My Stupid Political Party

October 21, 2005 By

Another golden opportunity to redefine what it is to be a liberal, to be a progressive, to be a Democrat, in the 21st century has been wasted. Surprise.

In the wake of the Katrina disaster, the Democrats could and should have done two things:

1. Reminded voters they are the party that knows how to make government actually work (exhibit 1, the Clinton administration, when government institutions performed ably for the most part).

2. Demanded cuts in federal spending, especially the unbelievably wasteful Transportation appropriations bill, to pay for (or partly pay for) reconstruction in New Orleans and the greater Gulf coast.

Because of the utter and complete incompetence of the Republican-led Congress and White House, Dems have the opportunity right now, with some smart moves, to establish themselves as the party of fiscal sanity and a functional government. These messages are both substantively right, and would be political winners. I am glad to see Kos (whom I usually find a little too overly excited) pushing the pork-busting meme.

It’s no longer (and never was) enough to sit back and whine about what idiots the Republicans are. We need a plan and some leadership, please.

Filed Under: Politics

Reason to Worry?

October 18, 2005 By

Battelle had a small little item the other day that caught my attention: Google, breaking what seems to be a pretty cardinal rule, intruding on the pristine white space of the home page, to promote their search toolbar.

Since that item the other day, I have seen the promotion not only on the Google home page, but at the bottom of various search results pages. If they’re intruding on the pristine white space, and breaking cardinal rules, I can think of just three explanations:

1. That the distribution costs have gotten too high at the margins to make it economical to rely mainly on third parties for distribution.

2. That they feel like there are no longer any viable, high volume third party software makers with whom they can ally themselves, and are taking matters into their own hands to guarantee distribution. Maybe related to this.

3. They’re plotting trendlines out two to three quarters, see trouble, and are getting a little panicked.

Probably #1, maybe #2, and only time will tell if number 3 is a factor.

Filed Under: Web/Tech

“Talent Will Out”

October 18, 2005 By

Or will it?

The "talent will out" claim was made by Barry Diller, at the Web 2.0 conference two weeks ago. (Emily Litella NB: some have written up his remarks at "talent wins out." I am 99% sure I heard him say "talent will out" or "talent always outs." I haven’t found a video or audio clip to confirm either way, but the "talent will out" interpretation is more consistent with his subsequent remarks. It’s a nuanced point, but an important distinction.)

Diller made this comment in response to a question from Battelle about Newscorp’s acquisition of MySpace, and whether there would be a future for "prosumer or user-generated content." Diller said he thought there was a limited amount of talent in the world, and that it was unlikely internet-based platforms such as MySpace would help us to discover a heretofore hidden respository of creative geniuses. For this view, he was widely excoriated by the blogging world and Web 2.0 priesthood as a relic, a media mogul who doesn’t get it, a Web 1.0 dinosaur.

I think Diller is right about the likely outcome, but wrong in his reasoning.   Unlike Diller, I would argue there is lots of talent in the world. The issue is that there is a very small pool of talented people who also possess the necessary ambition, time, energy and will to bring their talent to a wider public. And that’s not likely to change, even with these new platforms that make it easier for all of us to publish our work, and put our talent on display.

There are common-sense ways to prove this thesis. Start with blogging.  Here is a new medium that should have liberated the masses of talented writers out there waiting to be discovered. But despite the current hypefest around blogging and the near-religious belief by some bloggers that they are poised to topple the grandees of the print media, most blogs are utter crap. None have ever moved or affected me like the best of works in print. Where are these great new talents unleashed by WordPress, Blogger and TypePad?

This isn’t to say blogs are unimportant, and won’t make a huge impact on the media landscape. They are and they will, but for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the talent of individual bloggers, and a lot more to do with the wisdom of crowds; getting access to specific information about particular niches; and as a democratic check point to other, more hierarchical forms of media.

There is a second common sense way to prove the thesis. Think about the most talented friends you have. If they are great writers or humorists, are they blogging? If they are blogging, are they putting their best material online? If they make video or audio programming, are they putting that online? Are they even likely to do so?

My personal experience here is that my most talented friends aren’t putting their stuff online and won’t anytime soon, for one of two reaons. Some won’t because, while they do have ambition and will to channel their talent, they are putting their best work into creating books, or films, or radio shows; all mediums that are about showcasing talent (a follow point on that next graph). Others won’t because, while they have talent, they just have too much else going on in life, and insufficient ambition and will to use their talents to create something for public consumption. Their talent is channeled into the funny repertoire over dinnner, the occasional great e-mail, or something else wonderful but ephemeral and made just for friends and family.

There is another argument one can make why these new online platforms won’t suddenly lead to the discovery of new talent; and that is that they do not make great homes for talented people or the works they produce. I know, that’s heresy. But listen: A truly talented person with will and ambition and ego to make his or her talent public wants to tell us something in a pure, unadulterated, uninterrupted way. Where they, the talent, speak to us, the member of the audience. This has been true for thousands of years.

