Ezra Klein is puzzled by American vacation habits:

Every other advanced economy offers a government guarantee of paid vacation to its workforce. Britain assures its workforce of 20 days of guaranteed, compensated leave. Germany gives 24. And France gives, yes, 30.

We guarantee zero. Absolutely none. That's why one out of 10 full-time American employees, and more than six out of 10 part-time employees, get no vacation. And even among workers with paid vacation benefits, the average number of days enjoyed is a mere 12. In other words, even those of us who are lucky enough to get some vacation typically receive just over a third of what the French are guaranteed.

This is strange. Of all these countries, the United States is, by far, the richest. And you would think that, as our wealth grew and our productivity increased, a certain amount of our resources would go into, well, us. Into leisure. Into time off.

Upcoming Klein columns will no doubt include "How come we have so many people in prison if crime is down", and "Why don't physically fit people stop working out so much and eat some donuts already?"

Japanese company Toto makes the Washlet, a robo-toilet that sprays a jet of water to cleanse your nether regions and then dries you off, making toilet paper virtually unnecessary. I have similar units in my new house, and they're awesome. But it's definitely a hard sell until you've tried one for yourself.

Blogger Gen Kanai notes that Toto is now marketing the Washlet in America; check out this comprehensive flash-based website. It's kind of funny to watch the actors on the site talk about the product while dancing around the subject of what it's actually doing.

I thought I found a good place for our upcoming wedding. Just check out this artist's rendering from their website:


Looks nice, doesn't it? Here's the view they don't show you — what's on the other side of those trees:


I was hoping for something a little more secluded.

Trent at TheSimpleDollar.com advises a reader currently earning the minimum wage on how to plan his financial future. Not surprisingly, one of his recommendations is to get a higher-paying job:

If you’re working minimum wage and have a good work record, you can probably move up from where you’re at. Make yourself presentable and look at local stores with a more upscale image; these places often pay significantly more than a minimum wage. For example, my aunt has never worked a day in her life, but she cleaned herself up, walked into Home Depot at age fifty five, and walked out with a $10 an hour job. When you start this job, maintain a good work record and show that you’re capable of handling responsibility every chance you get.

Advocates of raising the minimum wage often overlook the fact that the minimum wage is not meant to be the highest wage someone will ever earn in his or her career. It's a starting point, a floor, not a ceiling. If you're not satisfied earning the minimum wage, well, you're not supposed to be. Grab the want ads and start looking.

You may have notice the Save the Internet ad that's been in the right sidebar for a while now. Save the Internet is a group fighting for "Net Neutrality" — the principle that Internet infrastructure operators shouldn't be able to discriminate among the different websites whose data flows through their pipe. If you surf over to Site A, you should get the same data transmission speed as if you had gone to their competitor, Site B.

Telecom companies don't like net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge companies extra fees for fast data transimission speeds. But this creation of a two-tiered Internet means telecom companies would be able to give special treatment to sites they like, while punishing those they don't. If Verizon, for example, starts a video sharing service, it could send that site's traffic through its high-speed pipes, while banishing competitors (and, one presumes, sites critical of Verizon) to the slow lane. And the potential for unethical shenanigans doesn't stop there. A politician supports giving Verizon some tax breaks or other special treatment? Fast lane. His opponent doesn't? Slow lane.

On the other hand, instead of trying to explain the whole thing, I should just show you Save the Internet's latest video:


Visit their site for more information.

While Harley Davidson's latest overbearing, super-serious commercial touts the non-conformity of its riders (all of whom, it would seem, non-conform in exactly the same way), Big Dog Motorcycles decided to have a little more fun with its advertising:


Sure, it might be offensive to some people — but anyone who's offended by it probably isn't in the market for a Big Dog motorcycle anyway. (Found via Helmet Hair)

Via Bikes in the Fast Lane, check out this video of Harley-Davidson merchandise:


I first thought it was the work of a Harley hater, snarkily mocking H-D's excessive licensing of its brand. But no — watch to the end, and you'll see it's really a commercial for a Harley dealership.

When your actual marketing is indistinguishable from an attack on your brand, I'd say that's a problem.

Domino's Pizza in Japan is offering a terror-licious "24 Entertainment Pack".

My God, I hope this isn't actually tied to some sort of product placement on the show: "Jack, we only have two hours left to foil the terrorists' latest plot, and I'm starving!" "Then we'd better call Domino's — they deliver in under 30 minutes!"

