After taking the test, check out the National Punctuation Day site.
There may be hope for me yet.
Cheers,
Rockinon
*
Friday, September 25, 2009
National Punctuation Day
I need help with my punctuation, and I know it. It is one reason that I miss having an editor. Well, today is National Punctuation Day in the States and the Huffington Post has an on-line punctuation test. Try the test; I did. I blew two.
After taking the test, check out the National Punctuation Day site.
There may be hope for me yet.
Cheers,
Rockinon
After taking the test, check out the National Punctuation Day site.
There may be hope for me yet.
Cheers,
Rockinon
Global sequential hits. Odd. Disconcerting.
My computer sits in a corner the master bedroom. By 6 a.m. each morning I am often sitting at the keyboard tapping out my thoughts and hoping someone else will enjoy sharing them.
Lately, I have been getting over 155 hits a day on my various blogs. Very gratifying. Or is it?
What do the numbers really mean? For instance, I know that one IP address hit my site 77 times one day. 77 times! I traced the address back to a local company. I don't know why I was hit 77 times but I do know it wasn't because I was immensely popular. It was a one day event.
This morning I noticed that this picture, posted months ago, was hit four times overnight. What search criteria would one use to stumble upon it and why would three different sites in three wildly separated locations all stumble upon the same picture over the course of just a few hours?
Are these computers connected?
Why is this question important? First, the New York Times was hacked the other day and a virus attached to files on their site. They warned their readers and purged their file servers, but if it can happen to the NYT what about me? Could someone attach a virus to my blog?
And the next question is important to those planning on making money from their Internet hits; people like those who run newspapers. If their numbers are inflated, possible grossly inflated, then they do not have the number of Internet followers that they think they have.
If newspapers should decide to charge for their content based on calculations using their Internet hits, they could find themselves walking the plank into a sea of red ink.
When I worked at the local paper, we used to get a lot of hits out of Norwich, a little town some kilometres from London, Ontario. The folk in charge did not question those numbers, even when I raised questions. They liked to assume that for some unknown reason we were exceedingly popular in Norwich.
Well, my sites have attracted a lot of Norwich hits on certain days and I don't assume that I am exceedingly popular in Norwich.
I know of one company that bragged about its surprisingly large number of Twitter followers. When I checked their followers, I found fully 66% of the followers were meaningless - many were links to porn sites. (Since then I have learned that this is not uncommon. I have rejected at least 90% of the follower requests I have received.)
So, why was a picture of a Ford Focus reflecting a sunset in London, Ontario, of interest to surfers in Doha, Qatar, Istanbul, Turkey and Wilcox, Arizona? (I have blurred the IP addresses as I don't know the legalities of publishing them.)
If you work for a newspaper, you should check Newsosaur's take on inflated Internet numbers too often quoted by newspapers.
Lately, I have been getting over 155 hits a day on my various blogs. Very gratifying. Or is it?
What do the numbers really mean? For instance, I know that one IP address hit my site 77 times one day. 77 times! I traced the address back to a local company. I don't know why I was hit 77 times but I do know it wasn't because I was immensely popular. It was a one day event.
This morning I noticed that this picture, posted months ago, was hit four times overnight. What search criteria would one use to stumble upon it and why would three different sites in three wildly separated locations all stumble upon the same picture over the course of just a few hours?Are these computers connected?
Why is this question important? First, the New York Times was hacked the other day and a virus attached to files on their site. They warned their readers and purged their file servers, but if it can happen to the NYT what about me? Could someone attach a virus to my blog?
And the next question is important to those planning on making money from their Internet hits; people like those who run newspapers. If their numbers are inflated, possible grossly inflated, then they do not have the number of Internet followers that they think they have.
If newspapers should decide to charge for their content based on calculations using their Internet hits, they could find themselves walking the plank into a sea of red ink.
When I worked at the local paper, we used to get a lot of hits out of Norwich, a little town some kilometres from London, Ontario. The folk in charge did not question those numbers, even when I raised questions. They liked to assume that for some unknown reason we were exceedingly popular in Norwich.
Well, my sites have attracted a lot of Norwich hits on certain days and I don't assume that I am exceedingly popular in Norwich.
I know of one company that bragged about its surprisingly large number of Twitter followers. When I checked their followers, I found fully 66% of the followers were meaningless - many were links to porn sites. (Since then I have learned that this is not uncommon. I have rejected at least 90% of the follower requests I have received.)
