Saturday September 25, 2004 
|
|
|
All
|
Holes in the Water
|
Non Sequitur
|
Sun
|
The Orthodox Church
|
What's in the CD player?
|
What's in the DVD player?
|
What's on the bookshelf?
Saturday September 25, 2004 My apologies for going dark there for a while -- it's been crazy busy, and it's all good. Last Tuesday, while Sun rocked Wall Street with the best products, services and solutions for demanding customers, I was a few hundred miles south, trying to talk some sense into the Senate as FASB's plans to require the expensing of stock options move forward. What FASB is proposing to do is wrong, for three reasons. First, they're purportedly going after stock options because they want to crack down on robber baron CEO's who pillage their shareholders and employees and walk away rich. In fact, requiring the expensing of stock options will hurt rank-and-file employees, who in Sun's case, get 87% of the options granted (data from FY98-02). Not to mention hurting the economy, as mucho taxes are paid and proceeds are spent when the options are eventually cashed in. Second, the valuation models FASB is offering up produce bogus results. If you can predict the value of a share of stock five years into the future... call me! Neither of us will need options, and FASB can do what it wills. Otherwise, it's a S.W.A.G. In fact, because low-priced stock options are more likely to make money than high-priced stock options -- my Sun options at $40/share are likely to expire before they're ever worth a dime, whereas the ones at $4/share are looking pretty good -- S.W.A.G. doesn't even begin to cover it. I'm thinking of a compound adjective that ends in -backwards. Finally, and this is pretty basic accounting -- kind of amazing FASB doesn't get it -- stock options represent diluted shareholder equity. The company is worth X dollars, divided by Y shares: so the equity represented by each share is X/Y. As you give out more shares, the equity in each share is reduced. That's why our shareholders are required to approve stock option plans, and are making the informed business decision that incenting the workforce in this way -- making us shareholders with them, in the same boat -- will ultimately provide better returns for all. According to FASB, however, stock option grants are operating expenses which must be applied to the balance sheet on the date they're given. As if the company paid them out in cash. Trust me, those options at $40/share -- I'd a rather been paid out in cash. But I wasn't. And they didn't cost the company a dime to give out, and will never cost the company a dime. Charging our balance sheet hundreds of thousands of dollars for them -- back in 2000, when I first got them and no one knew where they'd go -- is just crazy. Crazy. Anyway, that was the message -- I'll be back shortly to tell you how it went! (2004-09-25 09:01:58.0) Permalink
Thursday September 16, 2004 Mr. Smith Goes (Back) To Washington
Expensing Options: A Reprieve?
"Solof will be singing options' praises on Capitol Hill on Sept. 21 as part of an 11th-hour lobbying blitz by the tech industry." (2004-09-16 17:53:21.0) Permalink
Tuesday September 14, 2004 I am so glad that inconvenient ban on assault weapons has finally expired, and am grateful to both the executive and the legislative branches of the federal government for resisting the urge to renew it, or -- perish the thought -- make it permanent. I mean, I have been wanting for years to get my wife a Kalashnikov; the streets aren't so safe these days (despite the rosy statistics being trotted out by the administration), and nothing would make me feel better than to know that my sweetie is packing a military-grade, automatic weapon in her Subaru. With a big magazine in case the mere sight of the thing doesn't scare the bejesus out some would-be assailant. For the kids, and for me personally, it's a dream come true. I mean, we could get the dumbed-down versions of these things under the ban, so it's not like we were "naked" -- but I've been lusting after a real Mac 10 for as long as I can remember. Who wouldn't? I've guess I've always been a Mac guy at heart. (2004-09-14 08:39:34.0) Permalink Comments [1]
Sunday September 12, 2004
I put off watching this movie for as long as I could. And now I cannot get it out of my mind. Recall that many months ago, February 29 to be exact, Lost In Translation was up against Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for Best Picture, and Sophia Coppola was threatening to rob Peter Jackson of the Directing statue he had deserved since Fellowship of the Ring. I was not going to give aid and comfort to the enemy -- and besides, Coppola was downright irritating in Godfather III, and I had no interest in seeing more of her work. It was off my radar. Last week, flipping through the free On Demand movies on Comcast Digital, with nothing better to do (and with LOTR's Oscars safely in Peter Jackson's hairy hobbit hands), I started watching. I watched it again two nights later. And again last night. I cannot get this movie out of my mind. I cannot get Bob and Charlotte out of my heart. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson should be canonized for this flick, not just Oscared. What it is about them that so touched me is hard to put my finger on. They are pure souls, literally innocents abroad. They are suffering, having failed to find meaning in that which should have given them meaning -- and yet given so many opportunities to give up and do the wrong thing, for the most part (remember that lounge singer!) they do not. They discover a friendship that transcends the difference in their ages and situations, a friendship that proves that blood is not always thicker than water, a friendship that shows the English language less well served by its one word for love than Greek is by its three. There's a lot to chuckle at in this movie. Bill Murray was born for this role, and his "Suntory Time" video and photo shoots, his wrestling match with the "premium fantasy woman", even his workout with the demon-possessed elliptical cross-trainer, are comedy for the ages. But it is his care for Johansson, carrying her to her room and tucking her in as she's -- finally -- able to fall asleep, and his farewell to her, in the last seconds of the movie, that shine. As for Johansson, she's 19 years old. Till November. Must have been 17 or 18 when they made the movie. How can this be?! She is at once childlike in her innocence (karaoking Chrissie Hynde's "Brass in Pocket" in a pink wig; wandering from shrine to shrine, gazing -- the complete foreigner -- at the Japanese wedding) and mature in her kindness to her equally lost companion, watching over him, almost maternally, as he sleeps -- finally -- in the back seat of a cab. When he falls from grace, she forgives. She is hurt, but she does not judge. Lots of people will hate this movie, I'm sure. Nothing much happens. The slapstick is lightly done, and really just for seasoning. (If you were expecting Stripes or Ghostbusters, you will be sorely disappointed.) Even the ending -- which I have rewound and rewatched over and over again -- doesn't answer the question which so begs an answer. If you need a clear answer, it will infuriate you. Turn up the volume all you want, freeze frames, read lips -- there is no answer. But there are true hearts, and there is true friendship, both of which transcend the need for translation. Go see this flick. As many times as you can. (2004-09-12 16:16:10.0) Permalink Comments [7]
Saturday September 11, 2004 Memory Eternal to Patriarch PETROS VII of Alexandria and those with him ATHENS (Reuters) - Egypt's Patriarch of Alexandria, a top Greek Orthodox leader in a post that traces its lineage back to one of the first disciples of Christ, was killed in a helicopter crash, Greek authorities said on Saturday. More details are available here. May his memory, and the memories of those with him, be eternal. (2004-09-11 17:17:28.0) Permalink
Friday September 10, 2004 From the Joseph N. Hermann Youth Center Newsletter, September 2004: MEMBER SPOTLIGHT In this edition of "Member Spotlight," the featured member is most likely to be found outside in the skate area. He is an extremely original high school student about to enter his junior year at North Andover. This Spotlight recipient is quite modest, and probably doesn't realize what he did in order to receive the honor of being recognized. The humble member that you are about to meet is Joe Solof, the man, the myth, the legend. Joe has been a member of the Youth Center since the sixth grade; now five years later he still has a strong presence here. Initially, his involvement was through our Joseph Walsh Summer League, but now he is a skate area devotee. On any given day he can be found tearing it up on his skateboard, and when he is tired from all the strenuous activity skateboarding demands, he is playing 45's [note from the proud papa: I have no idea what this means!] in the shade. Joe has been a pioneer in 45's mania outside in the skate area, and his knowledge, as well as a few other skaters', has incited an entire craze of intense card playing of the local Merrimack Valley tradition. Aside from cards and skating, Joe still plays basketball, taking breaks from landing tricks in the park; he uses the outside court quite frequently, to either shoot around or play a friendly game. Joe is an all-around good guy with an eclectic taste in everything from sports to clothes; Joe is well-noted for his keen fashion sense, particularly his briefcase that is home to his infamous Pittsburgh Playing Cards for 45's. Joe Solof is a man with a plan. He is committed to the idea of becoming a high school History teacher, a profession that he will strive tremendously in pursuing. Suiting to his plan in becoming a teacher of history, his favorite subject in school is history. It is obvious in speaking with Joe that he is an extremely intelligent person, and his potential is boundless. In the past few years, more frequently in the last few months since his best friend Kevin has worked here, Joe has been an enormous help to the staff, especially in assistance with the skate area. Joe is one of the older members out at the skate area, and he is highly respected and looked up to. He is the type of person that leads by example, and he is an excellent role model. Joe is always assisting Kevin and other staff with the daily requirements of the skate area, and never once does he ask for recognition or even a thank you. Joe is the type of person that acts out of generosity not compensation. If Joe could ask for anything to be added to at the Youth Center it would be a barn to put over the skate area, so that skating could continue all winter long. Joe says that he likes the Youth Center because, "It's a nice place to kick back and relax at." The staff at Youth Services believes that it is kids like Joe that help to make the Youth Center "a nice place." Thank you Joe for all that you do; you are truly a remarkable person and deserving of our "Member Spotlight." (2004-09-10 18:27:09.0) Permalink
Thursday September 09, 2004 Diana Krall: When I Look In Your Eyes
