By Daniel B. Kline
Like those guys that sell football picks on early morning infomercials, TV weathermen pretend to be impossibly accurate while in reality they're making little more than an educated guess. Generally, using whatever silly name they give their equipment (Accuweather 5,000, the Storm Tracking Center, etc.) your average television meteorologist appears to usually get the current day's forecast correct and sometimes he nails down tomorrow.
I'm fairly certain that most TV newsrooms have no actual forecasting equipment and that Doppler Radar is as real as those elves who make cookies. I figure the average weather guy jumps on the Internet and checks Weather.com, because no matter what he says it means lttle if he gets the forecast right.
If television news programs want to continue to offer weather predictions beyond the current 24-hour span, they should be required to post accuracy ratings. Instead of telling us how great your meteorologists are and bragging about all of your fancy forecasting equipment, simply show the percentage of days on your long-term outlook when the weatherperson actually gets it right.
If weather reports had to include this information, we would probably see a lot less stations offering weekend forecasts on Monday and some dropping the "five-day forecast" gimmick altogether. If we saw just how often these long-term forecasts are wrong, we would likely come to the conclusion that meteorlogy lets us make an educated guess and little more.
On the positive side, if a station had a weatherman who got things right a high percentage of the time, that forecaster would become more popular. A reliable weather person would bring increased ratings and perhaps restore credibility to a field that has long been reduced to acting zany and doing things like wishing old people happy birthday.
Currently, it seems that science has an ability to project what the weather might be, but no real ability to account for everything that might change. We can see storms as they develop and see their general vector, but all the possible last minute changes remain impossible to to predict no many how many "Doppler" systems we employ.
While demanding weatherman accountability in a world where politicians, parents and teachers have little real accountability seems odd, it make sense when you consider how weather impacts us. From basic things like how to dress our children in the morning or whether to carry a jacket, the weather sets the tone for our day.
In my case, during the warmer months, weather highly impacts my business. A rainy day on a weekend not only means more customers, it also means I need more staff members to serve those customers.
If the local meteorlogists all say it will rain on Saturday during Wednesday's forecast, then I must move to put more people on the schedule. Should that prediction change (usually during Saturday morning's forecast) to a sunny day with rain in the evening, I could be left with an expense not offset by extra business.
In the Winter it works the opposite way as a snowstorm not only devestates business, but it can strand staff members at the store (not a pleasant place to sleep). Advance warning lets me send people home early, but a storm that never comes leaves me understaffed.
Repeat this problem at any number of other businesses across the country and you see that not knowing if we can believe the weather forecast actually impact the economy. It's not just a question of whether I bring a coat in the morning, it's a question of business.
If you want to pretend you can predict the weather then show me how often you get it right. Without backing up your prognostication skills with actual facts, a forecast is nothing more than a guess backed by fancy graphics.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Judging, even on TV, should involve passing judgment
By Daniel B. Kline
Though I know precious little about "American Idol," I have always been of the idea that judges in a singing competition should in fact pass judgment on those singing. This makes the choice of Ellen Degeneres as the show's unnecessary fourth judge somewhat perplexing.
Once funny, Degeneres has sold her soul to whatever demon made Jay Leno successful. Instead of comedy, her talk show consists of familiar bits that her audience has been conditioned to find amusing. I challenge anyone to actually be entertained by her recurring dancing or actually be compelled by her puffball interviews.
That is not so say the Degeneres does not have the capacity for comedy. She was once a funny, albeit very mild, standup, and she remains witty, but instead of humor she now relies on her trademark mannerisms and verbal ticks. It's a living and it brought her career success, but comedy by focus group and upper management notes does not give anyone hope that Degeneres will offer anything useful as a judge.
The comedian has often said in interviews since gaining the chair once held by Paula Abdul that she will represent the fans watching the show. She told USA today that "hopefully I'm the people's point of view because I'm just like you. I sit at home and I watch it and I don't have that technical... I'm not looking at it in a critical way from the producer's mind. I'm looking at it as a person who is going to buy the music and is going to relate to that person. So I'm hopefully going to be that voice of what we're all doing at home."
In saying that Degeneres misses the entire point of being a judge. First of all, aside from iTunes downloads, you are not going to buy the music from the show. That music is karaoke of other people's hits from which the judges must distill whether the performer has the ability to someday create (albeit with a team of producers) songs that might resonate with the public.