So, why was a picture of a Ford Focus reflecting a sunset in London, Ontario, of interest to surfers in Doha, Qatar, Istanbul, Turkey and Wilcox, Arizona? (I have blurred the IP addresses as I don't know the legalities of publishing them.)
If you work for a newspaper, you should check Newsosaur's take on inflated Internet numbers too often quoted by newspapers.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Time-wasting trash in the old media
"I, who never never drink, was forced to go toe to toe with George. Because you have to man up. So we drank like four bottles of wine; I got (totally plastered). It was ugly." (So was the writing. The words were easier to clean up than than the values.)
Ian Gillespie, who writes The City column for The London Free Press, was onto something when he wrote his Wednesday piece, "Time-wasting trash poisoning youth."
Gillespie writes, "The experts call it "junk culture" and many are alarmed . . . "
Gillespie quotes Doug Mann, a professor with the University of Western Ontario's faculty of information and media studies. "Junk culture is inherent in new media . . . when you get new media moving in, it changes the way we see the world . . . "
Wait! I've made a big mistake. Please forgive me. I've taken a paragraph from a glowing article on actor George Clooney. An article that in its own words comes "precariously close to gushing."
How did I ever confuse a Sun Media piece by that insightful reporter Kevin Williamson, about the "perfect" man — George Clooney — and the Ian Gillespie column on ideas that poison our youth?
The behaviour condoned, no celebrated, in The London Free Press/Sun Media cover story, "Class act is no act", must be acceptable behaviour as it is clearly sanctioned by the old media.
Oh, oh! This blog is part of the new media. No wonder I got my stories mixed. As Mann points out, " . . . people's basic skills will fade away." Mine must be fading already.
But, I bet I'm not the only with fading skills. People who consume four bottles of wine at a sitting, just to prove their masculine prowess, will have grossly faded skills by the end of the evening binge.
Sadly, if they are small in stature, like many underage, youthful drinkers, even their skill to simply breath may fade. Alcohol poisoning fatalities do not happen all that often but these are totally preventable tragedies. When I was in high school, a good, bright young boy died from an alcohol overdose (AOD). He went to a high school dance, got drunk, went home, passed out in bed and was asphyxiated during the night. His mother discovered her dead son in the morning.
According to Gillespie, "Mann isn't optimistic about the future." Maybe Mann took a peek at his morning paper.
Addendum:
Teens pictured on the site died from alcohol poisoning.
Another site for stats on alcohol and youth people is MADD.
Ian Gillespie, who writes The City column for The London Free Press, was onto something when he wrote his Wednesday piece, "Time-wasting trash poisoning youth."
Gillespie writes, "The experts call it "junk culture" and many are alarmed . . . "
Gillespie quotes Doug Mann, a professor with the University of Western Ontario's faculty of information and media studies. "Junk culture is inherent in new media . . . when you get new media moving in, it changes the way we see the world . . . "
Wait! I've made a big mistake. Please forgive me. I've taken a paragraph from a glowing article on actor George Clooney. An article that in its own words comes "precariously close to gushing."
How did I ever confuse a Sun Media piece by that insightful reporter Kevin Williamson, about the "perfect" man — George Clooney — and the Ian Gillespie column on ideas that poison our youth?
The behaviour condoned, no celebrated, in The London Free Press/Sun Media cover story, "Class act is no act", must be acceptable behaviour as it is clearly sanctioned by the old media.
Oh, oh! This blog is part of the new media. No wonder I got my stories mixed. As Mann points out, " . . . people's basic skills will fade away." Mine must be fading already.
But, I bet I'm not the only with fading skills. People who consume four bottles of wine at a sitting, just to prove their masculine prowess, will have grossly faded skills by the end of the evening binge.
Sadly, if they are small in stature, like many underage, youthful drinkers, even their skill to simply breath may fade. Alcohol poisoning fatalities do not happen all that often but these are totally preventable tragedies. When I was in high school, a good, bright young boy died from an alcohol overdose (AOD). He went to a high school dance, got drunk, went home, passed out in bed and was asphyxiated during the night. His mother discovered her dead son in the morning.
According to Gillespie, "Mann isn't optimistic about the future." Maybe Mann took a peek at his morning paper.
