I think after a week of the WGA striking, that right now the task at hand is not how to get the writers what they want, but how to get both parties back to the bargaining table so they can come to some sort of compromise. So here's my suggestion and reasons why I propose this.
Most strikes are formed because of unfair working conditions, crappy health insurance, or just plain low pay. None of these are issues in this case. In fact, the pay writers receive on a weekly basis is not at all a problem. What is an issue is what the producer's do with the product after it's already made. This is not a production issue. It is a distribution issue. So, my question is: why has production come to a halt?
Here's my proposal to get them back to the table: For the producers, the writers will cease striking and go back to work with their usual salary. For the writers, all secondary distribution of all works will cease.
How is that fair or even making a point? Wouldn't it better to have writers stand outside the studio and refuse to work?
Well, actually no. Too many people are getting caught in the crossfire, and quite honestly, by not having production actually taking place, the producers aren't losing money, they're saving money. They already have things in the can to show. I've already pointed out what Hollywood believes—give people only shit, they take shit. The producers have a lot of shit. They will air it. And they will continue to get money as will the writers. Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of people who don't have jobs get nothing.
But here's a productive way to strike, and a way to prove a point—and the only people hurt are the people the writers want to hurt—the producers: If the writer's go back to work now and continue writing, they will continue to produce and the producers will continue to pay money out to the employees. But, by not allowing any distribution of any new work beyond first the run until the contract is signed (or maybe not even the first run), means the producers will now lose money. By stopping all internet shows, we also prove a point: if the producers make no money, it's no loss to them—no big deal. They should agree to it wholeheartedly. If they do take a hit, then clearly it was worth the writers fighting for a cut of that cash.
Let's face it: if no distribution can occur right when the holiday shopping season begins, what better away to put pressure on the producers? See, that's why the producers really don't care about the strike. It's not hurting them. They are still selling DVD's and getting their big piece of the pie. They are still airing shows on the internet and making a windfall (if it is true, which is still to be determined). So rather than stop production, STOP DISTRIBUTION.
Now that's a strike worth having—a trident missile, aimed right for the heart of the matter with no casualties inflicted beyond those actually fighting the war.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
School of Solitude
I worry about the next generation. I worry that they will lack creativity now that they can play games at their television set instead of their backyard. I worry that they will become numb to violence as television and movies portray violence as everyday occurrences and shows it to us up close. I worry about them because they are the children of active duty soldiers. I worry about them because very often they feel more outgoing typing on their cell phone than speaking in public. I worry that the education system in place for them has lowered their standards since they weren't living up to them anyway. But now I really worry about how they are being taught to interact with others.
First it was the dress code, then the freedom of speech, now it's a simple gesture that has come to be up for debate at public institutions of learning. The crime: a hug. Not groping, not undressing in public, not grinding against another classmate, but a hug. I have to wonder if school dances even exist anymore--a friend of mine once explained that slow dancing was simply "hugging and moving around in a circle." Well not in Illinois.
There is actually more than just one pre-teen girl out on suspension this week for committing the awful crime of giving her friend a hug. She didn't slip her friend the tongue, or grind her pelvis into her, or even partake of flamenco dancing--she gave her a hug. But there are rules against this, the public school states. In fact, I finally found one article that states the actual PDA line in one school's handbook: "physical conduct that is inappropriate for the school setting, including but not limited to kissing and groping." Okay, I can see that it would be a little distracting if while learning algorithms Johnny grabbed your boob. You would also have to lengthen the time between classes if any teenager decided to re-enact the MASH Hotlips kiss. But a hug? Come on!
The school in Illinois wants no such behavior going on--this hugging business. Which is rather sad when you consider as I stated, that these are kids with parents, brothers, sisters, other family members at WAR. So a kid finds out her brother was just killed in Baghdad. Well as her friend, you best not even give her a hug--unless it's after last bell. On a more casual note, Tommy broke up with Betty, but didn't touch her while he was doing so, so he's not in trouble. But you best not try to console her by giving her a hug or you're in a big trouble, missy!
What are we teaching children? In the meantime, although I don't know this for a fact, the same school has football games where guys plow into one another. They have hockey matches. They have soccer games. They even have cheerleading, where girls throw each other into the air. Do they not have theater? If you ever had to rate the people most likely to hug each other, I'd say it'd be a tie between the drama club members and the football team. I wonder if that too is outlawed. Can they shake hands? If they bump into one another in the hall will the person emit a blaring noise like a car alarm? Apparently education does not involve human contact of any kind.
And that's really what frightens me. Walking into a toy store the other week, I was hard-pressed to find a single toy that more than one child could play with each other. Everything was one child, one TV screen. One child, one toy that talked back. No need for friends. Think about it--even video games come with how many controllers? ONE. If your friend wants to join you, he best go get his from his house and bring it over.
Are we teaching the next generation to not reach out to other people? Doesn't the media and the rest of society do enough of that already? We're teaching them that grabbing a gun and going to another country is okay, but embracing your friend who needs a shoulder to cry on is just plain inexcusable.
Being a kid is hard enough. We all need friends to lean on. We all need a hug every now again. The PDA rule is there to stop sexual harassment. But does it? No, because sexual harassment isn't getting a hug--it's getting groped by some sleazy person you don't want touching you, or receiving porn you wished you never saw. And what about gym class? Do they not do trust falls? (I've always found that a really horrible experience, but that's another blog entirely.) We teach, or should teach, children at a very young age the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch." But NO TOUCH--why on earth would you teach that? How could one know the difference between good and bad if you have nothing at all? Is that supposed to follow the same logic that schools have started these days with regard to homework--kids don't do their homework anyway, so let's not assign any?
