Lileks is great. He finds insight in the most mundane things. In this piece, Lileks sees a fancy ball point pen and visualizes what the creation of that pen must have been like:

“Oh, we don’t have GE bulbs anymore. We don’t have any GE products.” He said he didn’t know why, had something to do with promotion, or something like that. Interesting. I’m guessing it may have had to do with shelf fees – maybe Home Depot wanted a certain amount of money up front to stock GE products, and GE didn’t want to pay that much, and someone decided to walk away from the partnership for a year, or forever. This drama probably occupied the lives of several dozen middle-level execs for a year or so – sleepless nights, missed dinners, contentious teleconference calls, all ending in a few guys sitting in the kitchen at 2 AM with an Amstel wondering if this was going to cost them their job.

That’s the part of the economy we never see or hear or read too much about. There are guys right now who are on serious antacid medication because they’re in charge of the launch for a new ballpoint pen, and Target has been ambivalent about carrying the high-margin single-pen blister pack, but they are leaning towards the four-pen pack, which is good, but it doesn’t establish the brand as a premium brand, because there’s that whole quantity / discount correlation; I mean, we were trying to make this the Haagen-Daaz of pens, and now it’s going to be sold like a popsicle?

I don’t know why there aren’t more novels written about the business world. Probably because most people inclined to write about the anxieties of a man caught up in a ballpoint pen launch would be inclined to see it as an example of conspicuous consumption, a comedy whose empty moral reminds us how hollow life is in this vast machine of production and consumption. But it says more about the world we inhabit than yet another miserable account of growing up with an alcoholic father and dysfunctional siblings and how they were affected when the vermiculite factory laid off seven percent of its workforce in 196.

I bought this (picture of pen -ed)at an estate sale several years ago. A late 60s pen, original package, one buck? Sure. It's an interesting little artifact. Consider the model, experiencing some sort of public sexual ecstacy at the features of this new Scripto invention. Mod hair. Mod earrings. Very mod eyeshadow. Was her picture purchased from a stock-photo ad company? Was this shot specifically commissioned? And who was she, anyway? Maybe this was as far as her career ever went, and now she’s a grandmother in Dayton OH who collects small ceramic frogs and just loves Dr. Phil. No doubt she gives little thought to that strange year where she could find her picture in every drug store and grocery store and stationery store and sometimes hanging in the gift shops at hotels. And no doubt no one ever said “hey, you’re the girl on the pen package.” Ubiquity and anonymity: what an odd combination.

There’s the groovy typeface, with its nod to the with-it, hip, turn-on / tune-in generation. You can turn it on, and you can turn it off. It’s straight out of a Playmate data sheet. Turn ons: the top button. Turn offs: the button on the shirt-pocket clip. (I’m sure the academics who study the socio-sexual dynamics of industrial design would write 23 impenetrable pages about the genital implications of that red turn-off button, as well as the phallocentric violence inherent in the word “impenetrable.” Sorry.)

All this work for a mere pen. The photographer, the package designer, the people who crafted the pen’s interface - they all took it seriously, I’m sure, because one level above them was a humorless taskmaster who took it very seriously. This was a new paradigm in pen production. Really. Consider: old ball-points had your basic clicker at the top. Click: the ball deploys. Click: the ball retracts. The Action Pen, however, doubled the number of buttons. One click on the top button to deploy; one click on the clip-button to retract.

What was the advantage?

You have to ask? TWO BUTTON ACTION. It would be apparent to anyone. One button good, two buttons must be better, since that’s double the number of buttons.

But no one pointed out the obvious fact that two buttons were, in fact, worse. The simple in-out, up-down nature of the old pen was superior. It was functional. This new two-button scheme appealed only to guys who wanted to push buttons and see something happen – i.e., the other button popped up. Cool! James Bond would dig it.

Meetings, memos, slide shows, sales meetings, brochures, launch parties, bonuses to territorial sales reps, ulcers, three martini lunches, men caught up in the cutthroat world of writing implements, frustrated to the point of spiritual agony that they were married to a woman who had sixteen pens in the drawer in the kitchen and didn’t care which one she used. He’d even explained it to her: don’t keep the pens you take from the hotels. They don’t fill the nib. Here. Let me take it apart. See? They expect you’re going to take it, so they only fill the plastic sleeve up three quarters of an inch.

I don’t care, she said. When it goes dry, I’ll throw it away. I like using it because it reminds me of Hawaii, if that’s okay with you.

And so he finds himself in a bar chaining Winstons, sucking back the Cutty, looking at the sales figures for the Action Pen, and wondering why it hasn’t taken off. It had two buttons! It had a great broad on the pack. It had market-tested mod appeal. The youth market alone should have made it work. He has a pen in his right hand, and he’s clicking it over and over. It’s what he does when he’s nervous. Drives his wife nuts. But it’s satisfying. It’s like speed-eating bar nuts. Takes the edge off. Click click. Click click. Click click. One pen one thumb one action one sound.

