Akkam’s Razor

Wow. Just wow.

That debate last night.

Wow.

As of right now, there are over 12,000 comments lambasting the debate and moderators at ABCNEWS.

First, to get this out of the way, Hillary clearly ‘won’ (please note that I am an Obama supporter) the Philadelphia Democratic debate which took place at the National Constitution Center last night (Wednesday, 4/17/2008) .

Well, in particular, this Mukasey claim is remarkable (fast-forward to 1:21):

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Mukasey blubbers about how a missed phone call from a 9/11 Hijacker, if intercepted, could have stopped 9/11. Hamilton refutes this by essentially saying this is important, yet was not shared with the 9/11 Commission, implying one of three things:

1. Mukasey was making it up for dramatic appeal.
2. He was repeating something heard elsewhere, believing it to be true.
3. Somehow, something quite important was suppressed from the 9/11 Commision.

Once again, there is a discussion spanning multiple disciplines that requires attention regarding the importance and relevance of experience.

Updated again on 11/6:  Blink notes that this conspiracy, courtesy of FOXNEWS, is false.  It appears that a Cumulus Media did 'something', but Clear Channel, at least on this issue, is in the clear. 

Updated Again:  I'd be remiss not to point out that the starting point for these allegations came the paragon of Fair and Balanced Reporting, FOXNEWS, as reported by Roger Friedman:

Alas, there’s a hitch: Radio will not play "Magic." In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic." But it’s OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as "Dancing in the Dark," "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA."

[…]

Clear Channel seems to have sent a clear message to other radio outlets that at age 58, Springsteen simply is too old to be played on rock stations. This completely absurd notion is one of many ways Clear Channel has done more to destroy the music business than downloading over the last 10 years. It’s certainly what’s helped create satellite radio, where Springsteen is a staple and even has his own channel on Sirius.

It’s not just Springsteen. There is no sign at major radio stations of new albums by John Fogerty or Annie Lennox, either. The same stations that should be playing Santana’s new singles with Chad Kroeger or Tina Turner are avoiding them, too.

Updated: I've recently received an email from 104.5 management stating that this is most-definitely NOT-TRUE and that they have even been offering downloads of Springsteen.

I saw this at Down with Tyranny last night and again via Attytood this morning.  Pro GOP-radio outlet Clear Channel has allegedly blacklisted Bruce Springsteen as being "too old" for their demographics.  Much like with the Dixie Chicks in 2004, this probably has more to do with pleasing the Strong Daddies of the GOP who will continue to allow more media consolidation than it is out-and-out corporate censorship.  Of course, if you're a wingnut who has deeply internalized the conservative ideology and are reacting to your lizard-brain's fight, flight, or flee instinct to everyone of the failures of the last six-years, I can certainly see how you wouldn't want a mainstream guitar-slinger pointing out the obvious, with lyrics like these, from azlyrics:

Who'll be the last to die for a mistake
The last to die for a mistake
Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake

The wise men were all fools
What to do

The sun sets in flames as the city burns
Another day gone down as the night turns
And I hold you here in my heart
As things fall apart

The local Clear Channel owned stations are WDAS (105.3), WIOQ (102.1), WISX (106.1), WRFF (104.5), WUBA (1480 AM), and WUSL (99.0).  The only station that would conceivably play Springsteen is 104.5 FM. 

An email sent to their request line (email) and to General Manager Manuel Rodriguez (email) has not been returned or replied to as of yet. 

And as a privately-owned, publicly-traded entity, Clear Channel is  well within their right to program as they see fit.  You, as a listener and consumer, also have the right to listen to someone else and inform their advertisers of your displeasure.

Glenn Beck, the lowest rated cable-TV host, went out of his way to link the fires of Southern California to those damn, dirty liberals - that a good many of those who are losing their homes (with 1,000,000 evacuated) hate America. 

Small problem there, Glenn - the majority of those in the affected zipcodes who are politically active and donate money to campaigns are narrowly Republican ($1,891,193 (R) versus $1,801,191 (D)).  I guess Glenn is lucky that they aren't able to receive mail or watch their cable-TV since they are now likely homeless.

John Stauber has a post at PR Watch that is sourced from Matt Bai's book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, where former NY Governor Mario Cuomo speaks to a group of wealthy Democratic activists:

Shortly after the November 2006 election the Democracy Alliance, an exclusive group of about 100 Democratic Party millionaire activists, met in Miami, Florida. Members and their guests heard their keynote speaker and liberal legend Mario Cuomo analyze the Democratic Party in the wake of its stunning electoral victories that had given Democrats control of the US Congress. Cuomo criticized the Democratic Party for lacking vision, big ideas and a winning political argument. His recipe for future Democratic victories was simple: "You seize the biggest idea you can, the biggest idea you can understand. And this is what moves elections."