But as many others have noted, ad nauseam and better than I, the online medium is not at all about that. It’s about conversation. Participation. Remixing. Democratization. It’s about us talking to us. For all the many good things that come out of this new, collective medium, I am not sure it makes the best home for talented  people, and their works. There are and remain other media that remain better suited for that: the short story, the novel, the film, the interview show, the essay to name but a few. (Oh, and digitization of those things and distribution online is just that — distribution, not a new medium).

The point of all this is that the cheerleaders and operators of these new platforms should stop being so defensive when folks like Diller say it’s not likely they’ll become showcases for great, undiscovered talents. He’s right. Concentrate on the other things that the medium is good for — its ability to foster new forms of conversation; to allow us to find and to share information about specific things more efficiently than ever before; and to connect us and bind us together in new ways that harness our collective talents.

Filed Under: Blogging, Digital Media

Mo’ Roe

October 17, 2005 By

Noted today (courtesy of Doc Searls on my feedreeder) that others are coming independently to theory similar to the one I wrote up a few weeks ago here and here.

Richard Bennett adds a twist, though, suggesting Bush nominated Miers because he really does want an activist judiciary — if not on Roe, then on things like Schiavo.

I am not sure I buy that added line of argument. I continue to think this is a schism between the now-institutionalized and corrupted inside-the-beltway conservatives, who want to maintain a hold on power, and the movement conservatives who really do want to outlaw abortion, rescind right-to-die legislation, and teach our kids intelligent design. The practical, if cynical, insiders know that if the movement gets what it wants, it’s all over as a majority party.

Filed Under: Politics

Truly a Pathetic Excuse

October 14, 2005 By

One of the more interesting and memorable (and, in retrospect, utterly depressing) moments at the Web2 conference last week occurred when John Battelle asked Terry Semel about Yahoo in China, and the recent case in which Yahoo turned over information to Chinese authorities about a Chinese journalist, Shi Tao, that led to his imprisonment for 10 years.

I listened carefully, and I am pretty sure that Semel’s justification for this was: "We have to adhere to the laws of the countries in which we do business." That has been their consistent line of defense since early September.

It all seemed so reasonable, so sensible, so justifiable when he said it, even if there was a slight smell of bullshit about the claim. But as I’ve thought about it more, I am shocked and ashamed I didn’t stand up and scream, and that others didn’t either. This justification and kind of excuse is as outrageously offensive as the actual act.

A few years ago, a book came out about IBM’s collaboration with the Nazis in the late 1930s; specifically, that IBM provided the punch card technology that enable the Nazi government to identify and catalog Jews living in Germany. I have still not read the book, but there is a good summary from a Business Week article from the time here.

I found, and still find, that discovery stunning, and the collaboration by IBM with the Nazis reprehensible and beyond justification. Of course, it may be unfair to equate that act with what Yahoo, Cisco and others are doing now; no one is claiming Chinese authorities are using US technology to engage in genocide. (Remember, though, that preceding regimes had no problem killing tens of millions of Chinese citizens).

But isn’t it bad enough that Yahoo, Cisco and others are actively collaborating with and supporting the current Chinese government in their systematic, clear, unambiguous repression of basic human rights? Isn’t that bad enough? Or, is imprisonment and repression not enough, and do they only cross the line when millions are killed as a result of their actions?

The argument (Semel made this, too) is that we may not like their laws, we may not like their human rights record, but it is better to engage than walk away. I spent two years traipsing through China while working for Real, and I actually buy the constructive engagement argument in general terms.

But I think you have to draw the line when you at active support for and cooperation with policies and programs that clearly violate human rights. Turning over Shi Tao’s name was such a clear violation of human rights. Period. So is the provisioning of routers by Cisco to enable China and Myanmar to filter out speech those regimes don’t like or approve.

I side with those beginning to boycott Yahoo! I’ll stay away from their products from now on, including the beloved flickr and my yahoo and yahoo mail. And I hope the smart, sensitive and thoughtful folks who work at Yahoo that I’ve met will press on their bosses to do better. And maybe the famous bloggers will take a break from their pet causes and more parochial issues to devote  some time to this.

Filed Under: China, Digital Media, Politics, Web/Tech

Help

October 14, 2005 By

As I type this, I am listening to Terri Gross interviewing Bob Edwards, discussing his book on Edward R. Murrow. I know, I know — go ahead, tag me as a hopeless NPR liberal. Hearing Edwards talk about Murrow and Joe McCarthy brings to the surface so many thoughts and emotions about returning to the United States after spending the majority of the Bush era abroad.

Foremost among them: that as bad as the McCarthy era was, at least the kooks of that era never got full control of the government then.

That’s not true now.

