods for something that Reynolds seems to have a lot of. That is where the second part of the story begins. The merchant tells tales of Burt to the many citizens of Reynolds. They are entranced by its quaint characteristics, and soon many travel to Burt. Burt opens hotels and restaurants to accommodate the new travelers, and soon there is a large trade of Reynolds fish for Burt's charm. In the end, a village whose main asset was its charm was able to utilize that to the fullest, and a village whose main asset was fish was able maximize their specialty as well.
The global economy is far more complicated, I agree, but the moral of this story is that economies will benefit from focusing on their specialties. Why should America produce goods that require much unskilled labor, when we could completely focus on service, IT, ideas, advertising and international finance? Let the developing world make our crap for us! So what about the developing world? Won't they just get poorer and poorer because all they can do is produce our crap? Yes, until they create a new specialty. If trade is completely free, then the poor will seem poorer and the rich, richer for a time, but eventually everything will equalize.
The problem with this plan is that wars, famine, and other factors can break the equilibrium. For this reason, minor watch should be kept on trade, and outright villainy should be punished. Developing nations should be allowed to work in sweatshops, and their children will long for more, and the next generations ideas will create specialties. Those that are too intelligent or skilled for these specialties should do what they can to move to a country or region that can sustain them. Meanwhile, the developed world should focus on their specialties (those that center on intelligence and skill), and those that are unable to fit into those specialties should move to a country or region that can sustain them.
The key to long term success in a free trade economy is free migration. If someone who is unskilled lives in a place where skilled labor is the specialty - they can learn, or move. If someone is skilled in a place where unskilled labor is the specialty - they can put up with it or move. If someone with low skills moves somewhere were high skills are required, they will not have success, and will move back to a low skill specialty zone. These areas do not necessarily mean different countries, but they can. Educated Indians are moving to American to take tech jobs all the time, and high school drop outs move to areas where they can get work as dock loaders or other menial labor.
The sad part of this is that there will be poor people, and their will be rich people. But communism is the only solution to that, and that only works if people don't have sex.
My argument is not razor sharp, or crystal clear, but the essential argument is that freedom will lead to equilibrium as long as external factors (war, famine, villainy) are controlled. The international community should support freedom of trade and migration, but should also try to restrict trade or migration that is done with ill intent.
Free-trade, globalization, whatever you want to call it has a history of explosive conflict and hot debate. I think that we can all agree (except for a small group of radicals) that no trade at all would be a bad thing, but the point at which globalization becomes an issue to many people is when they think that they (or a group that they speak for) are not getting good benefits from the trade. That reason is why there are tariffs on various imports in this country - to protect domestic production.
I agree that sometimes it seems like one group or another will get the short end of the stick from a trade, like U.S. car manufacturers during the import boom of the 80s, or south American sweat-shop workers who get paid a matter of cents per day. The inherent problem with this view, is that a successful world economy is a long-run proposition. We must make sacrifices in the present to realize a stable, healthy world economy in the future.
Of course, what proof do we have that the U.S. economy can rebound from tariff free imports, or that third world labor will ever advance beyond their meager salary? The answer to this question lies in the basic theory of economics. To explain this gigantic macroeconomic system, I will explain a much smaller system.
A small town named Burt is founded in an area with a pond. The locals live from meager farms and fish from the pond. The pond supplies only a limited number of fish because it is fed by small mountain streams. They are all reasonably happy, but their wealth is extremely limited. One day, there a merchant arrives selling fish. The fish are better than the people of Burt have ever tasted, and seem to have limitless quality. This is because the merchant is from the town of Reynolds which is far away on the banks of a river. The river supplies Reynolds with more fish than they can handle, so they sent out a merchant to find buyers. The people of Burt trade their crops for these superior fish, and the merchant goes home a wealthy man. At this point, it seems like Burt got fleeced and they traded extremely limited goods for something that Reynolds seems to have a lot of. That is where the second part of the story begins. The merchant tells tales of Burt to the many citizens of Reynolds. They are entranced by its quaint characteristics, and soon many travel to Burt. Burt opens hotels and restaurants to accommodate the new travelers, and soon there is a large trade of Reynolds fish for Burt's charm. In the end, a village whose main asset was its charm was able to utilize that to the fullest, and a village whose main asset was fish was able maximize their specialty as well.