On September 1, Time Warner shut down Office Pirates, the painfully lame humor site I reviewed here. The officepirates.com URL now redirects to Sports Illustated.

I guess no one noticed, because no one was reading it.

You don't want your corporate homepage to look like this.

Time magazine has named YouTube its "Invention of the Year" for 2006, while emphasizing that old-line content and media companies should see it as a revenue opportunity, not a threat:

...YouTube has to start conducting itself with a little more legal and financial gravitas. That means making money — mostly through advertising — and convincing the TV, movie and music executives who find copyrighted material on YouTube that it's a revenue opportunity and not grounds for litigation. The learning curve is still steep. "The people marketing content see it as a great new platform, but the legal side of the business doesn't know how to react," Hurley says. "We have instances where someone within the company uploaded something, and the other side's asking you to take it down."

But YouTube isn't Napster. It already has partnerships with NBC, CBS, Universal Music, Sony BMG and Warner Music. And come on — it's the one place on the Net where people willingly, knowingly click on ads, like Nike's legendary clip of sharpshooting soccer star Ronaldinho. If you can't find money on YouTube, you're in the wrong economy, buddy.

That's right, media companies: YouTube users will voluntarily watch your ads — if they're compelling enough. It's a point I've made before. But the Time piece is also a great review of how significantly, and how quickly, YouTube has transformed media and Internet culture. Read the whole thing.

In the wake of allegations of censorship, YouTube has attempted to clarify its previously-inscrutable standards for what kinds of content are unacceptable on the site. But its new "Community Guidelines" leave things just as vague and unclear as before, and even raise new problems. A review:

YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube.

Sounds clear enough in theory. But while hardcore porn is off-limits, YouTube still features countless videos of people doing sexually suggestive dances and other acts. As it tries to enforce this particular rule, YouTube will find itself in the untenable position of drawing a line between the obscene and the merely erotic. Good luck with that one.

Don't post videos showing dangerous or illegal acts, like animal abuse or bomb making.

What about dry ice bombs? And certainly any video of "Jackass"-style stunts or extreme sports shows "dangerous acts". What about BASE jumping, for example? Again, good luck drawing the line here.

Real violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.

Okay, so all those boxing and mixed martial arts videos have got to go, not to mention plain old street fights and (rowr!) catfights. And enough about fights; what about motorcycle crashes?

YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that. This includes war footage if it's intended to shock or disgust.

So remember, if you have an anti-war video, make sure it's not shocking or disgusting. Same goes if you have a pro-war video — no footage of Saddam's thugs torturing political prisoners, or insurgents beheading their hostages. And what about stuff that's actually scientific or educational, but still gross? Like eye surgery?

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality.

Okay, but what about using news footage of actual events to criticize a particular religious faction? That should be okay, right?

With its new rules, then, YouTube has set itself the impossible challenge of drawing black and white distinctions among infinite shades of gray. Well, actually, that's not quite correct — it's dumped that burden on its users:

Please take these rules seriously and take them to heart. Don't try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around them — just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created.

There's no reason, however, to think that a community of millions of users will successfully arrive at the exact same definition of what's acceptable that YouTube has in mind. So what's the solution? Ironically, it appears at the end of the Guidelines page itself:

You may not like everything you see. Some of the content here may offend you... [If so, then] consider just clicking on something else — why waste time watching videos you don't like?

Indeed.

The New York Times reports on the rising popularity of metric custom choppers. ("Metric" means the bikes, based on Japanese or European models, use parts measured in millimeters. Harley-Davidson parts are measured in inches):

Why the trend toward metrics? Some say it’s because they are less expensive than equivalent Harleys. Ms. Prokup, formerly of RoadBike magazine and now in charge of women’s initiatives at the Motorcycle Industry Council, a trade group, suggests that builders and parts makers originally thought that metric bikers would be reluctant to spend like Harley owners.

...Many builders praise the performance, technology and reliability of metric motorcycles, a view held by Mike Tockey, a metric builder who owns Speed City Cycle in Indianapolis. “Many customers have the means to purchase any brand,” he said, “but they choose metrics because of performance, low maintenance, reliability and uniqueness.”

Or maybe it's just another sign of the backlash against Harley-Davidson's overexposure of its brand. Metrics are a way chopper lovers actually can stand out from the crowd.

FOLLOW-UP:
Check out the Times's slideshow of some nice metric customs here.