One button.

He gets a sick feeling in his stomach; he takes out an Action Pen. Tries the old rapid nervous-clicking routine with the new two-button model. It feels wrong. It adds a step.

We didn’t think about that. We never even started to think about that.

So now what. Get ahead of it now, write a memo, petition the boss to drop it before they lose millions? Yes. Yes. Be a hero. Stand up. Take the bullets, but they’ll know you’re right. Unless . . .

Unless Johanson, the guy who pushed this project, hates the nervous double-click. That was his goal all along. Maybe that’s how they pitched it to the inner party. Gentlemen, we have developed an innovation that will ban forever the bane of the common office.

Maybe those who speak up against it will find themselves on the wrong side of the ledger, and then -

Another headline I think is funny:

Farmed salmon perfectly safe to eat: officials dismiss scientific study -channel news asia

Don't listen to those fancy-talking "scientists," listen to me, a guy from the fishing industry. I'm an official, and nobody just throws around that kinda credential.

-- pauloc

(October 1st, 2003 -- 9:31AM PST)

Surprisingly, this headline is not from The Onion:

C-Murder Found Guilty Of Second-Degree Murder, Receives Life Sentence -mtv

-- pauloc

(August 12th, 2003 -- 11:05 PM PST)

So Arnold is running for Cali Governor. Quote from his website:

"There comes a point when we the people must demand more of our elected officials than just showing up."

and the headline from SFGate.com:

"Actor has poor voting record: Schwarzenegger didn't cast ballot in 5 of past 11 elections"

Just showing up seems to be a higher standard that Arnold holds himself to...

-- pauloc

(July 18th, 2003 -- 2:52 PM PST)

The complete list of bushisms is here at slate.com, but here's a few of my favorites:

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances."—Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."—Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."—Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

-- pauloc

(July 17th, 2003 -- 3:56 PM PST)

So the Prez. got a new press secretary. Man that guy got reamed today by the press corps. It's hard to believe this is a real transcript of a press conference.

" QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I'm wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?

Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You're talking about some of the comments that -- some that are --

QUESTION: I'm not talking about anybody else's comments. I'm asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President's own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?

Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.

QUESTION: So you won't say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?

Scott McClellan: It's been addressed.

QUESTION: Well, that's an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn't the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?

Scott McClellan: We've already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition.

QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union?

Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence -- you're talking about intelligence that -- sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn't have previously. But when we're clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and --

QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?

Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out.

QUESTION: But it's the President's fault.

Scott McClellan: In fact, if you look back at it, I mean, we did take out a different reference, a reference based on different sources in a previous speech because it was said -- the CIA Director said, take it out.

QUESTION: Let me come back to your "nonsense" statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union?

Scott McClellan: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?

Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go -- we've stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it's going through the drafting process.

QUESTION: Scott, you said it was "nonsense" to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say --

Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting --

QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted --

Scott McClellan: -- insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what --

QUESTION: You didn't explicitly give a motive.

Scott McClellan: And I said I think that's just nonsense.

QUESTION: I'm just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?

Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don't --

QUESTION: I'm saying, does your "nonsense" statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?

Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That's the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that's what the information was based on in that speech.

QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your "nonsense" statement --

Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you --

QUESTION: You're trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)

Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through this.

QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn't apply to what I just asked you?

Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that's why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs.

QUESTION: Scott, on Keith's question, why can't we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that's a non-answer. Why can't you just say that?

Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.

QUESTION: Why won't you say that, though, that's, like, so innocuous and benign.

Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.

(Look, it's always a bit brutal and ugly when members of the press flog something like this over and over again. But why can't they just say it: the president takes responsibility for what happens on his watch? And what ever happened to the responsibility era ... -- Josh Marshall) "

That's from talkingpointsmemo.com and there's more good stuff there too...

-- pauloc

(July 11th, 2003 -- 3:50 PM PST)

A great rant from Somethingawful.com:

" Thanks to how often I see the shows on TV one of the first things that pops into my mind that I hate are fighting robot TV shows. There's a guy who built and competed in Battlebots on our Forums and I mean him no offense, but I mother fucking hate that shit. It's so boring, it's always just a robot getting pushed into a saw and sparking a little bit and then turned over or something. You know what's more exciting than watching wedge robots slowly fight? Watching ANYTHING ELSE fight. Ants, babies, slugs, anything is more action packed then watching two wedges try to flip each other over. Even turtles BITE and CLAW, put them on the air!"

That's only a small portion of the rant. He's an angry, angry man.

-- pauloc

(July 4th, 2003 -- 8:07 PM PST)

Some sad news today. Although Kathrine Hepburn may have been the bigger star who has recently passed away, I haven't seen any of her work, so it wasn't a big deal to me. But today I read that the Bushman (he was an honest-to-God African Bushman) from the movie The Gods must be Crazy died. (link) The article says that the bushman let his first paycheck (of $300) blow away in the wind because he didn't see the value of money.

