Archives for October 2007

I’m testing my new ability to embed video with one of my favorite ever Daily Show clips. It’s Steve Carrell riding the “Straight Talk Express” with Senator John McCain in 1999. I think the bit at the 3:12 mark is priceless.

Seattle Times’ Brier Dudley: “Zillow is emerging as the latest big threat to newspapers, which are watching a series of Internet companies go after their dominant share of advertising and undercutting them with free services.”

As someone who worked 38 years for newspapers, it’s tough to watch a hallowed industry melt to a puddle. If papers saw themselves as a service rather than a product, they might have a chance in the online game. Brier makes several good points about the changing marketplace, not all of them consistent: He goes from a header warning “Watch out, newspapers!” to a concluding sentence: “It’s hard to compete with free…but the site also has a long, long way to go before it has papers’ reach and market penetration.” (I guess Brier didn’t need a disclosure statement there!)

And that’s just the problem. If newspapers simply take the money while letting “free” services compete on price (or non-price), they’ll lose mindshare and brand value when, inevitably, critical mass shifts. Craigslist would not exist (in its current popularity) if papers had simply started giving away classifieds. But they couldn’t leave the revenues on the table.

(Another debate is whether, particularly in a down market, the Internet is changing the business of real-estate. I know three people who sold their homes via Craigslist and were much happier doing so — starting with, no seller’s commission. Dudley rightly notes the “channel conflict” Zillow faces as well in doing brokerage deals: Whose interests is Zillow defending, buyers or sellers?)

Dudley ID’s the progression here: Craigslist, Google, Yahoo, Zillow. I’d add Facebook to the list as well. But the real threat to newspapers began with the World Wide Web. The Web is the newspaper. Everything else is just a tweak in the machine.

This hilarious study somehow reminded me of an old feminist joke my wife likes to tell:

A man is feeling ill and goes to his doctor. The doctor asks to see his wife. “Your husband is very, very sick,” the doctor tells her, “and he’s going to die, unless he has a clean house, hot dinners and sex every night.” The wife goes back to her husband and he asks her what the doctor said. “He says you’re very, very sick,” she tells him, “and you’re going to die.”

It’s been rumored for several weeks, so may be anticlimactic, but AP is reporting that Microsoft is putting $240 million into Facebook for a 1.6 percent stake. (Local papers have versions on Web sites as well.)

There was a time when this kind of thing would have been suicidal for a young tech company. Microsoft would come on board, throw its weight around, take over projects, look at the code…then develop its own competing software. So times have really changed. Now you can view it as Microsoft simply trying to get in on an action it has no hope of branding on its own, as well as a jamming in a wedge against Google. You could certainly view this deal as a turning point in the Evil Empire stigma of Microsoft.

“Culminating weeks of negotiations, the investment announced Wednesday values Palo Alto-based Facebook at $15 billion — a stunning figure for an online hangout started in a Harvard University dorm room less than four years ago.” Well, it does and it doesn’t. No sound economic valuation based on P/E or any other existing index (revs of $100M to $150M, give me a break) would put Facebook anywhere near that. This is all on the come, an act of faith that social networking technology won’t commoditize or be usurped by some new technology. But what both Microsoft and Facebook want to do in cases like this is pump the appearance of value, so why not go along with the hype?

Don’t believe the stenographic line that Microsoft “beat out” Google, however. Google would not have let Facebook slip if it really wanted it. Similarly, though, suggestions that Google let Facebook slip because it is developing its own social-networking site are probably off base. My view is that Google has little incentive to do a social-networking site, because that would cannibalize its own advertising market. Besides, with Blogger, YouTube, Google Pages and other powerful pieces, the Google sum is greater than any SN’s parts.

When Postman asked his readers “What should Rossi say?” when he officially announces his campaign for governor tomorrow, commenters found it awfully damn hard to take the task seriously. Democrats could barely hold back the snark, while Republicans were at a loss for words.