Via LGF, of all places, comes an update on Japanese movie, TV, and record companies' paranoid, knee-jerk reactions to YouTube. Reuters reports:

Google Inc.'s YouTube.com removed 29,549 video files from its popular Web site after receiving a demand from a group of Japanese media companies over copyright infringement, an industry group said on Friday.

The television, music and movie clips had been posted without the permission of copyright holders, the Tokyo-based Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers said in a statement.

The group, which represents 23 media companies including TV networks and movie distributors, said it would ask YouTube to set up screening and other measures to block postings of unauthorized files. It also called on Internet users not to post video clips in violation of copyright laws.

Good luck with that, guys. I first blogged about Japanese content companies' irrational fear of YouTube here. YouTube is basically paying out of its own pocket to host and stream up to 10-minute-long clips of these companies' shows, commercials, music videos, and what have you. Moreover, YouTube doesn't offer the ability to download and save video clips, so the average user (i.e., one who doesn't turn to hacks and work-arounds) isn't saving these clips to his hard drive or video iPod and swapping them with friends. I don't call that piracy; I call it free advertising.

Example: In surfing around on YouTube a while ago, I came across a clip from Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". I've seen just about all of Disney's modern animated films (e.g., from "The Little Mermaid" onward), but I skipped "Hunchback". Never saw it. I guess when it came out in 1996, I just thought it looked silly, and I wasn't interested. But the YouTube clips — like potato chips, you can't watch just one — showed that the movie had great animation, powerful songs, and a more mature storyline and darker tone than the average Disney film. I mean, just check out this one, for example.

I wanted to see the whole thing, so I hopped over to Amazon.com and ordered the DVD, which is on its way to me as we speak. If I hadn't seen those clips on YouTube, I wouldn't have bought the DVD. It's just that simple.

Some American media companies have recognized YouTube's value as a promotional tool; NBC, CBS, and others already post clips of their shows on the site. I hope their Japanese counterparts come to the same realization soon.

FOLLOW-UP:
Also via the same LGF post, it looks like the tit-for-tat YouTube censorship battle I warned against here is, sadly, in full swing.

ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
The BBC reports that a British soccer league is demanding that footage of goals scored in its games be pulled from YouTube, too. Sigh.

After reading riders like Jeff and Doug criticize Harley-Davidson for over-marketing its brand and portraying its realtively well-to-do customers as outsiders sticking it to The Man, I found this recent H-D press release amusing:

Harley-Davidson riders have always believed in going their own way, no matter which way the rest of the world was going.

Harley-Davidson recently debuted a short film revealing some common values of its riders and the Company. The two-minute "Creed" motorcycle film can be seen on the Company’s Web site. The Harley film, which features real Harley-Davidson riders, includes action scenery footage of riders along with a series of rider truths such as “life is what you make it, and we make it one hell of a ride.”

As much as the Harley-Davidson "Creed" motorcycle riding film and its creeds demonstrate certain common ideals, they also reflect how riders from different backgrounds acknowledge these beliefs. To further show the individualism of its riders, Harley-Davidson enthusiasts are being asked to share their own personal creeds, which are posted on the site.

For example, in one of the creeds, which have been submitted by more than 1,000 riders, Chris Cawein of Moscow, Tenn. says, "the journey IS the destination."

Wow, I've never heard that one before. The sheer individualism of it is sending chills up my spine. I suspect "Chris" is a fabrication of H-D's marketing department. It would be too depressing to think that its actual customers speak in banal clichés, too.

FOLLOW-UP:
You can share your creed with H-D here.

ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
It's also amusing that the H-D "Creed" film, ostensibly a paean to individualism, features a bunch of people speaking the same words in unison. Shouldn't they all be saying different things?

YET ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
Here's the "Creed" video itself, on YouTube:

Doug at 40 Years on 2 Wheels has some thoughts on how Harley-Davidson promotes itself:

Harley's "statement" film is on their website and you can click here for a look.

The video is really nicely done from a graphic standpoint; the black and white images are compelling. Compelling only at first glance though because once you stop and look, the real message in the video is as conformist as any three-piece-suit culture of "The Man" against whom the video pretends to rebel. Does it strike anyone else as ironic that a billion dollar, multi-national, Wall Street listed corporation has made a video that talks about being an individualist and "sticking it to The Man"?

...I feel sorry for the hard core H-D riders (you know who you are and so do I). H-D has sold you guys out and you ought to be mad enough about it by now to go ride something else for a while and "stick it to The Man."

