I’m late in getting to this. There have been two recent changes to the fast food environment: supposed improvements to french fries and hamburgers.

Burger King

Last December, Burger King changed their recipe for french fries. I was very excited to hear this. For decades, I’ve been trying to understand why Burger King makes such horrible french fries. It is not hard to make good french fries. I can walk into my kitchen right now, cut up a potato, and hot oil it into great french fries. Why couldn’t Burger King even come near this feat? But this wasn’t the only reason I was interested.

I have also spent decades hearing claims from burger joints about how they had improved their menus. McDonald’s has its own think tank! And yet, not once have these places actually improved their—let’s face it—limited culinary offerings. So I was ready for some really bad Burger King french fries!

And I was disappointed. Their new french fries are far better than their old fries. They still aren’t as good as just about every other chain’s fries, but at least now they have a reasonable offering.

Jack in the Box

A month later (I can’t find a link, and I don’t care to do any more searching), Jack in the Box announced that they were improving their line of hamburgers. They were going to put seasoning on them. Barbecue burgers, here we come!

Except, of course, that the Jumbo Jack is hardly a barbecued delight. It’s not a bad burger—especially if you’re really hungry. (I’ve heard the same thing about slugs and grasshoppers.) But the seasoning is very much like putting lipstick on a pig (or Sarah Palin).

And speaking of Jack in the Box, have you seen their new commercial with the guy “marrying” bacon and then “eating the bride”? It’s creepy in a lot of ways. I don’t know what they’re thinking.

Many years ago, This American Life did an episode about things we know that we don’t. In particular, there was a guy (show producer Alex Blumberg) who, when he was a kid, got the idea that Nielsen Families were people named Nielsen. The TV industry used them to gauge the popularity of shows because Nielsen was such a generic name and the people must be middle of the road or something. This, of course, is not the case. Nielsen Families are families with all kinds of last names who take part in audience measurements for the Nielsen Company. But you can empathize with the guy’s misunderstanding. I think we’ve all had some strange notions as children. Most of the time, these get cleared up while we are still children.

Not so for this unfortunate man. While in his twenties, he was having a conversation with a girlfriend and the subject of Nielsen Families came up. He blurted out, “Isn’t it weird that they all have the same last name?” Immediately upon saying it, he realized what his child’s mind could not: they don’t all have the same last names.

This morning, I came upon an article by Geoffrey Nunberg from about a decade ago. It is about the phrase “on the up and up.” I always thought this phrase meant one thing: above board. But apparently, there are a fair number of people in the US and loads outside of it who define it to mean “increasing.” My weight is on the up and up! My debt is on the up and up! My age is on the up and up!

This definition surprised Nunberg:

It isn’t that this other definition is wrong. Definitions do not define words; they (try to) explain how words are used. And frankly, the “increasing” definition makes more sense than “above board.” Not that I’m going to start using this definition; it sounds childish. “Since he went on that diet, his weight is on the down and down”? I don’t think so.

Language is always inexact. As the Nielsen Family example shows, we can miscommunicate because we don’t communicate. In general, I would rather have someone embarrass me once by pointing out a mispronunciation or misusage, rather than letting me embarrass myself multiple times by saying nothing. But it isn’t always that easy. People are fond of telling me I mispronounce “Godot.”[2] And in cases like “on the up and up” both sides can be right.

If “right” is the right word.

[1] Deborah Tannen is a linguist who has written a lot about miscommunication in relationships. Two of her more famous books, which I highly recommend, are That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships and You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.

[2] “Only in American!” I tell them.

According to various news sources, Khader Adnan has ended his 66-day hunger strike in return for the Israeli government agreeing to release him from “administrative detention”—a phrase the Israeli government gives for holding 309 people indefinitely without charge (one man has been held for over 5 years according to Human Rights Watch).

Bobby Sands, a volunteer of the Irish Republican Army, died on 5 May 1981 in Her Majesty’s Prison Maze after a hunger strike of, interestingly, 66 days. The song below is really good and compares these two men.

What I find frustrating about this is how Israel uses our own indefinite detention (and our habit of not allowing people to defend themselves because the information is classified) to justify locking people up for years without charge or due process of law. I will always be angry that we don’t even come close to living up to our ideals—the ideals I was lied to about all during my childhood. The ideals that most Americans still think we stand for.

