Sunday is off-topic day around here. I occasionally write little off-topic editorials that I originally decided to call "Sunday Sermons." The rub—aye, the rub—is that there's no reason why you'd want to read these things. You come here to read about photography, not what I think about…oh, say, energy policy. So I promised to label them clearly so you could avoid them if you choose.
Well, here's a little problem: I can't stand that name any more. Sunday Sermon? A lame cliché of a name for an off-the-cuff editorial rant if there ever was one. The connotations aren't even right—it implies religiosity, and I'm non-religious, and it implies a lecture from on high, whereas most of my little mini-essays are more like ruminative, meandering chats with a slightly curmudgeonly uncle.
So I've decided to change the name. From now on, if you don't mind, I'm going to call them "Sunday Walks in the Park." (Unless somebody has a better suggestion.)* I spent no time or effort coming up with that name either, and, sure enough, it's no more clever or original than the old name. But at least it's a little more accurate.
So, in case you're one of those who don't want to read my armchair philosophizing on topics far afield from photography, "Walk in the Park" is henceforth the danger signal. You have been warned!
So anyway, here's this week's Sunday Walk: it's called "A Million Millionaires." And remember, it's not about photography.
_____________________
Mike
*UPDATE: Matthew Allen has suggested "Open Mike," which is perfect, and which I hereby adopt. From now on, the Sunday off-topic pieces you'll want to avoid if you only like reading about photography will be labeled "Open Mike." Thanks to Matthew!
"A Random Walk Down Mike Street?" {g}
Posted by: Ctein | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 04:25 PM
Nice piece, rather depressing though I must say - the truth hurts.
As to a name, how about "Sunday's Open Mike" or some other variation on "Open Mike"?
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew Allen | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 04:51 PM
Thank you Mike, now you're forgiven for the horse racing episode!
Cheers, Robin
Posted by: Robin P | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 04:52 PM
Why not just 'Sunday Ruminations'? Has the virtue of fidelity to what it describes.
M
Posted by: Michael | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 05:33 PM
Sunday Strolls
Posted by: fred hatfield | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 06:14 PM
How about 'Weekend Perambulations"?
Posted by: Puplet | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 08:52 PM
I don't have much faith that governments will solve the energy crisis or find a solution to global warming. As you so rightly point out humans don't like long term planing and politicians are more guilty of this than others preferring only to think in 3-4 year time spans. It will be industry that will approach the situation on the pragmatic basis of long term profitability and viability.
My partner and I are considering going self sufficient in our energy needs. At first when you look at the costs in terms of today's prices the economic benefits are negligible, but look at them in the light of what energy will cost in 5 or 10 years time and it becomes a much different proposition. At the moment we think we will have a hybrid system based around solar-panels and a wind turbine selling our surplus power back to the grid. Our biggest worry is water. With diminishing rain falls (where we live it has fallen by 50% over the last 20 years) and increasing temperatures ( 47 degrees Celsius over summer - or to put that in perspective what is called in cookery books a low heat in an oven) we have our work cut out in looking for a solution.
Posted by: Paul Amyes | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 09:47 PM
Mike,
I think I prefer ...
"Sunday Soliloquy"
Posted by: Kent | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 09:51 PM
"Open Mike" is *MUCH* cleverer than my idea.
I'm changing my vote.
pax / Ctein
Posted by: Ctein | Sunday, 04 May 2008 at 10:10 PM
I used to do a thread on DPR called "Sunday Word" It was a tongue and cheek response to "The Sunday Bird"
Posted by: Charlie | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 07:43 AM
"Open mike..."
short, sweet and to the point
Posted by: Bryce lee | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 09:18 AM
Paul,
I agree with you in part. It probably is foolish to think that guvmint will solve our energy problems. But, so far as I can tell, only guvmint can or will fund the kind of ground-breaking scientific research that will lead to brakthroughs 10 years from now that may help in that regard.
Private industry does not fund pure research. Every breakthrough in applied science that private industry comes up with depends entirely on the previous decades' worth of knowledge that has built up in society.
They would not have developed the transistor without thousands of obscure graduate students doing peculiar research in solid state physics most of which never saw the light of day.
One thing that humans do is to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and then are surprised when the drain is clogged.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 10:31 AM
Glad you liked my suggestion, I feel honoured to have even a phrase of mine gracing TOP's hallowed pages. Keep up the good work Mike, Ctein et al.
Cheers,
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew Allen | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 01:49 PM
Dear Paul and Robert,
Sometimes there is Door Number 3. The cost of solar power was driven down by an order of magnitude 30 years ago by neither technological breakthrough nor long-term business pragmatism. A clever governmental appeal to short-term greed did the trick.
When the Carter administration came into office the price of solar power was around $30 a watt (if memory serves; I'm in the right ballpark which is sufficient for this story). The administration wanted to drive the cost down to the point of being competitive with traditional power sources, which meant under one dollar per watt. So they instituted a pump-priming program.
The concept is very simple. Guarantee the industry a market that steadily increases as they drop the price of power. They identified specific markets where high-priced cells would still be cost-effective and they promised the solar cell industry that the government would purchase $X worth of cells at $Y per watt to fill those markets. For example, an early use of high-priced cells was for marine navigation buoys, where even at 10s of dollars a watt solar cells were a very cost-effective solution to the power problem.
The plan was that over two administrations, they would be able to get the cost down by a factor of 30. By the time Carter lost the White House, the program was a year ahead of schedule. Prices were down to a few dollars a watt.
The Reagan administration killed the program as part of its economic policy. And the rapid decline in the price of solar power stopped.
~ pax \ Ctein
[ please excuse any word salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Posted by: Ctein | Tuesday, 06 May 2008 at 12:30 AM
Ctein,
Thanks, interesting history that.
In 30 years, I've worked for small and medium-sized privately owned companies, large multi-national corporations, and now lastly an arm's length branch of the federal government (Cdn). When I hear people talk about the efficiency of the private sector, all I can do is laugh.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 06 May 2008 at 07:58 AM
"When I hear people talk about the efficiency of the private sector, all I can do is laugh."
Robert,
God, I second that. Every time I hear that, it's like, don't these people WORK for corporations? Some of the corporations I've worked for are like being stuck inside a Kafka novel. But with benefits.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Tuesday, 06 May 2008 at 08:22 AM