The global economy is far more complicated, I agree, but the moral of this story is that economies will benefit from focusing on their specialties. Why should America produce goods that require much unskilled labor, when we could completely focus on service, IT, ideas, advertising and international finance? Let the developing world make our crap for us! So what about the developing world? Won't they just get poorer and poorer because all they can do is produce our crap? Yes, until they create a new specialty. If trade is completely free, then the poor will seem poorer and the rich, richer for a time, but eventually everything will equalize.
The problem with this plan is that wars, famine, and other factors can break the equilibrium. For this reason, minor watch should be kept on trade, and outright villainy should be punished. Developing nations should be allowed to work in sweatshops, and their children will long for more, and the next generations ideas will create specialties. Those that are too intelligent or skilled for these specialties should do what they can to move to a country or region that can sustain them. Meanwhile, the developed world should focus on their specialties (those that center on intelligence and skill), and those that are unable to fit into those specialties should move to a country or region that can sustain them.
The key to long term success in a free trade economy is free migration. If someone who is unskilled lives in a place where skilled labor is the specialty - they can learn, or move. If someone is skilled in a place where unskilled labor is the specialty - they can put up with it or move. If someone with low skills moves somewhere were high skills are required, they will not have success, and will move back to a low skill specialty zone. These areas do not necessarily mean different countries, but they can. Educated Indians are moving to American to take tech jobs all the time, and high school drop outs move to areas where they can get work as dock loaders or other menial labor.
The sad part of this is that there will be poor people, and their will be rich people. But communism is the only solution to that, and that only works if people don't have sex.
My argument is not razor sharp, or crystal clear, but the essential argument is that freedom will lead to equilibrium as long as external factors (war, famine, villainy) are controlled. The international community should support freedom of trade and migration, but should also try to restrict trade or migration that is done with ill intent.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Yoshi's Touch and Go
Yoshi's Touch & Go Hands-On at Gamespot
This game looks amazing. Yoshi's Island is my favorite side scrolling game of all time. The whimsical music and gameplay make it a true classic, and this game looks to have more of the same. The way that the touch screen and stylus are used in this game make me have even higher expectations for the DS. Until now, most people have just likened the mechanic to palm pilots and pocket pcs. But this game looks like it has a unique use for the touch screen.
This game looks amazing. Yoshi's Island is my favorite side scrolling game of all time. The whimsical music and gameplay make it a true classic, and this game looks to have more of the same. The way that the touch screen and stylus are used in this game make me have even higher expectations for the DS. Until now, most people have just likened the mechanic to palm pilots and pocket pcs. But this game looks like it has a unique use for the touch screen.
So I'm liberal, so what?
So, after hearing on the radio this morning about Select Smart, I decided to try it out, just to make sure that I'd chosen correctly who I will vote for. Turns out, I'm kinda liberal! Who would have thought it... Here are my results.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (82%)
3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (77%)
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (66%)
5. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (65%)
6. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (43%)
7. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (15%)
8. Bush, President George W. - Republican (11%)
Essentially, I'm happy with my choice of Kerry. He may not be tops on my list, but he is up there. I voted green last time, and was happy with my decision because I felt that both candidates were pretty much on the same page. Of course, 9/11 changed everything, and Gore might have handled that differently - or it might not have even happened. Anyway, I feel like this is a more important election in terms of getting the most likely guy into office, and less important for making a statement about party homogenization. I most certainly will not vote for Nader just because he's being such an ass about his whole candidacy. Greens didn't want him, so he weazeled his way into another slot. Anyway - I'll be voting for Kerry. I encourage all of you to check that site out and see what you think!