I hope they do have homework. I hope some time in the next month some teacher in that school assigns the kids to write an essay on a public figure. And here's what I propose they do: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM writes an essay on Mata Amritanandamayi, known as "Amma", the woman who is spreading hugs. She is the Mother Theresa of Human Contact. People flock to her by the thousands when she appears for an event. All she does is this: she stands there and when each person comes up to her, she gives him or her a hug. That's it. And it has changed lives.
So if any student out there goes to a school where hugging has been outlawed, seriously, write an essay about her. Isn't that what education is? Questioning the world around you? Questioning authority? That's my definition of education anyway. How else do we learn?
They say a hug is not appropriate for school. School is about books. About learning. But don't we have a responsibility to teach these kids a little more than just book learning? I think education happens more often when a teacher isn't speaking. It happens in the halls. It happens at the lockers. It happens in the lunchroom. We learn how to interact with our peers, and with our enemies. We learn what is acceptable and what isn't. And if a hug isn't acceptable in society, then I truly fear for the next generation.
First it was the dress code, then the freedom of speech, now it's a simple gesture that has come to be up for debate at public institutions of learning. The crime: a hug. Not groping, not undressing in public, not grinding against another classmate, but a hug. I have to wonder if school dances even exist anymore--a friend of mine once explained that slow dancing was simply "hugging and moving around in a circle." Well not in Illinois.
There is actually more than just one pre-teen girl out on suspension this week for committing the awful crime of giving her friend a hug. She didn't slip her friend the tongue, or grind her pelvis into her, or even partake of flamenco dancing--she gave her a hug. But there are rules against this, the public school states. In fact, I finally found one article that states the actual PDA line in one school's handbook: "physical conduct that is inappropriate for the school setting, including but not limited to kissing and groping." Okay, I can see that it would be a little distracting if while learning algorithms Johnny grabbed your boob. You would also have to lengthen the time between classes if any teenager decided to re-enact the MASH Hotlips kiss. But a hug? Come on!
The school in Illinois wants no such behavior going on--this hugging business. Which is rather sad when you consider as I stated, that these are kids with parents, brothers, sisters, other family members at WAR. So a kid finds out her brother was just killed in Baghdad. Well as her friend, you best not even give her a hug--unless it's after last bell. On a more casual note, Tommy broke up with Betty, but didn't touch her while he was doing so, so he's not in trouble. But you best not try to console her by giving her a hug or you're in a big trouble, missy!
What are we teaching children? In the meantime, although I don't know this for a fact, the same school has football games where guys plow into one another. They have hockey matches. They have soccer games. They even have cheerleading, where girls throw each other into the air. Do they not have theater? If you ever had to rate the people most likely to hug each other, I'd say it'd be a tie between the drama club members and the football team. I wonder if that too is outlawed. Can they shake hands? If they bump into one another in the hall will the person emit a blaring noise like a car alarm? Apparently education does not involve human contact of any kind.
And that's really what frightens me. Walking into a toy store the other week, I was hard-pressed to find a single toy that more than one child could play with each other. Everything was one child, one TV screen. One child, one toy that talked back. No need for friends. Think about it--even video games come with how many controllers? ONE. If your friend wants to join you, he best go get his from his house and bring it over.
Are we teaching the next generation to not reach out to other people? Doesn't the media and the rest of society do enough of that already? We're teaching them that grabbing a gun and going to another country is okay, but embracing your friend who needs a shoulder to cry on is just plain inexcusable.
Being a kid is hard enough. We all need friends to lean on. We all need a hug every now again. The PDA rule is there to stop sexual harassment. But does it? No, because sexual harassment isn't getting a hug--it's getting groped by some sleazy person you don't want touching you, or receiving porn you wished you never saw. And what about gym class? Do they not do trust falls? (I've always found that a really horrible experience, but that's another blog entirely.) We teach, or should teach, children at a very young age the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch." But NO TOUCH--why on earth would you teach that? How could one know the difference between good and bad if you have nothing at all? Is that supposed to follow the same logic that schools have started these days with regard to homework--kids don't do their homework anyway, so let's not assign any?
I hope they do have homework. I hope some time in the next month some teacher in that school assigns the kids to write an essay on a public figure. And here's what I propose they do: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM writes an essay on Mata Amritanandamayi, known as "Amma", the woman who is spreading hugs. She is the Mother Theresa of Human Contact. People flock to her by the thousands when she appears for an event. All she does is this: she stands there and when each person comes up to her, she gives him or her a hug. That's it. And it has changed lives.
So if any student out there goes to a school where hugging has been outlawed, seriously, write an essay about her. Isn't that what education is? Questioning the world around you? Questioning authority? That's my definition of education anyway. How else do we learn?
They say a hug is not appropriate for school. School is about books. About learning. But don't we have a responsibility to teach these kids a little more than just book learning? I think education happens more often when a teacher isn't speaking. It happens in the halls. It happens at the lockers. It happens in the lunchroom. We learn how to interact with our peers, and with our enemies. We learn what is acceptable and what isn't. And if a hug isn't acceptable in society, then I truly fear for the next generation.
