I always liked the song “Hooray for Captain Spaulding” from the Marx Bros. 1930 film, Animal Crackers. The chorus provides the introduction and fanfare for the Captain’s grand entrance, and then here comes Groucho singing, “Hello, I must be going, I cannot stay, I came to say, I must be going.”

In my case, I’m not going anywhere (as far as I know), but in restarting my blog, Looking Glass Logic, I wanted to say a brief “hello” to any readers who wondered where the writer went. It’s been ten months since my last post. And since the explanation is long and windy, I’ll keep it short and simple: I’m back and hope you come back too.

I was contemplating the state of the world today as I found myself thrown out of a movie multiplex for blatantly walking in with a Starbucks iced coffee in hand.

I figured, what the hell — it’s a weekday noon showing, with only two moviegoers there who looked like they just escaped from a local nursing home. And I thought a bored ticket-taker at this time of day won’t have a problem with a small outside beverage. But, oh, no, we can’t have that. Their policy is very strict at Regal Hacienda Crossings (in Dublin, CA, just off of Interstate 580): no outside food and beverages, and there’s a sign that indicates that they can search your bags and packs. And conservatives have the nerve to call Obama a Nazi.

They refused to let me in, and I refused to give up (or hide) my coffee. So I had to go, and I missed the show.

I suppose I should have done what most other movie patrons do: shove my contraband into some dark recess on my person (and God knows I consider anything on my person personal), but I don’t feel like playing that game anymore. These days I’d rather just toss my overpriced iced coffee in someone’s fat fascist face. After all, that’s what Harpo would do.

In this economy these bloated multiplexes should be relaxing rules and reducing prices to encourage moviegoers to see the latest crappy offering from Hollywood. I could understand turning someone away with an ice chest and a portable weenie grill — and even that shouldn’t be a problem unless you’re using lighter fluid. But considering the high cost of multiplex food and drinks, a beverage from a nearby cafe shouldn’t require a normally law-abiding (and probably unemployed) citizen to walk stiffly into a movie theater with a straw protruding from their butt.

But I digress. Or maybe that’s the point. And so without further ado, let me introduce you know who: Hello, I don’t need consoling, I just returned to say, I really must be going!

Here’s the problem. The US is in a giant-chili-cheese-dog mess of an economy. And the politicians who run our country think they need to create jobs to get us back in the game. But we don’t need jobs, we need money. (During the bank bailout, the bankers asked for money, not extra part-time jobs.)

I don’t think the government can actually create jobs. It can’t force companies to hire people. It can only offer incentives like tax breaks, which don’t help much. And it isn’t likely that the government itself will create new jobs and infrastructure projects with all the fuss about the federal deficit.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. This whole job thing has gotten out of hand. Why do we perpetuate this myth that we need and want jobs? Because that is the game we’re playing. Well, I have news. We’ve been playing the wrong game.

You see, life itself is a game. Pick a game, any game. Let’s take Monopoly, for example.

In Monopoly you go around and around the board and receive $200 every time you pass “Go.” There’s no job involved to earn your pay; you just have to get your token butt to “Go.” That’s what we need: a guaranteed salary for just making it around another lap or month.

Let’s say we’ll give $2000 per month to each adult U.S. citizen, and you can’t be in jail to collect, just like in Monopoly. You don’t get more if you have kids. It’s enough to live on, but you’re certainly not going to be living the life of Riley (whoever he is).

Now you may be thinking that this will turn us into a welfare nation and no one will want to do the menial and dirty jobs. Well, people who have jobs will earn their wages plus their monthly “Go” pay. I think many people would prefer to work and make more money. And more jobs (and probably better paying ones) would be available for those who want them. The lazy people will take their “Go” money and watch the Food Network all day. And that’s fine. They’ll still be spending each month and stimulating the economy. No problem.

And how are we going to pay for this generous entitlement? Well, I have no idea. But our nation is spending lots of money on something out there.

I was checking out the US Debt Clock site (which is great fun to do on a Saturday night) and watching the US National Debt number spinning higher and higher each second — it’s like an odometer on speed. It’s currently at 14 trillion dollars. Then I saw the Actual Unemployed figure: 25,687,447. We might as well be getting $2000 a month; the national debt will just keep skyrocketing with or without us anyway.

Forget having “a chicken in every pot” (as the Republicans promised in a 1928 campaign), politicians should promise us two grand in every wallet. Even the Tea Partiers would forget about their fear of socialism with a slogan like that. And, of course, there’s the issue of how much I get for royalties for saving the country with my brilliant half-baked idea. (I just won’t mention Monopoly, so Parker Brothers won’t get a cut.)

So, let’s solve this economic mess and make unemployment a livable option rather than a financial free fall. Let’s get past this. Let’s pass “Go”!