Cuomo then dared to voice an inconvenient truth: "Now it's 2006 and we're all rejoicing. Why? Because of Iraq. A GIFT. A gift to the Democrats. A lot of whom voted for the war anyway." The former New York governor challenged his partisan audience, "If Iraq is not an issue, then what issues do we have to talk about? … Where does that leave you? It leaves you in the same position you were in in 2004 – without an issue. Because you have no big idea."

Stauber goes on to illustrate why Iraq is a "gift":

The Argument is an important book but Bai muffed the title. He should have titled it “The Gift,” because as Cuomo points out it was primarily the political gift of voter anger and revulsion over a horrific, continuing war that caused them to oust Republicans.

He then goes on to lament how the current Democratic Congressional Leadership is failing to deliver on the voting public's wishes (he is, of course, correct, but that's a whole-another-post).

It's simply too easy to beat the administration over the head with their incompetence regarding Iraq, and that's even if totally ignoring the deceptions and ideology driven mechanisms that created, sold, and marketed this war.  Strangely, most pundits choose to look at the war in isolation, as though it were a unique creature born of unique circumstances.

I got a heads up from Jarice Hanson (participant bio page), a chairperson at Temple University's (my alma mater, BTW) School of Communication and Theater regarding a webconference at WHYY titled Digital Democracy and Freedom of Speech.

The event looks quite interesting, and it is scheduled at a most-convenient time, 1-2:30pm on Tuesday, 10/9/2007, at the WHYY building, especially for those in the Center City (Philadelphia) area. 

To quickly riff on the subject, I understand and expect this conference to have a very US-centric focus, but I suspect conversations regarding digital freedom, at least as we Americans understand Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the First Ammendment (or don't, as the case may be), will most likely affect other nations, such as those in the Middle East and China, where excessive blocking and monitoring, often aided and abetted by prominent US companies such as Yahoo are the norm.

The excessive use of national security exemptions in FOIA, the circumvention of records-keeping and civil liberty safeguards, and others are all blatant attempts to stymie freedom of the press, but what of freedom of speech?  Despite isolated (although far too many) examples of abuses, such as the recent tasing at a John Kerry speech, "Free Speech Zones" at political gatherings, and arrests and detainings based on what t-shirt one wears, I see little formalized institutional censorship, although we're getting there.

That said, there are tremendous threats to digital freedom here in the US, but they often don't come from the government directly to the individual speaker.  No, they come indirectly, via the corporate sphere, the establishment press, intra-governmental agency suppression , other opinion influencers, ideological bullies, our society-at-large, and our own tendencies to self-censor.  In most cases, all it takes is the threat of a libel suit or a DMCA takedown letter to pull content, either by the creator or their ISP.  As illustrated in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Guide, many of the concerns of online speech have little to do with the government.  You can't really say whatever you want.

After the President's 'vision' speech last night, and his attempt to pass the war off on to his (likely-Democratic) successor, it's worthwhile to examine the numbers behind the war, and how much the facts diverge from the "Johnny comes marching home!" headlines appearing across the country today.

Very few tell the real story - that nothing has changed, troop levels are the same as they were prior to the surge, that there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers there for years, and lastly that he is handing off responsibility for his war of choice to his successor, absolving his legacy of taint.

A quote is absolutely driving me nuts is that of Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo stating that no one saw the current financial turmoil coming:

But as I do reflect on it, and I do a lot, nobody saw this coming. 

The Big Picture's Barry Ritholtz posts an insider's email, clearly detailing that those in the know CLEARLY knew what was going on.  And any reasonable person knows that it couldn't go on forever.  Industry had to know the good times wouldn't last, but greed gave them tunnel vision and caused them to ignore financial certainties.

AND he should be fired for this nonsense :

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

[…]

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that. *

E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:

http://go.philly.com/byko.

This last 6-years has been a slow-motion train wreck.  OBL is still on the loose.  The Anthrax attackers are still on the loose.  We're stuck in a quagmire in a war of choice in Iraq, losing a winnable war in Afghanistan, and then contemplating opening a third front of the Great War on Terror in Iran (and Pakistan).

I'm tired of staring into the abyss.  In addition to the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 and the near 5000 (3600 military deaths, and an estimated 1000 contractor deaths) in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can chalk up threats to free speech, habeas corpus, our own privacy, and any semblance for advocacy for the middle class in Washington.  We are distracted from true threats like class inequality, our aging infrastructure, precarious financial environment, and global warming with bright and shiny objects like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and divisive social wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Although Bykofsky takes the easy way out and (correctly) states that another 9/11 would finally unite us, he's correct, but I hope he's thinking of the wrong outcome.  He thinks that another 9/11 would would cause us to put aside our partisan differences to get "it" done - I'm assuming by "it" he means the War on Islamofacism.  But there's danger in these thoughts.  With the right proudly proclaiming that we are safer BECAUSE there have been no new attacks, another 9/11 might have the complete opposite consequences - reinforces the disgust and despair many of us are feeling towards our media and political institutions.

The next-9/11 will preceed one of two outcomes - either the police state, or the beginning of the American Renaissance, where we cast of the dead weight and corrupt institutions of the past and become the America we thought, hoped, and dreamed we were.

