Bragging Rights and Random Thoughts
I'm not one to brag, at least not too much. But I was a good three months ahead of the newspaper of record on this one. In my posting of February 9, 2005, (see archives, "What's That Saying, Too Many Chiefs...") I slightly tweaked the proliferation of the title "chief" in today's corporate world. Lo and behold, a very similar article in the Sunday NY Times, May 29, 2005 ("A Title That's Not as Boss as it Looks" by Patrick McGeehan.) Of course, I neglected to add in the requisite quotes from the "experts" but the point was the same--calling someone "chief" anything is the corporate equivelant to grade inflation. It's like the local department store--you know the one that seems to always be in the middle of its "semi-annual" sale? If everything's on sale, then nothing's on sale. So it is with today's chief. When that title degrades to the wait staff at the local Applebee's, then it will be time for a new moniker. I give it about 6 months.
***
But I digress. There was a story in the newspaper of record a few weeks ago about the pickle the environmentalists have gotten themselves into. It seems that some of the success they've had in controlling pollutants from fossil power plants is contributing to the ever increasing rates the average consumer must bear, with no end in sight for the forseeable future. It turns out, too, that the so-called alternative energies like windpower continue to be little more than a pipe dream when it comes to large scale implementation. How, then, to power the computers on which they rely for their incessant fundraising? Well, it turns out that nuclear power, the bad boy of the industry, is clean burning and cheap, once you can navigate the byzantine regulatory process and actually get one of them suckers built. But embrace nuclear power? We'd have to re-write the '70s, and, frankly, if I had to re-experience the awful music of that era (save for Bruce Springsteen, who single handedly saved the music industry from its disco excess) I'd just assume pound out my ear drums. This has some environmentalist groups turning on each other as the more thoughtful among them actually reconsider their prior resistance to nuclear power. The truth is, of course, always in the middle. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Its risks are enormous. On the other hand, it is so tightly regulated now that the risk of a major radiological exposure is virtually non-existent. The industry has learned many valuable lessons from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and applies them on a daily basis to ensure that the nation's nuclear plants are among the most safely operated plants of any stripe anywhere. Nuclear power deserves to be back on the table as a viable middle ground.
***
Quick movie tip: Go see "Cinderella Man." These are things I know. It is a guaranteed nominee for best picture and a likely winner. Both Russell Crowe and Renee Chesney (which is much easier to spell then Zellweger) give career-defining performances, again. It's a movie, frankly, that should have been made long ago, because the story is the story of us.
Another movie tip: "The Aviator" is a masterful movie from a masterful director, Martin Scorcese. Although I was partial to "Million Dollar Baby", "The Aviator" had the misfortune of falling in a stellar year for movies or it surely would have won best picture. Leonardo DiCaprio deserved the Oscar. See it on DVD. Now.
***
But I digress. There was a story in the newspaper of record a few weeks ago about the pickle the environmentalists have gotten themselves into. It seems that some of the success they've had in controlling pollutants from fossil power plants is contributing to the ever increasing rates the average consumer must bear, with no end in sight for the forseeable future. It turns out, too, that the so-called alternative energies like windpower continue to be little more than a pipe dream when it comes to large scale implementation. How, then, to power the computers on which they rely for their incessant fundraising? Well, it turns out that nuclear power, the bad boy of the industry, is clean burning and cheap, once you can navigate the byzantine regulatory process and actually get one of them suckers built. But embrace nuclear power? We'd have to re-write the '70s, and, frankly, if I had to re-experience the awful music of that era (save for Bruce Springsteen, who single handedly saved the music industry from its disco excess) I'd just assume pound out my ear drums. This has some environmentalist groups turning on each other as the more thoughtful among them actually reconsider their prior resistance to nuclear power. The truth is, of course, always in the middle. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Its risks are enormous. On the other hand, it is so tightly regulated now that the risk of a major radiological exposure is virtually non-existent. The industry has learned many valuable lessons from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and applies them on a daily basis to ensure that the nation's nuclear plants are among the most safely operated plants of any stripe anywhere. Nuclear power deserves to be back on the table as a viable middle ground.
***
Quick movie tip: Go see "Cinderella Man." These are things I know. It is a guaranteed nominee for best picture and a likely winner. Both Russell Crowe and Renee Chesney (which is much easier to spell then Zellweger) give career-defining performances, again. It's a movie, frankly, that should have been made long ago, because the story is the story of us.
Another movie tip: "The Aviator" is a masterful movie from a masterful director, Martin Scorcese. Although I was partial to "Million Dollar Baby", "The Aviator" had the misfortune of falling in a stellar year for movies or it surely would have won best picture. Leonardo DiCaprio deserved the Oscar. See it on DVD. Now.
posted by Gary Benz @ 7:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home