Addendum:
Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) began working on the problem of AOD (alcohol overdose) in 1992. Based on discussions with victims' families and county medical examiners, RID estimates as many as 4,000 deaths occur each year in the United States from alcohol overdosing: drinking too much alcohol too fast. Families learn, in the most difficult way, that alcohol can be a lethal drug.
Teens pictured on the site died from alcohol poisoning.
Another site for stats on alcohol and youth people is MADD.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Bernie lost but many of his clients won!
The following is an update of an earlier post which originally appeared on my WordPress site. I closed that blog and because of recent events I am revisiting my take on the Madoff Ponzi scheme.
_________________________________________________________
Bernie Madoff has the right moniker but the wrong spelling. It should be Madeoff as it was originally reported that Bernie made-off with from $50 to $65 billion of his trusting clients’ money. It now appears the media and others over-estimated Bernie’s accomplishments.
Former SEC head Harvey Pitt admitted Madoff "probably inflated the amount of money he had under management." If he had invested it, he might have grown it, but he didn’t and it didn’t. His much ballyhooed profits were ghost profits. Empty claims. Hollow boasts.
A Dec. 2018 Bloomberg article reported claims against Madoff's failed investment firm totalled $19.0 billion. Of that, $13.3 billion had been recovered and $11.3 billion distributed to the claimants. The rest was being held in reserve. At some point in the future, all recovered funds will be paid to Madoff's victims.
Bloomberg reports: "almost 1,400 victims who had claims of $1.38 million or less have been repaid in full." For many, investing with Madoff may not have been all that bad. Edward Zore, Chief Executive Officer of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, admitted, “We have stocks in our portfolio that lost 95 per cent.” And if you remember Providian Financial, you will recall it lost 95% of its value amid a spectacular run of credit card defaults.
Investors who bought into the American mutual fund ProFunds UltraOTC,when it was at its peak and rode it down to its June 2009 low, watched 95% of their wealth disappear. Will anyone go to jail? Of course not. This is legal. Losing money in the market is an everyday occurrence.
Something in the order of 70% of Madoff controlled money has now been recovered and almost 60% returned to Madoff investors. If you bought stock in the Canadian oil patch company PennWest when it was at its peak, you'd have been very happy to have recovered 60% of your investment.
Silly Bernie just cut out the middle man and lost the money directly. Dumb. He could have invested the money, taken his "well-earned" bonuses for losing the investments and gone on with his life.
The Huffington Post reports, Federal prosecutors said "a review of most accounts held by financier Bernard Madoff's customers when he was arrested show that about half of the customers had not lost money because they withdrew more money than they originally invested."
But making money with a Madoff investment was not problem free. Bloomberg reported that after the initial chaos, "Irving Picard, a New York lawyer overseeing liquidation of Madoff’s firm in bankruptcy court, focused on a simple formula to recover principal cash for victims: Suing customers who withdrew more money than they put in. The strategy sparked controversy but was ultimately blessed by the courts."
For fun, I took a quick look at Canadian mutual funds using globefund.com (my fave). Check out this chart. If you had invested in this fund, you would have easily bested Madoff's losses. Silly Bernie. He was but a piker at losing money. That said, he was a first rate crook.
_________________________________________________________
Bernie Madoff has the right moniker but the wrong spelling. It should be Madeoff as it was originally reported that Bernie made-off with from $50 to $65 billion of his trusting clients’ money. It now appears the media and others over-estimated Bernie’s accomplishments.
Former SEC head Harvey Pitt admitted Madoff "probably inflated the amount of money he had under management." If he had invested it, he might have grown it, but he didn’t and it didn’t. His much ballyhooed profits were ghost profits. Empty claims. Hollow boasts.
A Dec. 2018 Bloomberg article reported claims against Madoff's failed investment firm totalled $19.0 billion. Of that, $13.3 billion had been recovered and $11.3 billion distributed to the claimants. The rest was being held in reserve. At some point in the future, all recovered funds will be paid to Madoff's victims.
Bloomberg reports: "almost 1,400 victims who had claims of $1.38 million or less have been repaid in full." For many, investing with Madoff may not have been all that bad. Edward Zore, Chief Executive Officer of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, admitted, “We have stocks in our portfolio that lost 95 per cent.” And if you remember Providian Financial, you will recall it lost 95% of its value amid a spectacular run of credit card defaults.
Investors who bought into the American mutual fund ProFunds UltraOTC,when it was at its peak and rode it down to its June 2009 low, watched 95% of their wealth disappear. Will anyone go to jail? Of course not. This is legal. Losing money in the market is an everyday occurrence.