Should Bykofsky get fired?  Should free speech have consequences?  Vote here. 

There seemed to be a point at BlogPhiladelphia where everyone seemed to be grasping for what should be the obvious - what is the business model?  How do I make money?  How do I convince my boss that we should be blogging? What is blogging worth?  Typically, the value of a web site was dependent on it's number of PageViews, at least as far as advertising was concerned.  All of that is about to change.

One of the subjects briefly mentioned at this month's BlogPhiladelphia unconference was the death of the PageView (wiki) as the prime page metric for internet sites.  As explained by Mel "Toxic" Taylor, the metric, which is based on the amount of times a page is viewed, is being replaced by another existing metric, the time-spent-on-site, a move initiated by A.C. Nielsen - an Old Media company. This presents a challenge to scores of existing internet properties as well as new opportunities for sites that are still in the planning stages.  Simply put, this recalculation changes everything, and throws the most prominent business model, that of pay-per-click advertising into doubt.  At the same time, the move to mobile platforms, geolocation, the presence of AJAX and client-side refreshes versus server-side reloads, social networking, widgetized (syndicated) content, and the increasing utilization of RSS makes the PageView largely obsolete, as detailed by Evan Williams (aka evhead). For scores more on the topic, see this del.icio.us search for "PageViews".

It's humorous that this conversation occurs as Time Magazine contemplates pulling the plug on "Business 2.0" and as Businessweek showcases the LOLCATS meme (as in ICANHASCHEEZEBURGER), as well as a slideshow on what other bloggers make (which I first saw this morning on Mashable).  As Joe Sweeney joked at BlogPhilly, "What is it with these cats and the internet?"

There will be changes based on this refocus, some bad, some good, with the changes on balance being mostly neutral.  As Jakob Nielsen (no relation, I think) said, bloggers should write articles, not blog posts.  If the goal was to deliver timely and relavent content, to deliver increased page views, than yes, shorter posts would be appropriate.  However, if the goal is to engage the reader and get them to spend more time on your site, spend more money (if you sell goods or services), or to build relationships of trust, then longer articles would be ideal, buttressed by social networks and embedded media.

A renewed focus on writing and editing, a sharpening of writing skills, and the cultivation of an audience have always been the goals of many bloggers.  But now, the business environment has changed, de-emphasizing SEO, ad placement, text ads, pop-ups and -unders, embedded ads and towards the amount of attention someone pays to your site.  A cynic might say that Old Media is trying to drive a stake through the heart of the new media, as the core competencies of blogs, such as external links and blogrolls, will all be disincentives to the generation of revenue.  This may be another artifact of Western Societies post-Enlightenment obsession with Reductionism and Time-Studies, the trying to make Old-World measurements work with New Media properties.

Although this change will most seriously impact the phenomenom-based sites where short bursts of traffic generate the revenue, the big sites have certainly taken notice and are looking at ways to make their sites properties and destinations as opposed to landing pages from search hits. 

For example, Facebook has replaced a 3-page process for befriending with an AJAX process where everything is done sans page reload.

One of the benefactors of the change to time-spent-on-site will be social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, the resurgence of the internet portal (like Yahoo), and embedded/streaming media portals such as YouTube.  Any sites that are dependent on sticky relationships with viewers are "teh win", including flash games, audio, video, feed readers, and the like.  Site valuations are also very-much in jeopardy - analysts and VCs take the pulse of a site, and assign the valuation based on PageViews…what happens now?  Does the "worth" of the property decline preciptously?  Even Google's own model, the search engine, will be in jeopardy.  Does this maybe even show promise of a revenue model for Second Life and in-game advertising?

For sites still in the planning stages, building-in code, processes, and layouts that maximize time-spent-on-site will be essential.  This might include sidebar territory typically reserved for advertising being repurposed for the highlighting of popular content, recent content, tags, or recent comments, taking advantage of the F-shaped eye-tracking patterns inherent to web usage.  Although a morally gray are, SEO-folk may want to move away from pagination as we know it (with each page view resulting in a higher total view count) towards content being displayed, scrolled, and refreshed inside of an AJAX (or Flash) window.  Any changes that are made need to focus on one thing - the changing of your site from a destination to a property.  It also places a premium on the relationship between writer and reader, creator and consumer, and the connections between the two and the attendant ad hoc networks that can develop based on those interactions.  Once again, the value is in the network.

As reported in the Freep via Autoblog:

Toyota Motor Corp. officials are concerned the company may be expanding its manufacturing operations too quickly in the United States, according to a report in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.
The report says some board members believe Toyota needs to slow the construction of new plants in the United States in the face of difficult market conditions, rising costs and quality issues.

Advertisement Toyota, which has 13 plants in North America, has been rapidly expanding in recent years with U.S. sales increasing at double-digit rates. Toyota opened a truck plant last fall in San Antonio and a Camry plant this year in Lafayette, Ind.