Battle Fatique Just Watching
I wasn't sure if I should say anything about the WGA strike, but since my mind is aflood with thoughts, I figured I should get it down in writing so I can move on. It's been difficult to really put it all into words since this whole strike is overwhelming in its scope. As a writer, I know that the commerce of words is not a lucrative endeavor. Very few can make a living off it. Those that do should feel blessed—as it takes just as much talent as it does luck to truly make a living. And I agree that writers should be paid for the work that they do. However, my confliction about this strike arises from whom the strike is actually hurting.
When a factory union decides to strike, it is the employees versus the employers, generally fighting for higher wages, health plans, and retirement security. When they strike, a product is no longer being made. Because of this, the employer is faced with caving in in order to get profits back, or the employees must cave in so they can feed their kids and pay their mortgage. We, as consumers, notice the end product does not exist. We are affected in that way, and that way only. The ones who suffer are those striking, gambling their livelihood, and the employers who also could lose their livelihood.
But who really is going to feel the pinch of the writer's strike in Hollywood? If newspaper journalists went on strike, there would be no news. We'd have to get our news from amateurs like me, on blogs. The journalists would suffer as would the papers (which already suffer due to the changing technologies of information sharing). Yes, every strike affects the economy as a whole, but I'm scaling it down some.
If writers of books decided to strike, there simply would be no more fiction, and those affected would be the publishers, the overhead staff, the printers and distributors, as well as the writers. But let's face it—how would they strike? They make their own deals, their own contracts. Certainly 80 cents for a $10.00 book is ludicrous, but that is the sad reality of what authors make. If you sell a million books, you're good. If you sell 5,000 copies, perhaps that year of your life you took to write it doesn't seem worth it.
But what about television and feature films writers? First off, let's break it down since there are two very different writers—both of which are covered by the WGA. A feature film writer pens a script and sends it to the production companies. The studio or company may option the script, meaning he can't sell it for the next six months or year. He might receive a $10,000 fee for that—but that too, might be overstating the amount. If the movie is made, that $10,000 may or may not be deducted for the actual purchase. How much does he make on that purchase? Depends what he agreed to, but the minimum for a script is somewhere in the range of $100,000-$200,000. If that is the only script he or she writes in his lifetime, that's not much. Which is where residuals come in. Even actors have learned to play this game, taking less money up front for actually doing their job, and instead taking a chunk of the profit when the movie does well. Writers probably could agree to the same, although there's not much precedence in that. So, after the release of the movie, he is going to need to get some money off the sale of DVD's.
For the television writer, there are two kinds. You have your staff writer, whose basic scale wage ranges from $1000-$5500 a week. There could be one writer or ten writers. They work together to come up write the words that the actors speak. There is also the writer who comes up with the plot and idea of the episode—they get an additional amount of money for that. Then there are the show runners or producer-writers. These are the writers that are more involved with the end product. Their salary is the scale staff writer wage plus maybe $1000-$6000 more a week. Not only do they write the words, but they participate throughout the entire process from words to screen and onto the editing process.
There was not an issue before television started heading toward DVD sales. It was only full-length feature films for sale, and the piece of the pie the writer received was pretty minimal. Why? Well, look at what it takes to make a DVD—or even the production to begin with. A budget can be $100,000 or $5 million. For movies, it may be $100 million. That does not include the making of the DVD. Those people who receive residuals on the movie or TV show are producers (if written into their contracts), members of the DGA (directors and assistant directors), and SAG (the actors). The rest of the money is the for the actual making of the DVD, who edited it together (Editors receive no such 4 cents per DVD), the marketing, the publicity, the packaging, the distributors, the store in which you bought the DVD, and finally the production company or investors in the original project. That's a lot of people getting the piece of the pie. Writers want 8 cents instead of 4 cents—that's what we're told. But my question is: who gets the 8 cents? What if five people wrote that episode? And then what if you only had one actor in the episode, instead of 15…are actors allotted 20 cents, but then divided by the number of actors in the movie? I honestly don't know how it works. But the point is this: the writers are not asking for more money up front of better wages; they're asking for aftermarket money.
As for the internet sales, if the producers are selling ad space on the webpage that airs an episode, then it's a product being sold and thereby the writers should get a piece of the pie. No doubt about that at all. But it's a bigger issue than just the writers. One newspaper journalist even said he doesn't get more money when his article is on the web. Maybe that's wrong too. It's a huge issue—how to deal with this new technology. The DGA is going to begin negotiations soon. SAG is scheduled to start in the early part of next year. Since the guilds are the only ones receiving residuals, why did they not all band together? Well, because the contract end dates differ. SAG can't strike until their contract is over—in July. If the writers held a strike in July, no one would notice. They wanted the biggest devastation possible for the shortest strike. Makes sense. But who are they hurting?
Any feature film script that is complete and has been bought can be made. No problem there. But television—that's what is being hit. So here's why the producer's aren't terribly concerned: they're not being hurt. In fact, if it's residuals that are the problem, even the writers aren't being hurt except by forgoing their weekly wage. But once the new shows are all broadcast, the producers will run re-runs. And who gets paid for re-runs? The writers, actors, producers. They get residuals every time it airs. Oddly, those people striking outside the studio will be getting money while they aren't writing anything new. Granted it's not much, but it's something. And that really is what this is about—getting money for reselling the same product. So who does it hurt?