Something in the order of 70% of Madoff controlled money has now been recovered and almost 60% returned to Madoff investors. If you bought stock in the Canadian oil patch company PennWest when it was at its peak, you'd have been very happy to have recovered 60% of your investment.
Silly Bernie just cut out the middle man and lost the money directly. Dumb. He could have invested the money, taken his "well-earned" bonuses for losing the investments and gone on with his life.
The Huffington Post reports, Federal prosecutors said "a review of most accounts held by financier Bernard Madoff's customers when he was arrested show that about half of the customers had not lost money because they withdrew more money than they originally invested."
But making money with a Madoff investment was not problem free. Bloomberg reported that after the initial chaos, "Irving Picard, a New York lawyer overseeing liquidation of Madoff’s firm in bankruptcy court, focused on a simple formula to recover principal cash for victims: Suing customers who withdrew more money than they put in. The strategy sparked controversy but was ultimately blessed by the courts."
For fun, I took a quick look at Canadian mutual funds using globefund.com (my fave). Check out this chart. If you had invested in this fund, you would have easily bested Madoff's losses. Silly Bernie. He was but a piker at losing money. That said, he was a first rate crook.
Jennifer Connelly's infamous red dress
On booting up my computer this morning, I was greeted once again by Jennifer Connelly in her shapely, red dress at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). It seems Sympatico.ca — Where Canadians start their day — believes Canadians are a lecherous lot getting their morning-motor-starter not from coffee but from the sight of Connelly's breasts and nipples visible through her her now infamous fashion faux pas.(The above picture, from Adorned, is not one of the pictures in question. The dress looks great here. I'm not posting the revealing pictures. If you must see those, use Google. Weirdo!)
What a bunch of kids! But kids who raise interesting questions about themselves and about the media in general. You see, I'm not sure if Jennifer Connelly meant to reveal so much. In a Canadian Press video, featuring reporters Catharine Benzie and Sunny Freeman, one of the two remarks, " . . . don't know if she (Connelly) expected the lights to do that to her . . . "
I agree. Oh, I think she meant to look sexy. The dress is clingy. But when seen in person, under lighting that is softer, less directional than the straight on strobe light under which she was photographed, the effect is totally different.
I have seen the Connelly-dress-effect before. Years ago, I shot a picture for The London Free Press of a young woman at pool side wearing a tight, body-hugging racing suit. When I saw the prints, I saw her naked. Nothing was left to the imagination. The strong, directional strobe light passed through the dark fabric, illuminated her light skin and any contrasting areas, and carried all that risque information back to my camera. I used Spot-tone to darken her swim suit for the paper and somehow those negs got lost (wink).
I did some searching and discovered that Linda Barnard, who reports for The Toronto Star but once worked for The London Free Press, saw Connelly in the flesh on the red carpet at TIFF.
This is Barnard's take on the infamous dress: ". . . as to Connelly's dress - it was not see-through at all - in fact the dress seemed to be made of a pretty heavy stretchy material and I was standing right beside her a few times. I think you're right though, it may have appeared so when hit by a powerful flash. It wasn't lined and she wasn't wearing a bra. But she struck me as a classy woman, very poised and extremely generous with her time for all of us. And, as we later learned, she was going through a rough time emotionally - it was the one-year anniversary of her father's death. So I say props to Jen for looking fantastic."
If you watch the CP video that I have included, you will hear at the opening, "I think it's about time that we get a little bit catty . . . " Look carefully at these two and then ask yourself who you would like to cut into fashionable ribbons — Jennifer Connelly or these two fashion losers. (Sorry, but I thought it was about time that I got a little bit catty.)
I don't imagine that it was a great trip to Toronto for Connelly. Canadians didn't show their best form. Harsh strobes weren't necessary to strip away the Canadian veneer of civility. A Canadian TV executive made Connelly cry with an immature outburst attacking Connelly for apparently not attending his party. What a boor!
The National Post reported, " . . . John Riley, Astral Media’s president of television networks, reacted to Connelly’s alleged no-show at his company’s opening night gala party the night before — due to travel delays, the report said — by ripping a photo of the actress in two . . . “This is my former favourite actress … I promised my kids we would shake hands.”
