We've already seen one fine Ann Arbor company wrecked by golf -- as the following WCA story from 1999 documents, once the execs start down that slippery slope, anything can happen. Has the demon "sport" struck again?
19990818
CAN WE AFFORD IT?
There's big money in it, high-profile real estate deals to be done, and a glitzy, glamorous image being presented. People who take part are encouraged to think of themselves as "players" and to spend money right and left. There are magazines, TV shows, and web sites, all trying to give it a positive spin. But underneath it all, there's a tragic story of addiction, loss, and human pathos. Join us tonight when Wood- Charles brings you, "Golf: Clubbed Into Submission."
To some people, golf is still connected with gangsters and the underworld, a legacy of the prohibition era, when golf was illegal throughout the United States. In fundamentalist Islamic cultures, golf is a creature of the devil, inextricably linked with an incident in the 12th century, when dissenting sects in Afghanistan attacked each other with putters. And most Southern Baptists at least claim to shun golf, on the grounds that it leads to dancing.
But lately, perhaps as part of America's general moral decline, perhaps due to our increasing exposure to violence in the media and the lack of stable, two- parent families, more and more of our impressionable adults are turning to golf, some briefly, losing no more than a few weekends and a few thousand dollars in equipment and clothing , others losing livelihoods, homes, marriages, and their sense of self worth. The question has to be: can America afford it?
Golf can be subtle or all-consuming. Two case histories serve to demonstrate the range of ill effects otherwise (more or less) rational people can suffer.
One such history, that of Mr. Ken P., illustrates the middle path. Mr. P. describes himself as a social golfer. He plays one or two games a week, "just to relax," and truly believes that he can quit anytime he wants. However, in the last year, he's left his high- prestige career in the tape software business and is supporting himself with a meagre living in the fastener trade, which he supplements by hustling restaurants for free chicken wings.
More alarming is the story of Tom K. After a lifetime of abstemious behavior, he was introduced to golf by a relative. Within months, Mr. K. had lost his job, and so had everyone who worked with him! While this is admittedly not typical, it illustrates the devastating effects golf can have
What can be done? Golf courses are springing up everywhere. As the rust belt cities of the north try to rejuvenate their aging centres, golf courses look like a quick answer. In Detroit alone, dozens of dilapidated casinos in the downtown area are being bulldozed to make way for golf facilities. Mayor Mel Farr is actively backing the golf initiative, swearing that it will bring employment and revenue to the city. But many worry that all it will bring is tacky landscaping and desperate Mason shoe dealers, hoping against hope that they'll beat the odds. Others propose a conspiracy theory: golf is a minority plot to get mainstream whities hooked on something that will break up their families, enslave them to corporate interests, and divert their attention from more subtle attacks on American values like Lilith Fair and the Teletubbies.
How can you tell if you or someone close to you is involved with golf? Experts say that there are several warning signs: always being short of money; strange tastes in shoes; and a tendency to buy up large tracts of land in the northern lower peninsula. If you think you may have a problem with golf, the American Medical Association suggests trying something cheaper and less time-consuming, like getting a Ph.D. in Particle Physics or restoring vintage motorcycles.
--
The Wood-Charles News Service has been brought to you by the Odd Town Tavern and Golf Resort in sunny downtown Ann Arbor, where everyone is trying to promote a new euphemism, "Dumber than a Kansas School Board."
- 30 -
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
PQE Delisted
In the hugely unlikely event that you care, ProQuest has been or is about to be delisted from the NYSE, since they have blown off yet another deadline to produce a 2005 annual report.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Forgive me father, for I have emitted carbon
As Kyoto and Montreal protocols for dealing with climate change and carbon release hash out the details of nations trading off their wasteful ways, a market for individual feel-good carbon offsets has cropped up. Based on an article in New Scientist, March 10-16, 2007, it looks like a really good way to waste your money.
Here's how it works -- you do something really environmentally bad, like taking a trip on airplane. When you get back, you log into a web site, use their algorithm to calculate how bad you were, and pay an amount of money which they claim they will use to fund "offset" projects, usually planting trees somewhere. As New Scientist says,
"Some see carbon offsetting as the ultimate guilt-free solution to global warming, but New Scientist has found that this market in environmental absolution is remarkably unregulated and secretive, which leaves it open to deception and fraud. While we found no impropriety, the lack of transparency means it is often impossible to be sure that money invested in carbon offsetting makes the difference that is claimed for it.
There are two kinds of offset. Official offsets - sanctioned under the Kyoto protocol - allow governments and companies to earn carbon credits that can be traded on markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. Most such projects are carried out in developing countries under the protocol's "clean development mechanism". They have their detractors, but they are at least controlled by tight rules and a complex bureaucracy aimed at preventing fraud.
Then there is the burgeoning unofficial sector - an army of charitable and profit-making bodies that charge a fee to organise offsets on your behalf. This sector cannot confer Kyoto credits and is not bound by the protocol's rules, yet it is the route that many companies have chosen so they can make claims about their green credentials. It has also opened the door to private individuals who want to offset their emissions.
Though still much smaller than the Kyoto sector, which has so far committed to offset 740 million tonnes of CO2, voluntary offsets have grown from 3 million tonnes in 2004 to somewhere between 20 and 50 million tonnes in 2006. In all, more than 30 organisations across the developed world now sell voluntary offsets. Simply go online, calculate your emissions from flying, running your car or running your life, and cleanse your environmental sins at the click of a mouse."
The main problem with these companies is that they don't make it clear that their "offset" efforts will accrue over many years -- you dumped carbon last week, the offsets won't kick in for decades. The projects mostly amount to tree-planting schemes. Where are the programs being implemented? Someplace that actually needs trees? And trees die, eventually, rot and release carbon of their own. So this century's offset programs may not be helpful in the next one.