The make-up artist, the grip, the gaffer, the production assistants. For IATSE members, once there is no new television to be made, they will either go to the limited films to be made, to non-union shows, or just be unemployed. How does that affect them? Well, first off they won't have a paycheck. Secondly, they also can lose their health insurance. Unlike the guilds' health insurance plans which are paid for by how much money they make per year, the crew and staff's health insurance is based on hours. Depending on when they became union, they have six months to accumulate a certain number of working hours to get health insurance for the next six months. There is a bank of hours one can have, but only enough to cover you an additional six months. But it doesn't end there. The IATSE retirement plan is based on employer contributions. For every hour worked, money is put into their fund. They also receive money in their retirement fund based on their wage scale. So with no work, their retirement funds suffer. Not only are union employees who don't even get residuals have no weekly paycheck, but they also are losing money in the retirement funds (which is not stock-optioned—it's all in one account to get the most for everyone) and possibly health insurance for their families.
And what about the non-union productions assistants, the PA's who have the important job of making everything run? Without them, coffee would not be made; the film would not get to the processor, and all the little things that make people happy would not happen. Well, now they'll be out the $600 a week they make. They don't even get health insurance. Some payroll companies offer it, but you have to be consistently employed in order to get it. Once they are out of work for a time, they too, will lose their health insurance.
And the studios? They might layoff some development people for a spell. But they're still selling DVD's, and running internet programming, and even have some shows for the airwaves. The television screen will not go blank. And Hollywood has always maintained that the public will take whatever the public gets. You give us 12 hours of shit, we'll take shit. Or we'll read a book. Or talk to friends. Or get a hobby. But most likely, we'll just take the shit. And the producers will still make money.
Residuals is an important debate. It's a battle worth fighting for. But it's a battle for those receiving the residuals to fight. I have yet to meet anyone not in the guild who is angry about producer's not caving in. I meet more people who are angry about being heckled when they got to work because their contract says they have to work. They're mad that they have to lay off their own PA's. They're mad that the hundreds of thousands of people will be unemployed, without health insurance and suffer a decrease in retirement funds because writers want to make some money on the back end. They're not fighting for the little guy. The up and coming writer who just sold a pilot isn't getting residuals. He got his 35 grand or whatever they made on the one episode, and it's done. The studio lost some money there, but the writer gets his money as did the rest of the staff and crew. So this strike isn't helping them. It's fighting for a cause much bigger than most people care about—how we treat intellectual property to begin with.
Is it worth it? Well, not to those not in the intellectual property game probably. And if the producers do allow the WGA the piece they want, are they leaving enough for SAG later next year? I will always have books, so as a consumer, so I don't care whether or not more television gets produced. I'll be bummed since this actually was a decent scripted television season. But I'll live. If necessary, I'll use my imagination and make up my own stories. As someone who works in the industry, I work in features mainly so I really just need to stockpile money before the actors strike. But as someone who has always supported the working class hero, I'm annoyed that those working class citizens have to suffer to gain benefits they will never receive. The prop department doesn't receive residuals. The PA doesn't even have a retirement plan.
I'm not saying the battle isn't worth fighting. Intellectual property value should be worth as much as land. But it's not. So I don't question what they're fighting for—I only question the way they went about it and how many civilians will be homeless by the end of this. First foreclosures, then fires, now a breakdown of the economy. California doesn't have to fall into the ocean—we're burying ourselves quite nicely now. In every war, a few civilians are caught in the cross-hairs. But this isn't about being caught in the cross-hairs—it's being within a ten-mile radius of where the explosive went off. That's the casualties you'll end up with.
I suppose what I'm saying is that just as one can support the troops without supporting the war, I support the battle, but not it's warriors—the negotiators. We don't know how negotiations work. We don't know if they really tried. All we know is that the writers WANTED to strike (not every writer, but the people in charge). They wanted to let everyone know just how important they are. Yes, the script is the foundation in which the house is built. And I bet the crew understands that. Too bad all those people who side with the writers, the ones who will not reap financial benefits but merely agree with the idea, are the ones that will end up with the most severe casualties and may not ever recover.
When a factory union decides to strike, it is the employees versus the employers, generally fighting for higher wages, health plans, and retirement security. When they strike, a product is no longer being made. Because of this, the employer is faced with caving in in order to get profits back, or the employees must cave in so they can feed their kids and pay their mortgage. We, as consumers, notice the end product does not exist. We are affected in that way, and that way only. The ones who suffer are those striking, gambling their livelihood, and the employers who also could lose their livelihood.
But who really is going to feel the pinch of the writer's strike in Hollywood? If newspaper journalists went on strike, there would be no news. We'd have to get our news from amateurs like me, on blogs. The journalists would suffer as would the papers (which already suffer due to the changing technologies of information sharing). Yes, every strike affects the economy as a whole, but I'm scaling it down some.
If writers of books decided to strike, there simply would be no more fiction, and those affected would be the publishers, the overhead staff, the printers and distributors, as well as the writers. But let's face it—how would they strike? They make their own deals, their own contracts. Certainly 80 cents for a $10.00 book is ludicrous, but that is the sad reality of what authors make. If you sell a million books, you're good. If you sell 5,000 copies, perhaps that year of your life you took to write it doesn't seem worth it.