Diana Krall has an advantage -- perhaps even an unfair advantage -- over Sarah McLachlan, Sheryl Crowe, Suzanne Vega, Shawn Colvin, and most others whose CDs I've reviewed... and it has nothing to do with the first letter of her name being "D" instead of "S". (That is weird, no?) It's that they, for the most part, write their own material -- and so they must both create and perform music worthy of that elusive fifth star. She, on the other hand, picks and chooses from the best songs of the twentieth century, and all she has to do is sing them well. At this, she is simply perfect. Perfect like a perfect summer sunset. Perfect like a perfect autumn day. Perfect like a perfect glass of scotch on a winter's eve, dark and smoky and smooth. (We have no spring in Massachusetts, so I left that out.) Speaking of scotch, I heard, in an interview she did around the time of her marriage to Elvis Costello, that scotch and cigarettes are how she keeps her voice in tune. I hope she was joking. Losing Eva Cassidy to melanoma was quite heartbreaking enough. I'd happily re-play the CDs she's done so far and wish her a long and happy life, smoke-free. No problem on the scotch, though; next one's on me! Anyway, back to the music. Every song on this disc is a keeper; of all the CDs in my collection, this is one I never tire of. I'll play it five or ten times through before swapping it out for something else. Something not nearly as good. My favorites cuts are Let's Face The Music And Dance, When I Look In Your Eyes, I've Got You Under My Skin, the massively politically incorrect Let's Do It Again, and the slow, simmering bonus track, Why Should I Care?, which she wrote with Clint Eastwood for the closing credits of True Crime. She's known for doing one off-beat song on each CD, and her rendition of Michael Franks' Popsicle Toes is guaranteed to melt any popsicle within 100 yards. It is a thing of (R rated) beauty. Speaking of beauty, her other quite unfair advantage is that she looks just like she sounds. How did that happen? Then again, I probably look just like I sound. If only I sounded heavenly... Sigh. (2004-09-09 20:06:36.0) Permalink
Monday September 06, 2004
Eh. I had high hopes for this one. I remember reading the first two Ludlum books, The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy -- and from the plot summary on Amazon.com, I think I read the third one, The Bourne Ultimatum, as well. (It was a long time ago.) The first movie was really good. I wouldn't have picked Matt Damon for an action hero, but he did a fine job, and Franka Potente was radiant as Marie. The supporting cast was great, Chris Cooper and Brian Cox in particular. The one disappointment for me was that they gave Julia Stiles such a small role. Waste of real talent, there. The plot, however, was excellent; not completely true to the novel, but close enough for government work, if you'll forgive the pun. :) This movie, the sequel, was, to quote a PR colleague of mine, "pretty thin beer." Damon was fine again, as was Potente (for as long as she was on screen), as was Cox. I loved the addition of Joan Allen, one of my favorite actresses, and I believe, one of the most underrated. (Go see The Contender if you haven't -- she rocks!) But they should have done more with her. And there they go again, wasting Julia Stiles. There were so many possibilities for her this time around! Turning her into a simpering, whimpering captive -- and on screen for such a short time: unforgiveable. How could they not make more of her past (working) relationship with Bourne? There's a one-line reference and then silence. Boo. Plot-wise, I was expecting a lot more -- especially having heard good reviews, and given the richness of the book. (The plot of the second movie is less like the plot of second book than was the case the first time around, by a significant margin.) In hindsight, it seems like one of those movies which is built around a chase scene, with only enough plot to sustain the chase. It was a great chase, or rather, series of chases, no doubt; but that was the only tension, the only driving force behind the movie. It was hardly about the people. And given what those people had done to Bourne in the past -- and in the opening moments of this movie -- it could have been so much more. With Allen and Stiles on hand, it should have been so much more. It could have been a Contender... if you'll forgive the pun. Given that there's a third book, and Hollywood's unimaginative sequel-mania these days, I suppose we can count on a third movie. I hope they get it right next time. In the mean time, go read the books! (2004-09-06 15:01:13.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Wednesday September 01, 2004
In my last CD review, of C'Mon, C'Mon, I said that have mixed feelings about Sheryl Crow. My feelings about Sarah McLachlan are anything but mixed: when she's at the top of her game -- as on Fumbling Towards Ecstasy -- the earth moves. The buzz is (or was) that Possession, the best song on that album, was based on the "fan mail" of a stalker who later committed suicide, after having sued her for appropriating the dark secrets of his heart in her song. True or false, right or wrong, the album is intense enough and great enough to wreak that kind of havoc. Afterglow, on the other hand, only aspires to that greatness, and in a few places, comes close. Down the middle, Fallen and World On Fire are okay. Not her best, not her worst. On the down side, Drifting and Push -- especially Push -- bring to mind the verb (or is it an adjective?) "mewling", which I recall one critic using to describe some of the overwrought tracks on Surfacing, her last studio album. (You'll recall that this disc was on the CD player when Bill and Monica were... oh, never mind.) Think I'm kidding?
You stay the course you hold the line you keep it all together Yes, you read it right: "you complete me" in a song, and that's not Dr. Evil singing to Mini Me either. She's serious. And so am I: Mewling. However, on the upside, Stupid, and the snappiest cut on the album, Trainwreck, are pretty good. Answer's even better. And the last three songs on the album, Time, Perfect Girl, and the sublime Dirty Little Secret, are worthy of Fumbling. The lush harmonies on this last track echo of Karen Carpenter, and I have no higher compliment to pay. So I will relent, and up the 3 stars I had planned to give the album to 4, because it ends on such a high note, and leaves me wanting more. More than the ten cuts that seem more fitted to a record album than to a CD -- and more than a handful of songs that suggest how good she can be at her earth-moving best. (2004-09-01 20:21:58.0) Permalink Comments [2] Check the archives for entries dating back to the dawn of recorded history (June 14, 2004). |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