Update: As of Nov 17, 2011, the US national debt is now over 15 trillion. Wow. Anyone up for a game of Monopoly?

In these days of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, it’s good to remember the old-fashioned way of communicating: sending email.

But the sad truth is that many people still haven’t mastered the basics (let alone the nuances) of writing effective emails, even those who grew up with email as a well-established medium.

In Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better (2010), authors David Shipley and Will Schwalbe provide a much needed style guide for using email at home or office.

This book effectively covers many aspects of email use, including when to use email (don’t forget the phone), the mechanics of emails (writing a good subject line), and how tone is so important (“please” isn’t always polite). In fact, it’s really exploring the dynamics of office politics at a textual and technological level. For instance, it’s so easy to err by adding or missing others in a CC list; Send offers some thoughtful options on this and similar issues.

One key idea the authors drive home is to know who you are in relation to your recipient(s). Although this would appear to be common sense, this point can’t be overstated for many people. As the authors note, the ease of contacting anyone through email tends to flatten out organizational hierarchies, which falsely invites an informal tone.

At times Send does veer into “Email for Dummies” territory. I found some material here to be obvious and rudimentary, like what file extensions mean, or just plain fluff (“Britney Spears dumps husband via Blackberry message”). Otherwise, this book does provide some useful tips and examples for even tech savvy pros to improve their emails and keep their careers out of hot water.

In looking back over old emails I traded with co-workers, I see how email can be used for “team building,” which is to say, goofing off. It makes me smile to look at these old messages, but nowadays it’s not wise to be too goofy on company email. Case in point, Send opens with this email from former director of FEMA, Michael (“heck of a job”) Brown, to his staff during the height of Hurricane Katrina: “If you’ll look at my lovely FEMA attire you’ll really vomit. I am a fashion god.” Is email great, or what?

Send is a quick read and will help you avoid the often overlooked pitfalls of this fast-paced medium. Just remember the authors’ best advice: when in doubt, don’t send anything.

The Social Network (2010), a film about the creation of the social website, Facebook, has a youthful buzz to it; you can feel the energy in its tight and snarky dialogue.

Directed by David Fincher, it’s an entertaining movie that captures the zeitgeist of this era, which may not be all rosy. The film depicts Facebook’s creator and co-founder, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) as both a brilliant innovator and a real stinker (to put it nicely).

It’s based on the nonfiction book, The Accidental Billionaires, by Ben Mezrich, but it’s questionable how much of Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is fact-based or fictionalized. Obviously, it’s a mix of both, and it makes sense for dramatic purposes to portray Mark as an arrogant whiz kid who feels like an outsider and wants to best everyone, whatever the cost.

In the film, Mark is a Harvard undergrad in 2003 with a jones to join one of the prestigious social clubs on campus. Getting invited into one of these exclusive (and primarily male) clubs is considered cool. And Mark’s obsession with these clubs and his habit of being contentious gives his girlfriend Erica (Rooney Mara) enough reason to dump him in the opening scene. This prompts him to call her a bitch on his blog, and more creatively, to write a quick web app to compare and rank pictures of Harvard girls. (It’s comforting to know that Facebook was inspired partly from a misogynist and hacker mentality.)

These shenanigans get the attention of fellow students and twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and they offer Mark a chance to implement their idea for a social network just for Harvard students. The twins are both played by Armie Hammer, but in certain scenes Josh Pence plays the other brother, with Hammer’s face digitally grafted on him. This sounds confusing, but the special effects and the performances work nicely and the Winklevi (as Mark sarcastically refers to them) turn into the athletic version of the Tweedle brothers.

The plot takes off when Mark runs off with their idea and ends up creating something he calls “thefacebook,” which brings “the social experience of college” to the web. And the rest, as they say, is history, including the subsequent lawsuits. I like Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg; he gives an edgy performance as a young man who doesn’t mind making enemies, even as he longs to have friends and be invited into those cool and exclusive clubs.

Mark’s best friend and CFO, Eduardo Saverin (well-played by Andrew Garfield) is more levelheaded, less intuitive, and better at social climbing than his friend. And Sean Parker, the Napster founder, who cleverly infiltrates this fledgling company, is played with smooth and slimy charm by Justin Timberlake.

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of Facebook; I find it too homogeneous, and it concerns me that it centralizes too much personal data. But I have to admit it: While I was playing around with my blog, the rest of the world joined the party on Facebook. Oh, well. I guess it’s a generational thing, as my godson loves to constantly remind me.

The Social Network is at its best when recreating the cliquey, elitist, and often mean-spirited culture that Facebook grew out of. And I suspect that in the future this film will have more to say about us than it does in its own time. Until then, Facebook is simply a web application that turns us all into college kids looking for friends and social connections in the digital age.

In other words, we’re all in the same generation now (as long as we get an invite).

Cool.