But what about television and feature films writers? First off, let's break it down since there are two very different writers—both of which are covered by the WGA. A feature film writer pens a script and sends it to the production companies. The studio or company may option the script, meaning he can't sell it for the next six months or year. He might receive a $10,000 fee for that—but that too, might be overstating the amount. If the movie is made, that $10,000 may or may not be deducted for the actual purchase. How much does he make on that purchase? Depends what he agreed to, but the minimum for a script is somewhere in the range of $100,000-$200,000. If that is the only script he or she writes in his lifetime, that's not much. Which is where residuals come in. Even actors have learned to play this game, taking less money up front for actually doing their job, and instead taking a chunk of the profit when the movie does well. Writers probably could agree to the same, although there's not much precedence in that. So, after the release of the movie, he is going to need to get some money off the sale of DVD's.
For the television writer, there are two kinds. You have your staff writer, whose basic scale wage ranges from $1000-$5500 a week. There could be one writer or ten writers. They work together to come up write the words that the actors speak. There is also the writer who comes up with the plot and idea of the episode—they get an additional amount of money for that. Then there are the show runners or producer-writers. These are the writers that are more involved with the end product. Their salary is the scale staff writer wage plus maybe $1000-$6000 more a week. Not only do they write the words, but they participate throughout the entire process from words to screen and onto the editing process.
There was not an issue before television started heading toward DVD sales. It was only full-length feature films for sale, and the piece of the pie the writer received was pretty minimal. Why? Well, look at what it takes to make a DVD—or even the production to begin with. A budget can be $100,000 or $5 million. For movies, it may be $100 million. That does not include the making of the DVD. Those people who receive residuals on the movie or TV show are producers (if written into their contracts), members of the DGA (directors and assistant directors), and SAG (the actors). The rest of the money is the for the actual making of the DVD, who edited it together (Editors receive no such 4 cents per DVD), the marketing, the publicity, the packaging, the distributors, the store in which you bought the DVD, and finally the production company or investors in the original project. That's a lot of people getting the piece of the pie. Writers want 8 cents instead of 4 cents—that's what we're told. But my question is: who gets the 8 cents? What if five people wrote that episode? And then what if you only had one actor in the episode, instead of 15…are actors allotted 20 cents, but then divided by the number of actors in the movie? I honestly don't know how it works. But the point is this: the writers are not asking for more money up front of better wages; they're asking for aftermarket money.
As for the internet sales, if the producers are selling ad space on the webpage that airs an episode, then it's a product being sold and thereby the writers should get a piece of the pie. No doubt about that at all. But it's a bigger issue than just the writers. One newspaper journalist even said he doesn't get more money when his article is on the web. Maybe that's wrong too. It's a huge issue—how to deal with this new technology. The DGA is going to begin negotiations soon. SAG is scheduled to start in the early part of next year. Since the guilds are the only ones receiving residuals, why did they not all band together? Well, because the contract end dates differ. SAG can't strike until their contract is over—in July. If the writers held a strike in July, no one would notice. They wanted the biggest devastation possible for the shortest strike. Makes sense. But who are they hurting?
Any feature film script that is complete and has been bought can be made. No problem there. But television—that's what is being hit. So here's why the producer's aren't terribly concerned: they're not being hurt. In fact, if it's residuals that are the problem, even the writers aren't being hurt except by forgoing their weekly wage. But once the new shows are all broadcast, the producers will run re-runs. And who gets paid for re-runs? The writers, actors, producers. They get residuals every time it airs. Oddly, those people striking outside the studio will be getting money while they aren't writing anything new. Granted it's not much, but it's something. And that really is what this is about—getting money for reselling the same product. So who does it hurt?
The make-up artist, the grip, the gaffer, the production assistants. For IATSE members, once there is no new television to be made, they will either go to the limited films to be made, to non-union shows, or just be unemployed. How does that affect them? Well, first off they won't have a paycheck. Secondly, they also can lose their health insurance. Unlike the guilds' health insurance plans which are paid for by how much money they make per year, the crew and staff's health insurance is based on hours. Depending on when they became union, they have six months to accumulate a certain number of working hours to get health insurance for the next six months. There is a bank of hours one can have, but only enough to cover you an additional six months. But it doesn't end there. The IATSE retirement plan is based on employer contributions. For every hour worked, money is put into their fund. They also receive money in their retirement fund based on their wage scale. So with no work, their retirement funds suffer. Not only are union employees who don't even get residuals have no weekly paycheck, but they also are losing money in the retirement funds (which is not stock-optioned—it's all in one account to get the most for everyone) and possibly health insurance for their families.
And what about the non-union productions assistants, the PA's who have the important job of making everything run? Without them, coffee would not be made; the film would not get to the processor, and all the little things that make people happy would not happen. Well, now they'll be out the $600 a week they make. They don't even get health insurance. Some payroll companies offer it, but you have to be consistently employed in order to get it. Once they are out of work for a time, they too, will lose their health insurance.
And the studios? They might layoff some development people for a spell. But they're still selling DVD's, and running internet programming, and even have some shows for the airwaves. The television screen will not go blank. And Hollywood has always maintained that the public will take whatever the public gets. You give us 12 hours of shit, we'll take shit. Or we'll read a book. Or talk to friends. Or get a hobby. But most likely, we'll just take the shit. And the producers will still make money.