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (82%)
3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (77%)
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (66%)
5. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (65%)
6. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (43%)
7. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (15%)
8. Bush, President George W. - Republican (11%)
Essentially, I'm happy with my choice of Kerry. He may not be tops on my list, but he is up there. I voted green last time, and was happy with my decision because I felt that both candidates were pretty much on the same page. Of course, 9/11 changed everything, and Gore might have handled that differently - or it might not have even happened. Anyway, I feel like this is a more important election in terms of getting the most likely guy into office, and less important for making a statement about party homogenization. I most certainly will not vote for Nader just because he's being such an ass about his whole candidacy. Greens didn't want him, so he weazeled his way into another slot. Anyway - I'll be voting for Kerry. I encourage all of you to check that site out and see what you think!
Monday, October 11, 2004
By popular demand, more photos from Kentucky
The carnival at the ham festival
Rachel and my thumb
This was on TV *all* weekend. I don't think they odds are good.
This kid had an awesome transformation. Ant's stepdad kept calling him "boon", but his real name was Jessie.
This is Tiffany's families beautiful Kentucky home.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Worlds Largest ham and biscuit
Also while in Kentucky, we were able to attend the Trigg County Country Ham festival. The festival was kind of a let down on the whole, but people around there sure were excited about it. I might have been more excited had I actually been able to see the world's largest ham and biscuit, or maybe eat some of the country ham. As it happened, the festival was just a mid-grade carnival attached to a generic street festival (funnel cakes abounded).
Lookin' Good
Well, my good friend Ant got married this weekend, and I went all the way out to kentucky to see it. I'd say it was worth it, since I've never *really* been to Kentucky and now I have. The wedding was great, and Ant was lookin' good as evidenced by this photo. This was the best wedding I've been to (other than my own), but it was still boring and tedious at times. Being banished to the garage, and waiting around for photographs rank high on that list. But it was all worth it to hang out with my "Friends that Might Have Been" and have some good food.
Speaking of FTMHB... it was pretty weird how comfortable I was around all the UPS people even though they didn't remember me at all really, I knew them, and it allowed me to be more social than usual. Unfortunately I didn't get to talk to Ant as much as I would have liked, but I did get to talk to him more than I figured I would.
Speaking of FTMHB... it was pretty weird how comfortable I was around all the UPS people even though they didn't remember me at all really, I knew them, and it allowed me to be more social than usual. Unfortunately I didn't get to talk to Ant as much as I would have liked, but I did get to talk to him more than I figured I would.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Hijacker
From Boing Boing:
Unintended consequences of Cheney's dot-com v dot-org debate goof:
During last night's vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney advised viewers interested in his version of the facts about Halliburton to visit factcheck.com. Evidently, he meant to direct them to factcheck dot ORG, a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, but mis-spoke. Factcheck dot COM redirects you to GeorgeSoros.com which contains arguments on 'why we must not re-elect President George Bush.' Whups.
This is why we need to have more stictly controled TLDs, or educate people more on their use. I hate that people are tricked every day by mis-spelling or otherwise screwing up web site addresses. If you accidentally mail something to the wrong place, it doesn't end up getting entirely different, or misleading information.
I'll have to think of a plan for this...
Unintended consequences of Cheney's dot-com v dot-org debate goof:
During last night's vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney advised viewers interested in his version of the facts about Halliburton to visit factcheck.com. Evidently, he meant to direct them to factcheck dot ORG, a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, but mis-spoke. Factcheck dot COM redirects you to GeorgeSoros.com which contains arguments on 'why we must not re-elect President George Bush.' Whups.
This is why we need to have more stictly controled TLDs, or educate people more on their use. I hate that people are tricked every day by mis-spelling or otherwise screwing up web site addresses. If you accidentally mail something to the wrong place, it doesn't end up getting entirely different, or misleading information.
I'll have to think of a plan for this...
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
.Plan
This will be a place where I discuss things that are happening in the world, put details on various stunts that my friends and I do, and perhaps share some writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)