The day after the party Connelly responded, "My husband and I did go to your party last night but only very briefly and I had to leave early because yesterday was the first anniversary of my father’s death,” she said, struggling against tears. “And I’m very sorry. I would have loved to have stayed longer but was not able to. So please accept my apology.” "
Connelly apologized! What about the boor? Well, the best I could find was a report in the Toronto Sun in which Riley claimed his “remarks and actions were completely in jest . . . "
Connelly's dress was a definite fashion oops. Not a good choice for a night in front of the photographers' lights. But Connelly seems to have come through her visit to Toronto looking good, clothed in class.
Kudos to Jennifer Connelly.
Cheers,
Rockinon
Addendum: Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention by folks in attendance that the red dress was not see-through at all. This was not a shear fabric blasted into invisibility by strong light. This was an illusion, best seen in photos, caused by the strong shadows cast by the harsh lighting and enhanced by the spectral highlights from the flash photography on the fairly thick, but rather light-reflective, fabric. Whatever, not a good choice for the red carpet.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Quality: Why We Travel vs. Reader Hot Shots
Quality: today's missing ingredient. (Actually, it was yesterday's missing ingredient, too. And it probably won't be as common in the future as it should be either.)
Quality is what drove Robert Pirsig to stumble about for hundreds of pages in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. As I recall, Pirsig felt strongly that we all are able to recognize Quality. Maybe; I don't know. I do think we have a hard time with day to day quality. You know, the kind without the capital "Q".
Which brings us to today's little item — travel pictures. The London Free Press devotes half a page of newsprint every Saturday to publishing snapshots of local folk on vacation. This weekend there was a couple from Sarnia in front of some greenery in Antigua, a little London toddler in the water at Tobermory, a whole mess of young people in Italy on a field trip with Clarke Road Secondary School . . .
The Free Press dropped the stock and mutual fund tables months ago. It was determined that the Internet was a better place for publishing that kind of limited interest stuff. Maybe it is time to move the Reader (not so ) Hot Shots completely to the Web.
I'm sure, for those who know these people, it is fun seeing them on holiday and in the weekend paper. For the rest of us, with no connection at all to these people, it' s not so much fun.
But, you know, I bet many of these people have some great pictures from their trips, some great stories and some good travel tips. It is too bad a reporter cannot be assigned to interview them. Each week the best pictures and stories could run in the paper with more on the Web. Hey, it is the Information Age, right?
All the vacation pictures could be posted on the web, on a site run by Sun Media and devoted to the sharing of on-line travel albums with relatives, friends and others interested in "zip-lining in Antigua." To add quality, the newspaper would work closely with these people guiding them through their first venture into the world of travel writing.
Now, compare the Free Press approach to that of The New York Times and their Why We Travel series.
London Free Press Gallery - Reader Hot Shots
The photo on the left should be run only on the Web. A picture with more action, one capturing the feel of the holiday, is needed for publication. Add some stories, tips on canoeing in Algonquin Park and you've added quality. This would serve the general reader and the people in the picture far better.
Why We Travel - The New York Times > Travel > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 30
Some of the pictures run by the NYT are admittedly amazing but I have seen travel pictures from friends and relatives that equaled the NYT stuff.
Newspapers should work with their readers. Strive for quality. Everyone would benefit.
Cheers,
Rockinon
Addendum: I actually tried this approach for my Rockin' On: Travel. All pictures illustrating the article were shot by the person on holiday and they were all shot with a simple point and shoot by a non-professional.
Quality is what drove Robert Pirsig to stumble about for hundreds of pages in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. As I recall, Pirsig felt strongly that we all are able to recognize Quality. Maybe; I don't know. I do think we have a hard time with day to day quality. You know, the kind without the capital "Q".
Which brings us to today's little item — travel pictures. The London Free Press devotes half a page of newsprint every Saturday to publishing snapshots of local folk on vacation. This weekend there was a couple from Sarnia in front of some greenery in Antigua, a little London toddler in the water at Tobermory, a whole mess of young people in Italy on a field trip with Clarke Road Secondary School . . .
The Free Press dropped the stock and mutual fund tables months ago. It was determined that the Internet was a better place for publishing that kind of limited interest stuff. Maybe it is time to move the Reader (not so ) Hot Shots completely to the Web.
I'm sure, for those who know these people, it is fun seeing them on holiday and in the weekend paper. For the rest of us, with no connection at all to these people, it' s not so much fun.