Residuals is an important debate. It's a battle worth fighting for. But it's a battle for those receiving the residuals to fight. I have yet to meet anyone not in the guild who is angry about producer's not caving in. I meet more people who are angry about being heckled when they got to work because their contract says they have to work. They're mad that they have to lay off their own PA's. They're mad that the hundreds of thousands of people will be unemployed, without health insurance and suffer a decrease in retirement funds because writers want to make some money on the back end. They're not fighting for the little guy. The up and coming writer who just sold a pilot isn't getting residuals. He got his 35 grand or whatever they made on the one episode, and it's done. The studio lost some money there, but the writer gets his money as did the rest of the staff and crew. So this strike isn't helping them. It's fighting for a cause much bigger than most people care about—how we treat intellectual property to begin with.
Is it worth it? Well, not to those not in the intellectual property game probably. And if the producers do allow the WGA the piece they want, are they leaving enough for SAG later next year? I will always have books, so as a consumer, so I don't care whether or not more television gets produced. I'll be bummed since this actually was a decent scripted television season. But I'll live. If necessary, I'll use my imagination and make up my own stories. As someone who works in the industry, I work in features mainly so I really just need to stockpile money before the actors strike. But as someone who has always supported the working class hero, I'm annoyed that those working class citizens have to suffer to gain benefits they will never receive. The prop department doesn't receive residuals. The PA doesn't even have a retirement plan.
I'm not saying the battle isn't worth fighting. Intellectual property value should be worth as much as land. But it's not. So I don't question what they're fighting for—I only question the way they went about it and how many civilians will be homeless by the end of this. First foreclosures, then fires, now a breakdown of the economy. California doesn't have to fall into the ocean—we're burying ourselves quite nicely now. In every war, a few civilians are caught in the cross-hairs. But this isn't about being caught in the cross-hairs—it's being within a ten-mile radius of where the explosive went off. That's the casualties you'll end up with.
I suppose what I'm saying is that just as one can support the troops without supporting the war, I support the battle, but not it's warriors—the negotiators. We don't know how negotiations work. We don't know if they really tried. All we know is that the writers WANTED to strike (not every writer, but the people in charge). They wanted to let everyone know just how important they are. Yes, the script is the foundation in which the house is built. And I bet the crew understands that. Too bad all those people who side with the writers, the ones who will not reap financial benefits but merely agree with the idea, are the ones that will end up with the most severe casualties and may not ever recover.
Monday, November 5, 2007
GrapeNut Cereal...no grapes, no nuts
We all know the word play brands and businesses play with the general public such as GrapeNut Cereal, but I just found another one that isn't quite as obvious: PetSmart. It turns out, they're not big on all pets, nor does it appear that they are very smart.
I read a posting a group from a lady in Arkansas saying she walked into her local PetSmart and found a sign stating "As of Sept. 27, 2007, no pit bull or pit bulls breeds are allowed". She wanted to know if this was a national thing. A few replies came in and no one else could find such a sign at their own local Petsmart. Apparently this was a local issue, but I still wanted to look into it.
Turns out that North Little Rock, Arkansas, home of this particular PetSmart does have local breed specific legislation that they passed recently making it illegal to own a pit bull or pit bull-like breed. However, if you chose not to relocate your family or execute your beloved pet, you could have the dog registered officially, tattooed as being registered, and pay a $500 registration fee (I don't even think sex offenders have to pay $500 when they officially register). All of that alone is quite ridiculous, but that's not the subject of this blog. Point is, I could understand they would adhere to the local ordinance and simply not allow non-registered dogs in. Then I could only blame their government. However, the madness didn't end there.
I went to the main PetSmart corporate page. They have not banned pit bull breeds from their store but here's their policy on who can attend their "Doggie Day Camp":
Dogs who have been socialized with other dogs but are not of the "bully breed" classification† or wolves/wolf hybrids
†Dogs in the "bully breed" classification (e.g. American Pit Bull Terriers, Miniature Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Dogs, Bull Terriers or mixed breeds that have the appearance or characteristics of one of these breeds). For the safety of all animals and associates, and at the discretion of PetSmart, some pets may not be permitted.
Well isn't that interesting? So although it isn't widely publicized, Petsmart has actually caved into this deranged fear that has been perpetrated by the media--which is odd, since I have seen ads and posters of pit bull adoptions at PetSmart's around the country. And corporate PetSmart even has PetSmart charities, helping many rescues that help out pit bull breeds. So there is some strange discrepancy going on. It does say it is at the discretion of a PetSmart location, so perhaps some local businesses are still as intelligent as their business name implies. I can only believe that it must be for legal reasons that the corporate office says no pit bulls are allowed into their Day Camp.
But now let's just think about this a moment. If you were someone who bred vicious dogs for fighting, would you be spending your money bringing them to "doggie day camp"? I would think that would ruin the dog completely and make him a wuss, wouldn't you? And as for bringing a pit bull into PetSmart, if you were engaged in dog fighting activity, would you be taking Fluffy to PetSmart for a new stuffed animal cuddle toy? No, I don't think so. I think you'd be in your back shed forging a toy from nails and barbed wire.
So why the rules? I mean seriously, any owner of any breed of animal that takes that animal into PetSmart and pays premium price for dog food, toys, and a manicure, is probably not the owner of a junkyard dog. The pit bulls that walk through the automated doors of PetSmart are the well-bred, intelligent, gentle animals whose genes come from the dogs who made the American Pit Bull Terrier the most popular dog in America in the 1920's. That's right--this breed the public is terrified of was the most popular family dog eighty years ago, and was all over the media as mascot to businesses and even was a member of The Little Rascals. But things change. People change. And a bunch of losers from our human race decided that they would take these family dogs and breed them to make them mean, vicious, and slightly off their rocker. There are psycho dogs of any breed—I do believe that. Every now again, you run into a dog who is just plain nuts. But I can say the same about people. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that statistically, there probably are far more crazy people to sane people than there are psycho dogs to sane dogs. Unfortunately, we can't outlaw the crazy people because that would be discrimination.