Nobody needs a judge to tell them whether they enjoyed Carrie Underwood or Adam Lambert's interpretation of some should-have-been forgotten Neil Diamond song, they need the judges to tell them whether the person actually has talent. At least three people I went to high school with sang excellent covers at various talent shows and I know I enjoyed their work. I'm unsure, however, if they had any real talent and that's when an actual judge like Simon Cowell steps in.
Degeneres adds nothing to the judging process as she clearly intends to not pass any judgment or risk offending any of the contestants. She might get in a few good quips or even some genuinely funny remarks, but they will be as out of place as Dennis Miller on "Monday Night Football."
"Idol" should have either not replaced Abdul, since four judges is overkill, or should have filled her chair with another washed up performer. Though she was nuts, the "Straight Up" singer actually was an over-produced semi-talent who survived based on teams of producers and outside songwriters.
Since that's the destiny for most "Idol" winners, she at least had something to offer. Ellen, however, brings little to the table beyond her inherent likability which makes little sense for a show that is supposed to be about finding talent.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Though I know precious little about "American Idol," I have always been of the idea that judges in a singing competition should in fact pass judgment on those singing. This makes the choice of Ellen Degeneres as the show's unnecessary fourth judge somewhat perplexing.
Once funny, Degeneres has sold her soul to whatever demon made Jay Leno successful. Instead of comedy, her talk show consists of familiar bits that her audience has been conditioned to find amusing. I challenge anyone to actually be entertained by her recurring dancing or actually be compelled by her puffball interviews.
That is not so say the Degeneres does not have the capacity for comedy. She was once a funny, albeit very mild, standup, and she remains witty, but instead of humor she now relies on her trademark mannerisms and verbal ticks. It's a living and it brought her career success, but comedy by focus group and upper management notes does not give anyone hope that Degeneres will offer anything useful as a judge.
The comedian has often said in interviews since gaining the chair once held by Paula Abdul that she will represent the fans watching the show. She told USA today that "hopefully I'm the people's point of view because I'm just like you. I sit at home and I watch it and I don't have that technical... I'm not looking at it in a critical way from the producer's mind. I'm looking at it as a person who is going to buy the music and is going to relate to that person. So I'm hopefully going to be that voice of what we're all doing at home."
In saying that Degeneres misses the entire point of being a judge. First of all, aside from iTunes downloads, you are not going to buy the music from the show. That music is karaoke of other people's hits from which the judges must distill whether the performer has the ability to someday create (albeit with a team of producers) songs that might resonate with the public.
Nobody needs a judge to tell them whether they enjoyed Carrie Underwood or Adam Lambert's interpretation of some should-have-been forgotten Neil Diamond song, they need the judges to tell them whether the person actually has talent. At least three people I went to high school with sang excellent covers at various talent shows and I know I enjoyed their work. I'm unsure, however, if they had any real talent and that's when an actual judge like Simon Cowell steps in.
Degeneres adds nothing to the judging process as she clearly intends to not pass any judgment or risk offending any of the contestants. She might get in a few good quips or even some genuinely funny remarks, but they will be as out of place as Dennis Miller on "Monday Night Football."
"Idol" should have either not replaced Abdul, since four judges is overkill, or should have filled her chair with another washed up performer. Though she was nuts, the "Straight Up" singer actually was an over-produced semi-talent who survived based on teams of producers and outside songwriters.
Since that's the destiny for most "Idol" winners, she at least had something to offer. Ellen, however, brings little to the table beyond her inherent likability which makes little sense for a show that is supposed to be about finding talent.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
9/11 victims deserve better
By Daniel B. Kline
Eight years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Osama bin Laden has yet to face American justice. While 2,752 Americans will never return home to their families, the man who orchestrated their deaths remains free to plot his next attack against our nation.
President George Bush failed to capture or kill bin Laden because he decided to invade Iraq and attack Saddam Hussein -- a bad guy, but not the bad guy. We might as well have invaded Libya or North Korea because those countries also have horrendous, villainous dictators who deserve to die, but did not cause the events of 9/11.
Not only have we not caught the guy who admits to planning the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, but we no longer appear to be doing much to look for him. Most likely this is because we have a tenuous political relationship with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we carpet bomb the hills and mountains of those countries where bin Laden likely resides, we might commit a diplomatic faux pas.
Put succinctly, we're not catching the guy who waged open war on our country because it might offend the people who are hiding him in the first place. That's like having lunch at a friend's house while you both know her husband is molesting kids in the next room but not saying anything because it might seem impolite.