Update

I read through the comments for this video: very troubling. On the one side, a fair fraction (but nothing close to a majority) fall into antisemitism. On the other are a bunch of people who make the case that if the Israeli government says he’s a terrorist, he must be. The antisemitism doesn’t even need comment. At least I hope it doesn’t. I’ve noticed a lot of antisemitic comments on videos that have nothing to do Palestine, Israel, or even politics. A couple of times, I’ve started to reply to a comment, only to notice I’m surrounded by such comments. When you see the word “Zionist” it is best to turn away unless you are prepared to go to war (internet war).

The other side bothers me more, because I think (I hope!) the “Zionist!” chanters are a minority—at least in this country. I am concerned when I see people saying things like, “This fucking islamofascist arab terrorist must die!” Really? Adnan hasn’t even been charged with anything. If he were really dangerous, I don’t see why the Israeli government is letting him go free. For all I know, I would find the guy’s opinions repugnant. But the fact is that he hasn’t even been charged with anything and probably never will be. For the zillionth time: this is about who we are. And I’m someone who thinks that people must be proven guilty. And yes, I am willing to die for that.

Lawrence Lessig’s 2004 book Free Culture is even more depressing 8 years later. But it is really worth reading, even (or perhaps especially) now.

He starts the book by talking about the Wright brothers’ invention of the airplane. I had never read Lessig, so I thought he was going to start talking about patent protection. (Really, I don’t know how I decided to get this book, so I didn’t know what it was about.) But he wasn’t going anywhere so obvious. Instead, he jumped ahead to 1945, when two farmers from North Carolina sued the government for flying airplanes over their airspace.

Until that time, common law said that property owners owned all of the space above their property. The Supreme Court threw out the case, stating that to hold on to this view of property rights would destroy the technology that the Wright brothers had made possible.

Lessig then goes on to talk about the fight between Edwin Howard Armstrong, inventor of FM radio, and RCA. RCA wanted to stop FM radio because they made so much money off AM radio. This all led to FM radio being delayed for decades and Armstrong killing himself.

These two cases are the same in that they both deal with how the law responds to a new technological innovation. They are not the same in that when those who would stifle innovation are just individuals with little power, the technology is allowed; when those who would stifle innovation are powerful corporate interests, the technology is stifled.

This brings us to today where corporate content owners are trying to stifle innovation on the internet. The book is important reading.

I’m very concerned about all this. Over the last 30 years (although it’s been going on longer), I’ve watched as copyright is expanded. This has done nothing for creators. It has done everything for corporations. Who would ever think that a 95-year copyright would be intended for a writer? Only corporations think in terms of these kinds of time frames. But it was one thing when copyright laws did no harm to creative activity. Increasingly, they do harm it. When everything becomes a commodity, someone will own everything.

Just as with gay rights advocates and Rick Santorum‘s name, animal rights advocates are associating Mitt Romney‘s name with something unpleasant. Because I don’t deal well with scatological matters, I will leave it to you to click on Santorum to find out what it means. However, I am happy to tell you that Romney means “To defecate in terror.” This is because… Wait! I can’t tell you. Just read this article about Dogs Against Romney.

Currently, a Google search on Santorum will bring up the right definition as the number one result. Use “I’m Feeling Lucky”! Sadly, a Google search on Romney only brings up the right definition as the number two result. But this article is my attempt to be a good netizen and bring Romney to number one! (Not that number two isn’t appropriate.)

I sent a link to a friend up in Canada, and she could not open the page. I asked her if she could see the home page. Yes she could, but it was out of date. The most recent post was my article on the MPAA. I went and looked at it, and I noticed that it was the last article I posted before moving to a new hosting company. I’ve posted 65 articles since then!

It turns out that no one else is having this problem. No one else that I know of. If you’re reading this, you aren’t having the problem either. I think I’ve figured out what’s going on.

My old hosting company is still hosting my site—I’m paid up through the end of this month. When I moved the site to the new host, I changed the name servers for the franklycurious.com domain name. These name servers used to point to the old host and now they point to the new host. (You understand that the network doesn’t work with names but rather numbers; what’s going on here is like someone putting the wrong address on a letter to you; you’re name might be right, but it will be delivered to the wrong house.) For whatever reason, my Canadian friend’s name servers are currently pointing to the wrong hosting company.

I hope this is not a problem throughout Canada, because I am huge in Canada!

One of the main things that the Banking (Glass-Steagall) Act of 1933 did, was to separate banks as most of us know them (places where you have a checking account) from investment banks. The act had already been cut back in 1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This led to the Saving and Loan Crisis. And then it was repealed completely in 1999 with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. This led to today.

It is not that no one saw what this all meant. Here is Byron Dorgan in 1999 (mostly). It is remarkable. I’m amazed it hasn’t gone viral.