I believe in a business' right to make their own rules. That's the great thing about America--freedom of speech and freedom to form your own elitist clubs to shut the rest of the world out. I have no issue with that. And it is apparent that some management at some PetSmart's do have brains and know better than to put up such asinine restrictions on who can buy their products. And they even go so far as to hold events specifically for pit bulls breeds, trying to help change the public's view of the breed. So I'm not writing this to get people to boycott PetSmart. I'm writing this to simply get it off my chest--and maybe somebody over at corporate PetSmart will realize that not only are they not being pet friendly, but they aren't being very bright. Afterall, if they aren't smart, people will simply go "where the pets go"--to PetCo.
I read a posting a group from a lady in Arkansas saying she walked into her local PetSmart and found a sign stating "As of Sept. 27, 2007, no pit bull or pit bulls breeds are allowed". She wanted to know if this was a national thing. A few replies came in and no one else could find such a sign at their own local Petsmart. Apparently this was a local issue, but I still wanted to look into it.
Turns out that North Little Rock, Arkansas, home of this particular PetSmart does have local breed specific legislation that they passed recently making it illegal to own a pit bull or pit bull-like breed. However, if you chose not to relocate your family or execute your beloved pet, you could have the dog registered officially, tattooed as being registered, and pay a $500 registration fee (I don't even think sex offenders have to pay $500 when they officially register). All of that alone is quite ridiculous, but that's not the subject of this blog. Point is, I could understand they would adhere to the local ordinance and simply not allow non-registered dogs in. Then I could only blame their government. However, the madness didn't end there.
I went to the main PetSmart corporate page. They have not banned pit bull breeds from their store but here's their policy on who can attend their "Doggie Day Camp":
Dogs who have been socialized with other dogs but are not of the "bully breed" classification† or wolves/wolf hybrids
†Dogs in the "bully breed" classification (e.g. American Pit Bull Terriers, Miniature Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Dogs, Bull Terriers or mixed breeds that have the appearance or characteristics of one of these breeds). For the safety of all animals and associates, and at the discretion of PetSmart, some pets may not be permitted.
Well isn't that interesting? So although it isn't widely publicized, Petsmart has actually caved into this deranged fear that has been perpetrated by the media--which is odd, since I have seen ads and posters of pit bull adoptions at PetSmart's around the country. And corporate PetSmart even has PetSmart charities, helping many rescues that help out pit bull breeds. So there is some strange discrepancy going on. It does say it is at the discretion of a PetSmart location, so perhaps some local businesses are still as intelligent as their business name implies. I can only believe that it must be for legal reasons that the corporate office says no pit bulls are allowed into their Day Camp.
But now let's just think about this a moment. If you were someone who bred vicious dogs for fighting, would you be spending your money bringing them to "doggie day camp"? I would think that would ruin the dog completely and make him a wuss, wouldn't you? And as for bringing a pit bull into PetSmart, if you were engaged in dog fighting activity, would you be taking Fluffy to PetSmart for a new stuffed animal cuddle toy? No, I don't think so. I think you'd be in your back shed forging a toy from nails and barbed wire.
So why the rules? I mean seriously, any owner of any breed of animal that takes that animal into PetSmart and pays premium price for dog food, toys, and a manicure, is probably not the owner of a junkyard dog. The pit bulls that walk through the automated doors of PetSmart are the well-bred, intelligent, gentle animals whose genes come from the dogs who made the American Pit Bull Terrier the most popular dog in America in the 1920's. That's right--this breed the public is terrified of was the most popular family dog eighty years ago, and was all over the media as mascot to businesses and even was a member of The Little Rascals. But things change. People change. And a bunch of losers from our human race decided that they would take these family dogs and breed them to make them mean, vicious, and slightly off their rocker. There are psycho dogs of any breed—I do believe that. Every now again, you run into a dog who is just plain nuts. But I can say the same about people. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that statistically, there probably are far more crazy people to sane people than there are psycho dogs to sane dogs. Unfortunately, we can't outlaw the crazy people because that would be discrimination.
I believe in a business' right to make their own rules. That's the great thing about America--freedom of speech and freedom to form your own elitist clubs to shut the rest of the world out. I have no issue with that. And it is apparent that some management at some PetSmart's do have brains and know better than to put up such asinine restrictions on who can buy their products. And they even go so far as to hold events specifically for pit bulls breeds, trying to help change the public's view of the breed. So I'm not writing this to get people to boycott PetSmart. I'm writing this to simply get it off my chest--and maybe somebody over at corporate PetSmart will realize that not only are they not being pet friendly, but they aren't being very bright. Afterall, if they aren't smart, people will simply go "where the pets go"--to PetCo.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
spec·u·la·tion
There is a strange generalization out there that when a woman wants to celebrate, or when a woman wants to make herself feel happy, she goes shoe shopping. I am not a part of that generalization. I hate shoes. I hate shopping. I most definitely despise the two in tandem. There is only kind of shopping I do enjoy, and will do it in order to celebrate or to lighten my mood--and that is book shopping. I may not even purchase a book, I may merely wander about the aisles and soak up the feeling of warmth, wit, and intellect that these little pieces of wood pulp provide.