If Pakistan and Afghanistan provide safe harbor, even semi-unknowing safe harbor for a monster like bin Laden, then these countries are not our friends. I don't generally allow the people who seek to do my pals harm to live in my basement and the same rule should apply to international diplomacy.
The events of that dark day may fade in our collective consciousness but they do not not fade in the minds of people who lost loved ones. In New York, the reverberations of the attacks are still felt. It's a wound that will not heal and one that will always be a part of the fabric of the city.
New York's a little nicer now and its people are more openly supportive of each other. Through tragedy people find strength and what bin Laden thought would break us has only made us stronger.
None of this newfound strength has been put to bear to bring bin Laden to justice. Instead, while this monster remains free we still have countless American troops in a pointless war in Iraq. Instead of tearing apart the countryside to find our greatest enemy, we are spending lives in a country that does not want nor appreciate our help.
The victims of 9/11 deserve our continued vigilance. They deserve to know we left no stone unturned and did everything imaginable to catch the man who planned their deaths. Anything less is an insult to their memories.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Eight years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Osama bin Laden has yet to face American justice. While 2,752 Americans will never return home to their families, the man who orchestrated their deaths remains free to plot his next attack against our nation.
President George Bush failed to capture or kill bin Laden because he decided to invade Iraq and attack Saddam Hussein -- a bad guy, but not the bad guy. We might as well have invaded Libya or North Korea because those countries also have horrendous, villainous dictators who deserve to die, but did not cause the events of 9/11.
Not only have we not caught the guy who admits to planning the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, but we no longer appear to be doing much to look for him. Most likely this is because we have a tenuous political relationship with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we carpet bomb the hills and mountains of those countries where bin Laden likely resides, we might commit a diplomatic faux pas.
Put succinctly, we're not catching the guy who waged open war on our country because it might offend the people who are hiding him in the first place. That's like having lunch at a friend's house while you both know her husband is molesting kids in the next room but not saying anything because it might seem impolite.
If Pakistan and Afghanistan provide safe harbor, even semi-unknowing safe harbor for a monster like bin Laden, then these countries are not our friends. I don't generally allow the people who seek to do my pals harm to live in my basement and the same rule should apply to international diplomacy.
The events of that dark day may fade in our collective consciousness but they do not not fade in the minds of people who lost loved ones. In New York, the reverberations of the attacks are still felt. It's a wound that will not heal and one that will always be a part of the fabric of the city.
New York's a little nicer now and its people are more openly supportive of each other. Through tragedy people find strength and what bin Laden thought would break us has only made us stronger.
None of this newfound strength has been put to bear to bring bin Laden to justice. Instead, while this monster remains free we still have countless American troops in a pointless war in Iraq. Instead of tearing apart the countryside to find our greatest enemy, we are spending lives in a country that does not want nor appreciate our help.
The victims of 9/11 deserve our continued vigilance. They deserve to know we left no stone unturned and did everything imaginable to catch the man who planned their deaths. Anything less is an insult to their memories.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Real role models hard to come by
By Daniel B. Kline
With athletes doing steroids, fathering illegitimate children and committing other unspeakable crimes and politicians having affairs, getting arrested and pretty openly dipping their hands into the cookie jar, I'm lost as to who exactly my son should look up to. You can immediately discount actors, anyone appearing on a reality show, all rock stars except maybe Bono and anyone famous for no discernible reason.
Of course, it's nice to say that he should look up to me, and I'm sure he will, but they don't make posters of me, write articles about me in the newspaper (at least very often) or put my face on television. Hero worship is an important part of growing up, but today's would-be heroes seem poised to let you down.
My childhood heroes had at best a mixed success rate. Patriots quarterback Steve Grogan never quite won the Super Bowl, but he also never got arrested or involved in any sort of scandal. The same can not be said of the professional wrestlers whose careers I followed as an elementary school kid. Most of them are either dead, ravaged by steroid use or sadly appearing in high school gymnasiums as poster children for why saving your money is important.
I want my son to put his favorite Red Sox or Patriot (no, he's not getting a choice on teams) player on his wall without me wondering when that player will let him down. I'm not talking about Alex Rodriguez striking out in every key situation style letdowns, I'm talking about Alex Rodriguez cheating by taking steroids letdowns.