This is really no different from consumer recycling -- a feel good bandaid, when the real answer is to minimize the throw-away nature of packaging and consumer goods themselves.
The article is here.
Unless you're a subscriber, you may or may not see the full text, but let me know if you'd like it.
Here's how it works -- you do something really environmentally bad, like taking a trip on airplane. When you get back, you log into a web site, use their algorithm to calculate how bad you were, and pay an amount of money which they claim they will use to fund "offset" projects, usually planting trees somewhere. As New Scientist says,
"Some see carbon offsetting as the ultimate guilt-free solution to global warming, but New Scientist has found that this market in environmental absolution is remarkably unregulated and secretive, which leaves it open to deception and fraud. While we found no impropriety, the lack of transparency means it is often impossible to be sure that money invested in carbon offsetting makes the difference that is claimed for it.
There are two kinds of offset. Official offsets - sanctioned under the Kyoto protocol - allow governments and companies to earn carbon credits that can be traded on markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. Most such projects are carried out in developing countries under the protocol's "clean development mechanism". They have their detractors, but they are at least controlled by tight rules and a complex bureaucracy aimed at preventing fraud.
Then there is the burgeoning unofficial sector - an army of charitable and profit-making bodies that charge a fee to organise offsets on your behalf. This sector cannot confer Kyoto credits and is not bound by the protocol's rules, yet it is the route that many companies have chosen so they can make claims about their green credentials. It has also opened the door to private individuals who want to offset their emissions.
Though still much smaller than the Kyoto sector, which has so far committed to offset 740 million tonnes of CO2, voluntary offsets have grown from 3 million tonnes in 2004 to somewhere between 20 and 50 million tonnes in 2006. In all, more than 30 organisations across the developed world now sell voluntary offsets. Simply go online, calculate your emissions from flying, running your car or running your life, and cleanse your environmental sins at the click of a mouse."
The main problem with these companies is that they don't make it clear that their "offset" efforts will accrue over many years -- you dumped carbon last week, the offsets won't kick in for decades. The projects mostly amount to tree-planting schemes. Where are the programs being implemented? Someplace that actually needs trees? And trees die, eventually, rot and release carbon of their own. So this century's offset programs may not be helpful in the next one.
This is really no different from consumer recycling -- a feel good bandaid, when the real answer is to minimize the throw-away nature of packaging and consumer goods themselves.
The article is here.
Unless you're a subscriber, you may or may not see the full text, but let me know if you'd like it.
What's This All About?
For many years, your editorial staff at WCA sent out weekly rubbish, mostly political, as a thin cover for encouraging people to show up at a given downtown Ann Arbor bar. This was before blogging had been thought of, and when a number of things occurred, including 9/11, the rampant expansion of the blogosphere, and constant comparisons with our material and the goddamn Onion, we gave it up.
Today, the WCA editorial staff finds itself with lots of time on its hands, thanks to the miracle of short-term disability and so on, and it seems as though one way of annoying everybody -- that is, keeping in touch with our dedicated fans, is to rerun some of the older material from the news service, along with current thoughts, if any, and perhaps the occasional status report on our personal status.
The column below appeared in 1990, the last time a President was in as much trouble as our current one ... some of it seems pretty apt, given the current headlines.
APPROVAL, DOLLARS FLOW IN TO DEMS; GOP TO RETHINK STRATEGY
Ann Arbor: Numerous sources are reporting massive upswings in President Clinton's approval ratings and -- more importantly -- in private citizen donations to the Democratic National Committee. The longer the impeachment proceedings go on, it appears, the better for Clinton and for Al Gore's inevitable run for the pillory in 2000. In apparent recognition of this, the President announced a number of initiatives this week that are clearly aimed at keeping the scandal going. For example, his program for "fixing" the schools has been criticized as a desire to micromanage the nation's educational system. The President denied this vigorously, saying , "Nobody wants to micromanage the schools less than I do ... well, maybe I'd like to micromanage some of 'em. Well, maybe the girls' basketball programs." This remark alone was thought to be good for another three weeks of hearings, another 2 percentage points in the polls, and another 25 million dollars in contributions.
Meanwhile, the GOP, intent on proving that it is not dumber than a box of rocks(1), despite all evidence to the contrary, announced that it would demand equal time to be investigated. Republican Representative Henry Hyde issued a scathing attack on Attorney General Janet Reno for her refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate him. Among the low crimes and "naughtinesses" for which Hyde wants to be dragged through the mud and -- he hopes -- back into public favor are his having paid an illegal alien two dollars and fifty cents, in 1969, to mow his lawn, without deducting anything for Social Security or withholding taxes; having smirked knowingly upon being told a off-color joke in the presence of female federal employees; and of having had recurring impure thoughts about a classmate, one Delores Bobowski(2), during his sophomore and junior years in high school. Hyde's statement concluded with a plea for fairness and impartiality in the process of blackening his name and expending vast amounts of public money to no useful purpose. "While I may not have the President's sheer, native ability to screw up, I believe that with practice, I can become just as big an embarrassment and become just as popular, as long as the Justice Department is willing to give me the opportunity."
--
The WCA News Service is brought to you by the Odd Town Tavern in foggy, damp downtown Ann Arbor, where, to our chagrin, the statement:
comfortable_old_restaurants --;
is about to be executed.
(1) Zastreaux, A., "Who works at Oracle?," Harvard MonkeyBusiness Review, Feb, 1997. (2) Crumb, R., various references, 1967 - 1975
- 30 -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