I am a frequenter of Barnes & Noble. Given a choice of bookstores to while away the hours in, I will choose either the local mom and pop shop, or Barnes & Noble. However, this weekend I changed it up - having a coupon that exceeded my Barnes & Noble discount, I went to Borders.
Bookstores are set up differently everywhere. They do not go in the nice orderly fashion of Dewey Decimal, although generally the Literature category is atleast alphabetized. Borders does not sway from that one foundation. However, in the Non-Fiction realm, which is scattered about the store, I found a category I had never seen before in my usual book shopping experience: Speculation. Hmmm…
spec·u·la·tion, n. 1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject. 2. a single instance or process of consideration. 3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation. 4. conjectural consideration of a subject matter; conjecture or surmise.
(Webster's College Dictionary, p. 1286)
By mere definition, one would speculate that this category would be quite large. Afterall, isn't all writing purely speculation? Unless ofcourse you write things without consideration. But this section only consisted of two shelves. Oddly, one book I found under Science was also displayed here under Speculation. The other titles were ones I would have found in other stores under Metaphysics or New Age. But Borders had a Metaphysics category which was actually quite large and consisted of books on angels and talking to the dead along with some Pagan ritual instruction. Some titles on the two tiny shelves I would have thought might have been found under Mythology. Other titles I would have presumed to be under Archeology. Such titles as The Twelfth Planet, books on Atlantis, the one I found also in Science had to do with Quantum Physics—all these, according to Borders was Speculation. (although perhaps the book found in both places was a new employee's mistake—although I'm not sure which section would have been correct)
So what constitutes Speculation? If one really thinks about it, the difference between Science and Speculation I suppose would be the same difference between Religion and Mythology—Religion is what we believe; Mythology is what everyone else believes. I always wondered why we were taught "Greek Mythology" but not "Christian Mythology" or "Jewish Mythology". And isn't Science merely Speculation? At what point is a fact actually proven? Sure, we have our "scientific procedures," but how often have we learned that what we knew wasn't true when another test came along?
I was watching Discovery the other night and it had a documentary about prehistoric animals and the planet. It began by stating, "Billions of years ago, a small atom exploded and created our universe." Funny, I didn't think that was fact yet, but the narrator sounded so definitive on the issue. I thought that was still in the speculation stage—especially because shortly after that documentary, there was another one about the different theories on how our universe began. So where does speculation turn into fact and can be categorized elsewhere in the store?
Reality is colored by our own unique perspective. In fact, some would even argue that Reality is dictated by our own perspective. I haven't come to a conclusion yet on which one I attest to. But then again does it really matter? Afterall, it clearly is just Speculation.
I am a frequenter of Barnes & Noble. Given a choice of bookstores to while away the hours in, I will choose either the local mom and pop shop, or Barnes & Noble. However, this weekend I changed it up - having a coupon that exceeded my Barnes & Noble discount, I went to Borders.
Bookstores are set up differently everywhere. They do not go in the nice orderly fashion of Dewey Decimal, although generally the Literature category is atleast alphabetized. Borders does not sway from that one foundation. However, in the Non-Fiction realm, which is scattered about the store, I found a category I had never seen before in my usual book shopping experience: Speculation. Hmmm…
spec·u·la·tion, n. 1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject. 2. a single instance or process of consideration. 3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation. 4. conjectural consideration of a subject matter; conjecture or surmise.
(Webster's College Dictionary, p. 1286)
By mere definition, one would speculate that this category would be quite large. Afterall, isn't all writing purely speculation? Unless ofcourse you write things without consideration. But this section only consisted of two shelves. Oddly, one book I found under Science was also displayed here under Speculation. The other titles were ones I would have found in other stores under Metaphysics or New Age. But Borders had a Metaphysics category which was actually quite large and consisted of books on angels and talking to the dead along with some Pagan ritual instruction. Some titles on the two tiny shelves I would have thought might have been found under Mythology. Other titles I would have presumed to be under Archeology. Such titles as The Twelfth Planet, books on Atlantis, the one I found also in Science had to do with Quantum Physics—all these, according to Borders was Speculation. (although perhaps the book found in both places was a new employee's mistake—although I'm not sure which section would have been correct)
So what constitutes Speculation? If one really thinks about it, the difference between Science and Speculation I suppose would be the same difference between Religion and Mythology—Religion is what we believe; Mythology is what everyone else believes. I always wondered why we were taught "Greek Mythology" but not "Christian Mythology" or "Jewish Mythology". And isn't Science merely Speculation? At what point is a fact actually proven? Sure, we have our "scientific procedures," but how often have we learned that what we knew wasn't true when another test came along?
I was watching Discovery the other night and it had a documentary about prehistoric animals and the planet. It began by stating, "Billions of years ago, a small atom exploded and created our universe." Funny, I didn't think that was fact yet, but the narrator sounded so definitive on the issue. I thought that was still in the speculation stage—especially because shortly after that documentary, there was another one about the different theories on how our universe began. So where does speculation turn into fact and can be categorized elsewhere in the store?
Reality is colored by our own unique perspective. In fact, some would even argue that Reality is dictated by our own perspective. I haven't come to a conclusion yet on which one I attest to. But then again does it really matter? Afterall, it clearly is just Speculation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)