But, you know, I bet many of these people have some great pictures from their trips, some great stories and some good travel tips. It is too bad a reporter cannot be assigned to interview them. Each week the best pictures and stories could run in the paper with more on the Web. Hey, it is the Information Age, right?
All the vacation pictures could be posted on the web, on a site run by Sun Media and devoted to the sharing of on-line travel albums with relatives, friends and others interested in "zip-lining in Antigua." To add quality, the newspaper would work closely with these people guiding them through their first venture into the world of travel writing.
Now, compare the Free Press approach to that of The New York Times and their Why We Travel series.
London Free Press Gallery - Reader Hot ShotsThe photo on the left should be run only on the Web. A picture with more action, one capturing the feel of the holiday, is needed for publication. Add some stories, tips on canoeing in Algonquin Park and you've added quality. This would serve the general reader and the people in the picture far better.
Why We Travel - The New York Times > Travel > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 30Some of the pictures run by the NYT are admittedly amazing but I have seen travel pictures from friends and relatives that equaled the NYT stuff.
Newspapers should work with their readers. Strive for quality. Everyone would benefit.
Cheers,
Rockinon
Addendum: I actually tried this approach for my Rockin' On: Travel. All pictures illustrating the article were shot by the person on holiday and they were all shot with a simple point and shoot by a non-professional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
When I read the above I groaned, then I thought — this could be a blog — and finally I thought, "Whoa! There is a lot buried in those 20 words. If I'm not careful, those words could also bury me."
Paul McCartney caused a stir in 1972 with his song "Give Ireland Back to the Irish." The song was banned on the BBC. I'm old enough to recall all sorts of silly stuff being said about the Beatles when they were at their peak, but I don't think Paul McCartney was ever a communist — but that's just my opinion. Go google this and get back to me. I did, and failed to find a solid connection.
But, I don't think McCartney's politics are really relevant. You might say this talk of his being a pinko is a bit of a red herring. The statement we're really interested in is: "Capitalism is the best system." Is this true?
This is hard one, for someone who is not an economist, to answer. I'm going to answer but I'll come at the answer sideways. I want to slip out of this unscathed, I'm not looking to get deep into an economic or political argument, but it may be difficult.
You see, my first thought is that when I was young I would have agreed rather quickly with the statement. But with the passing of fifty some years I've changed and it is has not only me that has changed but capitalism. Capitalism today is not the capitalism of my childhood.
I believe the boosters of capitalism would say this is a strength of the capitalist system. It adapts to meet the demands of the day. This sounds good on the surface but what does it mean in reality? Are the changes that I have experienced through the past half century making capitalism better? If not, maybe the best system was some version of capitalism now adapted out of existence.
My grandfather was born on a farm in Princeton, Ontario. He was an outstanding student and I understand that at his graduation it was said he was the youngest pharmacist in the province of Ontario. It's hard to prove the truth of this statement as he graduated back in the early 1890s. Let's just agree that he was a very bright young man.
On graduation, he went to the States to work for Cunningham Drug Stores. This was an up and coming chain. My grandfather had a chance to get in on the ground floor, so to speak, but he declined.
He moved back to Canada, to Brantford, Ontario, where he started his own independent neighbourhood drugstore. He didn't get rich but he did have a beautiful wife and he raised a fine family. He never owned a car; he didn't need one as he walked to work. He lived in the type of walkable neighbourhood that is today thought so desirable.
Today, a young man graduating as a pharmacist would have a difficult time starting his own independent corner drugstore. The large chains pretty well control everything in the pharmacy business.
The Cunningham's Drug Store chain, the one my grandfather snubbed, went on to become one of the major players in the American Midwest but a few decades ago it was taken out by another player in the capitalist game. A lot of people lost their jobs.
When I was a boy, my neighbourhood had a least three independent drugstores. Each one employed people in the neighbourhood and provided an important service. There were no big parking lots at any of these stores as big parking lots weren't necessary. Most people walked to these drugstores — even the staff.
I worked for one of those drugstores; it became one of the first Big V pharmacies. Big V was formed by a small group of independent Windsor, Ontario, pharmacists intent on saving the neighbourhood drugstore. A few years ago Big V was bought by Shopper's Drug Mart. Today Shopper's is owned by Loblaws.
Capitalism, the best system? I'm not sure that my grandfather would recognize today's capitalism. And I honestly believe that he would tell you the system under which he started his business, a business that lasted him a lifetime, was better.