-- pauloc

(July 3rd, 2003 -- 10:30 PM PST)

After watching two weeks notice starring Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant, I have to say that I'm mildly disgusted. Oh no, not disgusted by the usual formulaic plot that romantic comedies always follow, but because of one startling deviation from that formula that this movie takes. In one of the scenes where Hugh and Sandra are starting to have feelings for each other Sandra had eaten too many chili dogs and had a really bad case of diahrea. Hugh suggested that she just go in the car. IN THE PASSENGER SEAT OF AN F'ING CAR! Instead they run to an RV and she stinks up that vehicle. At first I thought I misunderstood, that she just needed to throw up. Oh, no. I got it right. YUCK! Worst romantic scene ever! I was worried it was gonna go scat.

-- pauloc

(June 11th, 2003 -- 8:07 PM PST)

Dave Barry talking about modern art. It seems that he takes the same view of it as I do:

"It's hard to imagine art getting any more innovative, but I am pleased to report that the British art community is doing its darnedest. According to a London Times story sent in by alert reader Ronald Thurston, the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.

Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyer's bag is empty. That's what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows:

''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''

Got that? It's NOT a bag of rubbish: It's a rubbish bag! If THAT'S not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I don't know what is.

The Times states that ''Floyer's sculpture is displayed by a doorway; the intention is that the viewer wonders whether it is full of air or rubbish.'' Actually, what it makes me wonder is whether the folks writing checks at the Paul Hamlyn Foundation have been smoking crack."

Read the whole thing here.

-- pauloc

(June 11th, 2003 -- 9:03 AM PST)

Not that there's one around here, but I certainly won't eat at Chino Latino's anytime soon. From Lileks:

"Big article in the Strib business section today - billboard ads that go out of their way to be edgy. Money quote: “If you think diarrhea jokes are a bad way to sell Mexican food, you probably won’t be stopping to eat at Chino Latino. And that’s fine with them.” See, they’re the “leading practitioner of edgy advertising. If you don’t get the joke, then they don’t want your business.” Oh, I get the joke. It’s just not that funny."

Man, don't I hate bad ad campaigns. Seriously, that's just gross...

-- pauloc

(June 9th, 2003 -- 10:29 PM PST)

I half-assed a booklist. It has no descriptions of the books (I provided links to amazon.com descriptions on half of them) and the list of books is not comprehensive. There's also lots of books that I read half of. I'll flesh out the page as it goes along...

-- pauloc

(June 6th, 2003 -- 10:12 AM PST)

I plan to make lists of the movies I watch and books I read. This will be posted soon. If I get ambitious enough, I will start writing reviews...

-- pauloc

(May 13th, 2003 -- 4:25 PM PST)

A Note To "Creationists." Read this article from Scalzi.com. Excerpts:

"But the Laws of Thermodynamics don't say that everything tends towards entropy, always, in every instance without exception. You can very easily have localized, short-term (astronomically speaking) increases in complexity. Just like we do here on Earth. Either the creationists who spout off about the Laws of Thermodynamics don't know this, which means their understanding of science behind the Laws is molecule-depth shallow, or they do know this but choose to lie to the credulous about it, which means they're (pun intended) fundamentally dishonest. If I have to choose between people being slack-jawed ignorant or unapologetic liars, I prefer to believe they're slack-jawed ignorant, mostly because, ironically, I want to have faith in people. But either way, I don't want them talking to me. It insults me that these people seem to be under the impression at either I am as stone ignorant as they are, or that I'm uncomplicated enough to be fooled by rhetorical sleight of hand. Neither is the case. Unlike creationists, I don't revel in the idea of ignorance. So I am at a distinct advantage against those who do."

-- pauloc

(May 10th, 2003 -- 10:45 PM PST)

Funny signs! I did not come up with these myself, I saw them at somethingawful.com. I think these're hilarious though, and wish that I came up with it. There's more at this link. If you're bored enough to go to the site, check out their legal page too... good stuff.

-- pauloc

(May 9th, 2003 -- 10:42 AM PST)

Here's a bit from Lileks:

"I think it’s obvious by now I am possessed by an anal-retentive demon. (I don’t know his name. Feyligsungur, perhaps.) And it gets worse: I am somewhat anal-retentive myself, but in a different way. Hence our conversations are excruciating. I look at the bookshelf, and I hear him. His voice is soft and insinuating, with a gravely note of menace.

Rearrange the books, whispers a voice in my head. Rearrange them by height.

I drive my fists into my temples. No! They have to be ordered by genre, author, and date!

But that looks so ugly. So rough. So . . . random and unplanned.Order them by height. Do it. Do it now.

I won’t! I won’t! Leave me alone or I’ll turn the spines towards the wall!"

Read the whole thing here.

-- pauloc

---

Send Comments to pauloc.

ARCHIVE
- Nothing to Archive! -

---

Paulo Castaneda

---