All branches of government are now fully in control of the Republican Party. And the Republican Party is no longer a union of Midwestern pragmatists and Eastern Elites. It’s controlled by the wackos. Folks who want to make sure our kids learn about Intelligent Design. Folks who see no possible good in any work of government, and want to get it small enough to strangle in the bathtub. Folks who believe the Rapture is surely coming soon, and want to make sure our Middle East policies are crafted to support, or even fulfill, the prophecy. Folks who are happy to pile up trillions of dollars of debt for our kids, without thinking twice about it, and gleefully noting there is no fat to cut (after voting to spend billions on bogus transportation projects). Folks who are telling the thrifty Chinese that they should spend more, and save less — just like us.

If you have any doubt the nut jobs are fully in control — and no sensible person should have any doubt at this point — just look at the lengths Bush and his allies have gone to assure the Christian Conservatives that Harriet Miers is one of them. Who is really in control here?

Watching from London, I knew the situation was bad. Being back, reading the papers every day, it worse than bad.

But I’m an optimist, and still not quite willing to accept that this is really the country I love and grew up in; we’re just experiencing a temporary lack of sanity. Please, fellow Democrats, let’s give folks a better choice in 2008. I have ideas about that, more later.

Filed Under: Politics

Open Source Education

October 12, 2005 By

At the Web 2 conference last week, Vinod Khosla — almost in passing — made what I thought was the most interesting observation and comment during the entire conference. We noted that it would be much more cost efficient, and better, if schools adopted "open source textbooks" — modeled on wikipedia — instead of continuing to spend enormous sums on classic textbooks.

Wikibooks is clearly trying to jumpstart this.

This is a splendid idea. It would be nice to see Democrats get behind this kind of intelligent, clever initiative. It embodies a kind of practical progressive solution that could help redefine what it is to be liberal; collective action, to improve our collective condition, with more efficient use of resources. Monies saved on textbooks could go to more teachers, and smaller classrooms.

Filed Under: Education, Politics

Tenacious Real

October 11, 2005 By

First off, full disclosure; I was an executive at RealNetworks for 7.5 years. I’m biased when it comes to discussions of Real. But I’ve been gone long enough (effectively 14 months, although I did some work part time through last April) that I hope I can write about it with a little more distance, if not with total objectivity.

Today’s announcement with Microsoft was big news for Real on so many fronts. Others, with better and more in-depth information than I, will dissect the deal with Microsoft. I would like to address one interpretation I’ve seen that I suspect could gain currency: that Rob Glaser "suppressed his ego" to make this deal happen.

I assume Rafat (and others he has spoken with) are using "ego" in the common, more-or-less pejorative meaning and not the precise psycho-analytic term of art; to wit, by ego he means a sense of self-importance. If so, I think Rob’s ego is probably pretty much intact, and probably hasn’t changed or been suppressed — ever.

Let me explain. What drives his sense of self-importance may be a little different than others. There is an important dimension of time — the denominator, if you will. His sense of ego, his sense of self-importance is intertwined with the long-term viability and durability and success of Real, not it’s position or performance at any given point in time. Otherwise he surely would have flipped the company in 1999 or 2000.

Maybe it’s a nuanced difference. But, I think it’s an important one, and perhaps helps to explain behaviors we see in other founder-executives (Gates, Jobs, Ellison, even Brin-Page).  All of these folks are in it for the long-haul. And given how hard and difficult the path has been for Real the past 5 years, I for one think it’s admirable Rob has stuck at it — even if it’s a product of his ego.

I find it an interesting comment on our times that we tend to celebrate the burger-flippers more than those who at least try to create real, durable companies and institutions. Good on ya, Rob and Real, for today’s settlement and for staying in the game.

Filed Under: Digital Media

MSM, the New 666

October 11, 2005 By

For many bloggers, no other set of three keystrokes gets the pulse racing like MSM — a quick clack-clack-clack spells the mark of the beast for many in the blogosphere, shorthand for that borg-like, monolithic force of evil others call journalism. I could cite hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of examples; here are three from some of the most popular blogs out there.

(NB: Clearly, there is a significant political dimension to all of this — don’t take my word for it, check out this search –  with many conservative bloggers obsessed with righting the ways of a biased, liberal media or so they perceive. We’ll leave that topic for a later time.)

I’ve got a gripe about their gripe and all of the wasted keystrokes on that topic. It would be nice if the top bloggers spent more time making better posts, about more important issues, and less time and effort obsessing about the MSM. Perhaps they could begin to offer us consumers reading experiences as informative and important as Hendrik Hertzbergs "Talk of the Town" item in the New Yorker about the film "Last Best Chance" or as entertaining and provocative as Michael Lewis’s piece this past Sunday on his trip back to New Orleans.

Until the top bloggers can tackle important issues consistently — even at the potential irritation of their audiences once in a while — with verve and class and with our new set of tools and tricks, this new medium isn’t what it could or should be. And if they’re not up to the job, let’s hope some new blogger blood arrives to make this new medium worth all of the hype and heat and fury.

Filed Under: Digital Media

Roe Redux

October 6, 2005 By

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about Roe. I (cynically) questioned whether Republicans really want to have the SC overturn Roe.

That same arguement is made today on the op-ed pages of the NYT, here.

Filed Under: Politics
Newer Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.