Personally, I’m not sure what Rossi can or should say at his campaign kickoff, but I’m pretty damn sure what he will say tomorrow… the same thing he said back in 2004, and the same thing he’s been saying over and over again on the non-campaign trail this past year or so:

Yup, it’s hard to argue with 210,000 new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate in state history, and one of the best business climates in the nation… but that doesn’t mean Rossi won’t try. How? Well, just like in 2004, he could just try making shit up:

At pancake breakfasts and candidate forums across the state, Dino Rossi has invoked his nephew’s name as an emblem for what ails Washington.

Rossi blames Washington’s unfriendly business climate for driving his nephew, Kenny, and his business to Arizona. The gubernatorial candidate also has cautioned that the next Microsoft or Boeing founder could leave for Arizona, just as Kenny did.

What Rossi doesn’t say is that Kenny was a self-employed car detailer and that he left for personal reasons as much as business, according to his nephew.

Oops.

In politics, the truth doesn’t always hurt, but as Rossi is discovering, it doesn’t always much help, either.

Canadian Marc Emery is facing extradition to the United States for running a mail-order marijuana seed business. If extradited, he could spend the rest of his life in prison here, even though what he’s charged with is only a fine in Canada. The effort to extradite him has been led out of Seattle’s US Attorneys office previously run by John McKay. What’s making this case very interesting is that Emery isn’t a dummy, a slacker, or even a remotely threatening human being, and this fact is getting a lot of attention. He started his first business at his parents’ home at the age of 14 in London, Ontario and has long been a champion of entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency. He has used this case to highlight the incredible absurdity of the laws that are being used by the Bush Administration and the DEA to go after him, and sees himself as a martyr representing a country where 55% of the citizens support the legalization of marijuana, even as their current government slavishly obeys the Bush Administration on drug issues.

Last night on CBC, a documentary on Emery called “The Prince of Pot” was aired and it’s already available in its entirety on YouTube. You can see each of the 5 parts here (and you may want to be somewhat careful watching if you’re at work).

This was delayed for about a week due to my house situation, but it’s finally up. I give you the first edition of the Crackpiper Chronicles. I’m not sure if anyone will ever give us as much to laugh at as our old friend Marvin, but the Crackpiper has been balls out recently. If you have any comments or exchanges that belong in part 2, feel free to drop me a mail.

The Southern California wildfires are fast becoming one of the biggest natural disasters in modern U.S. history (certainly in terms of people evacuated and property affected, if not lives lost). Today’s headlines reflect it. In this morning’s New York Times an article poses the burning (sorry) question:
“Victims in Wildfire’s Path Say, ‘Why Me?'” (It’s an unanswerable question, of course, unless you’re Glenn Beck.)

The Washington Post has a good piece on why the nearly one million evacuees (as of last night) have it a lot better than Katrina’s survivors in 2005. At the football stadium in San Diego where some 20,000 refugees are camped, it’s no Superdome. It’s orderly, food and Starbucks (gag) is plentiful, the National Guard is on hand (and not threatening to shoot the victims of the natural disaster). What are the differences? The fires are capricious, hitting here and there in neighborhoods rather than destroying the whole region; the region itself is wealthy, the suburban hillside neighborhoods in the fires’ paths often more so; the National Guard was already nearby, guarding the Mexican border against, um, Mexicans. Oh, and, as a separate N.Y. Times article points out, this time the White House and the federal government have scrambled to respond. But, according to the L.A. Times, the locals are already grumbling that the region was woefully unprepared for the cataclysm.

Locally, Neil Modie at the P-I (as well as a story in The Olympian) confirm that Dino Rossi will announce his campaign for governor Thursday in dual appearances in Issaquah and Spokane. (We know, (u)SP reported this Monday, and it’s not like we don’t trust their accuracy, but, well, we don’t.) The Bothell Times reported yesterday that Rossi was “expected to” announce Thursday, and leaves it at that today. In this season of surprises, no word yet as to whether Dino’s stump speech will differ one iota from his Forward Washington Foundation “nonprofit” days.