Athletes at least end up in their positions because of their skill in a particular sport. Nothing about being a sports star requires or even implies that you would be a good person. If you can hit the ball or throw a pass, it apparently hardly matters if you take illegal drugs or kill dogs for fun.
Politicians, however, should theoretically live up to some standard of behavior. While kids don't put posters of their senators or mayor on the wall, they should be able to look to their elected officials as role models.
Unfortunately, in these post-Monica Lewinsky days where even Republicans get embroiled in sex scandals, the political news can read like a seedy romance novel. Instead of towering figures of virtue holding many of our highest offices we have a collection of crooks, adulterers, thieves and swindlers. Some of these reprobates may very well be good office-holders (we'll miss you Ted Kennedy) but they are hardly role models for our kids.
When you live in an era where even Bill Cosby cheated on his wife it's hard to imagine any famous person not being guilty of something. Maybe Oprah has a basement full of dead hobos. Perhaps Sting robs convenience stores when he's not saving the rainforest and is it so hard to imagine Bill Gates clubbing baby seals just to blow off some steam?
Right now, my son's room contains Star Wars trilogy posters featuring Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca and even much lesser hero, Lando Calrissian. These heroes might be fictional, but they are not likely to end up on the front page of the newspaper for having a car full of cocaine or a hotel room full of prostitutes.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
With athletes doing steroids, fathering illegitimate children and committing other unspeakable crimes and politicians having affairs, getting arrested and pretty openly dipping their hands into the cookie jar, I'm lost as to who exactly my son should look up to. You can immediately discount actors, anyone appearing on a reality show, all rock stars except maybe Bono and anyone famous for no discernible reason.
Of course, it's nice to say that he should look up to me, and I'm sure he will, but they don't make posters of me, write articles about me in the newspaper (at least very often) or put my face on television. Hero worship is an important part of growing up, but today's would-be heroes seem poised to let you down.
My childhood heroes had at best a mixed success rate. Patriots quarterback Steve Grogan never quite won the Super Bowl, but he also never got arrested or involved in any sort of scandal. The same can not be said of the professional wrestlers whose careers I followed as an elementary school kid. Most of them are either dead, ravaged by steroid use or sadly appearing in high school gymnasiums as poster children for why saving your money is important.
I want my son to put his favorite Red Sox or Patriot (no, he's not getting a choice on teams) player on his wall without me wondering when that player will let him down. I'm not talking about Alex Rodriguez striking out in every key situation style letdowns, I'm talking about Alex Rodriguez cheating by taking steroids letdowns.
Athletes at least end up in their positions because of their skill in a particular sport. Nothing about being a sports star requires or even implies that you would be a good person. If you can hit the ball or throw a pass, it apparently hardly matters if you take illegal drugs or kill dogs for fun.
Politicians, however, should theoretically live up to some standard of behavior. While kids don't put posters of their senators or mayor on the wall, they should be able to look to their elected officials as role models.
Unfortunately, in these post-Monica Lewinsky days where even Republicans get embroiled in sex scandals, the political news can read like a seedy romance novel. Instead of towering figures of virtue holding many of our highest offices we have a collection of crooks, adulterers, thieves and swindlers. Some of these reprobates may very well be good office-holders (we'll miss you Ted Kennedy) but they are hardly role models for our kids.
When you live in an era where even Bill Cosby cheated on his wife it's hard to imagine any famous person not being guilty of something. Maybe Oprah has a basement full of dead hobos. Perhaps Sting robs convenience stores when he's not saving the rainforest and is it so hard to imagine Bill Gates clubbing baby seals just to blow off some steam?
Right now, my son's room contains Star Wars trilogy posters featuring Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca and even much lesser hero, Lando Calrissian. These heroes might be fictional, but they are not likely to end up on the front page of the newspaper for having a car full of cocaine or a hotel room full of prostitutes.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at DBKline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Taking it slow still worth it sometimes
By Daniel B. Kline
Like my mother telling me about playing with a Mr. Potato Head that was actually a potato or my father talking about working as the guy that reset the pins at the family bowling alley, I imagine I will someday be explaining to my my son about the joys of sitting down and reading the newspaper. He will likely listen for a minute or two being slightly amused before he resumes getting his news in two-word blips from whatever device delivers such things in the not-so-distant future.
As a child I used to get up early to be able to read the Boston Globe from front-to-back before anyone in my family touched the paper. I'm only 35, so we're not talking that many years ago, and there was not only no internet, there weren't really any computers. Essentially, the information you could get electronically was pretty much limited to the cut scenes between levels in Pac-Man (which, to be fair, did teach me quite a bit about the courting rituals of Pac-People).