Kind of reminds me of the discussion of sneaker maker Airwalk's marketing strategy, as described in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell: By the time Airwalk got done marketing its super-cool shoes to anyone and everyone under the sun, they weren't cool anymore. Harley-Davidson may be heading in the same direction.

FOLLOW-UP:
The link to H-D's site doesn't work for me anymore, so here's the video on YouTube:

(NOTE: Welcome, LGF readers! And thanks for the link, Charles.)

Michelle Malkin reports that YouTube took down a video she posted there, expressing her criticism of militant Islam. (It's available on her site here.)

Yet YouTube seems to have no problem hosting viciously anti-Israel propaganda videos. Check out some examples here, here, and here. (The last one in particular is so full of Jews-are-taking-over-the-world paranoia that it's almost a parody.)

How should YouTube determine where to draw the line between strongly-held political views, and unacceptably offensive content? Answer: It shouldn't. It shouldn't be in the viewpoint-regulation business. As is often said, the best response to offensive speech is more speech, not censorship.

I know YouTube is a business and wants to avoid controversy. But most people are smart enough to know that it doesn't endorse the message of any particular video uploaded to its site. And by censoring its user-generated content, YouTube is shooting itself in the foot.

Malkin quotes YouTube user Intelsum, who theorizes that the site automatically pulls videos "flagged" as offensive by a large enough number of users — and that Muslim groups are gaming the system, rallying their members to flag videos that criticize aspects of Islam, even though such videos don't violate YouTube's stated terms of use.

If that's what's going on, it's a flaw in YouTube's moderation system and should be stopped. The real attraction of YouTube has been the sense that you can find anything there. But those days may be past. Now it seems that you can find only what YouTube, and its most aggressive user groups, think you should see.

FOLLOW-UP: Charles notes that YouTube has since pulled the third anti-Israel video I linked above. However, this may have been due to copyright considerations, not issues of content, since the clip apparently used MEMRI TV footage with the MEMRI logo covered up.

ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP: And now the first of the three anti-Israel videos has been pulled by YouTube, raising the possibility that hordes of LGF's "lizardoid minions" flagged it as offensive. This is not a positive development. I want these videos to be widely available, so people can see just how deranged and hate-filled Israel's opponents can be. A tit-for-tat censorship battle only leaves all of us less informed.

The Burlington Free Press reports that Ben & Jerry's next new flavor will come from five customer-created finalists, including a sweet cream and ginger-flavored ice cream with chocolate-covered fortune cookie bits and fudge swirl. The name? Wackie Chan.

So first, NBC got mad about YouTube showing NBC's "Lazy Sunday" video. Then the two companies forged an alliance, in whicn NBC agreed to show NBC videos on YouTube.

But now, NBC is showing YouTube videos on NBC.

Oh, and I found out about this because, as that previous link demonstrates, NBC put the video of NBC showing YouTube videos on NBC on YouTube. Got it?

Reuters reports on music companies' efforts to sue YouTube for copyright infringement:

Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom Inc.'s MTV was set up 25 years ago — allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.

Morris in his remarks to investors on Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."

And all this time I thought MTV (at least the old MTV that played videos) was giving the music companies millions of dollars worth of free advertising to help them sell overpriced CD's. I never realized the poor music companies were being exploited. And now, with YouTube, it's happening all over again. The horror!

FOLLOW-UP:
TV company executives are idiots, too. Online Media Daily reports:

NBC TUESDAY UNVEILED A NEW effort to distribute video content via the Internet. The initiative, National Broadband Company, or NBBC, involves syndicating video clips — produced by NBC as well as other companies — to a variety of Web sites, including those owned by NBC competitors.

"We're going back into the broadcasting business on the Internet," Randy Falco, NBC Universal Television Group president and chief operating officer, said at a media conference Tuesday. The video will be entirely ad-supported, with JP Morgan Chase and Procter & Gamble as the initial sponsors. JP Morgan Chase will promote a new credit card in the spots, which are set to roll out in several weeks online and on TV.

Falco positioned the move as partly a response to the popularity that the "Saturday Night Live" skit "Lazy Sunday" experienced earlier this year on YouTube. NBC demanded that the video sharing site remove the skit, but not before it became an online hit that gave YouTube mainstream exposure.

"When 'Saturday Night Live' had a great clip of Lazy Sunday, YouTube made a lot of money off it," Falco said. "In the future, when we have a Lazy Sunday clip, NBBC will make a lot of money on it."

Maybe I missed a step here, but can someone please explain to me how YouTube "made a lot of money" — or any money — off of "Lazy Sunday"?