The rise in people getting their news from Yahoo, Google and the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen leaves me wondering if we have created a generation of people with no capacity for depth. Just give them the headlines and that's enough. Nobody cares for the when, where, why or how, they just want who and what.
If John F. Kennedy were shot today, a generation of non-readers would learn "President killed" and leave it at that. The public might be interested in reading a blog post about the president's romantic dalliances or perhaps they might sit through a 140 character or less "Tweet" about his murder, but the only way he could really hold their attention is if he made a sex tape or a reality show.
Glancing at the headlines on your desktop or your cell phone screen does not count as being informed. It's great that CNN will send you a one sentence update when news breaks, but that update should at least sometimes lead to you seeking out more information.
In my generation television news started pulling people away from the more in-depth forms of knowing what was going on like newspapers or magazines. That, coupled with video games, MTV and other short-form instant gratification entertainment lowered attention spans, caused a rise in Attention Deficit Disorder and slowly started lowering the bar.
The current generation not only has all those same distractions, but their methods of social interaction no longer require any effort or depth. If I wanted to keep in touch with a friend after college, I had to call or write an actual letter. Even the addition of email still required actual writing, though it did begin the decay of formality, structure and attention to grammar.
Now, you can superficially maintain every relationship you have ever had by becoming Facebook friends with anyone who asks. You may not have any real knowledge of how your old roommate's life has gone, but you know that she's at lunch or that he went skiing. This might lead to having a lot more vague acquaintances that we label friends, but it probably actually erodes our real friendships.
Real knowledge, real friendship and knowing about anything in depth actually requires work. Today might be the day to step back a little from the technology and read the paper, call an old friend and maybe even pick up a book. Of course, if you don't remember what those are, you can always Google it or look it up on Wikipedia.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Like my mother telling me about playing with a Mr. Potato Head that was actually a potato or my father talking about working as the guy that reset the pins at the family bowling alley, I imagine I will someday be explaining to my my son about the joys of sitting down and reading the newspaper. He will likely listen for a minute or two being slightly amused before he resumes getting his news in two-word blips from whatever device delivers such things in the not-so-distant future.
As a child I used to get up early to be able to read the Boston Globe from front-to-back before anyone in my family touched the paper. I'm only 35, so we're not talking that many years ago, and there was not only no internet, there weren't really any computers. Essentially, the information you could get electronically was pretty much limited to the cut scenes between levels in Pac-Man (which, to be fair, did teach me quite a bit about the courting rituals of Pac-People).
The rise in people getting their news from Yahoo, Google and the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen leaves me wondering if we have created a generation of people with no capacity for depth. Just give them the headlines and that's enough. Nobody cares for the when, where, why or how, they just want who and what.
If John F. Kennedy were shot today, a generation of non-readers would learn "President killed" and leave it at that. The public might be interested in reading a blog post about the president's romantic dalliances or perhaps they might sit through a 140 character or less "Tweet" about his murder, but the only way he could really hold their attention is if he made a sex tape or a reality show.
Glancing at the headlines on your desktop or your cell phone screen does not count as being informed. It's great that CNN will send you a one sentence update when news breaks, but that update should at least sometimes lead to you seeking out more information.
In my generation television news started pulling people away from the more in-depth forms of knowing what was going on like newspapers or magazines. That, coupled with video games, MTV and other short-form instant gratification entertainment lowered attention spans, caused a rise in Attention Deficit Disorder and slowly started lowering the bar.
The current generation not only has all those same distractions, but their methods of social interaction no longer require any effort or depth. If I wanted to keep in touch with a friend after college, I had to call or write an actual letter. Even the addition of email still required actual writing, though it did begin the decay of formality, structure and attention to grammar.
Now, you can superficially maintain every relationship you have ever had by becoming Facebook friends with anyone who asks. You may not have any real knowledge of how your old roommate's life has gone, but you know that she's at lunch or that he went skiing. This might lead to having a lot more vague acquaintances that we label friends, but it probably actually erodes our real friendships.
Real knowledge, real friendship and knowing about anything in depth actually requires work. Today might be the day to step back a little from the technology and read the paper, call an old friend and maybe even pick up a book. Of course, if you don't remember what those are, you can always Google it or look it up on Wikipedia.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