A KING-5 poll shows the “Roads & Transit” Proposition One in a dead heat. Oddly, KING-TV didn’t make the obvious connection with another of its own stories (which KIRO-TV and the Times also had): while Prop One contains ballyhooed maintenance money for local bridges and infrastructure, that doesn’t include Tacoma’s 11th Street Bridge east of downtown — a 92-year-old bridge that WSDOT abruptly shut down permanently on Tuesday because, according to state engineers, it’s in such a state of disrepair that it could fail at any time. The city charges that it’s the state which has been responsible for maintenance, or lack of it, on the bridge.

For some reason, both dailies think it’s a big deal this morning that a Metro bus driver is going to be fired for causing a fatal accident last April.

The Times takes an almost sympathetic look at the oddly viable candidacy of Richard Pope.

And, in the category of “The Treacle Gets Earlier Each Year,” the P-I today has a heartwarming syrupy Mary Swift column (does she do any other kind?) on a retiree who makes Christmas more cheerful for homeless kids. A. Week. Before. Halloween. Diabetics, it’s going to be a long season.

The SoCal wildfires are showcasing emerging Web 2.0 technologies — the first “Web 2.0 disaster” as Paul Kedrosky puts it.

Google Maps, courtesy of KPBS, has a mashup of fires, evacuations, response sites and so on. I like the idea of mashups but sure wish the map interface were snappier and a bit more sophisticated graphically.

KPBS, the San Diego NPR affiliate (someone knows what they’re doing there), also has a continuous Twitter feed (ticker). A great application for software in search of one.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has a Blogspot (Google) blog instead of an in-house blog. I’m not as surprised as Kedrosky by this. In-house newspaper blogs for the most part aren’t even an echo chamber because there’s so little sound to begin with, leaving aside the issue of clumsy UIs. The U-T blog shows how a newspaper’s resources can really shine online when put to good use. Few services could assemble this kind of clearing house on such short notice.

Jim Forbes, a retired tech editor, is ‘fire-blogging’ the disaster from an evacuation shelter in Escondido with a Lenovo X60 tablet and integrated cell modem. A guy who can actually write, reporting in real time. What a treat.

Web 2.0 generally refers to the burbling “social networking” and digital-collaboration technologies all the rage now. It’s fine to call the wildfires a made-to-order Web 2.0 catastrophe, but networking technology proved its utility under societal duress long ago with the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco when The Well kept onliners in touch and informed.

What’s particularly intriguing, as Forbes notes, is how much more effective the Web is than cell phones, especially voice usage. The forced brevity and directness of IM, its multithreading capability and durability of communication all really come in handy during emergencies, and 802.x Wi-Fi apparently is carrying the day better than cell nets. If only the kids didn’t have to IM while they drive (thereby creating emergencies).

Yeah, sure… I’m a hate talker. But Glenn Beck, apparently not so much:

I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.
[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/beck.mp3]

For the past week, Geov, Paul and myself have been posting our take on the morning headlines, attempting to provide a little context to the daily news. And in a way, that’s exactly what Beck tried to do in referencing the wildfires ravaging Southern California.

California wildfires, view from space

There are a lot of stories within the story of the devastating fires that have now forced half a million people from their homes, but for Beck, the story that leaps off the page is that some of the victims “hate America.” That’s the context Beck chooses to bring to this tragedy… a tragedy Beck doesn’t view as simply unfortunate, but unfortunate “for them.” It’s almost as if he’s gloating.

What sort of person looks at a natural disaster, and instantly sees the political ideology of the victims? What sort of person chooses to bring this sort of context to this story? Glenn Beck.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join us for some hoppy ale and hopped up conversation.

All candidates are welcome. We’ll just be sure to call you a cab.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Wanna learn more about Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens? Check out RetireTed.com.

Larry Mitchell
Redmond Prosecutor
P.O. Box 97010
Redmond, WA 98073-9710
c/o City Clerk
Cc: King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Is the City of Redmond picking up the tab by prosecuting Jane Hague for drunk driving?

I asked this question of someone who works in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office and he thought perhaps so—that normally this kind of thing is done as a professional courtesy. (He wasn’t privy to the details in the Jane Hague case.)

Now…I am a big believer in Redmond being a good governmental citizen and helping out King County when necessary. Cooperation among regional and local governments strikes me as a very positive thing. I don’t mind if my neighbors and I occasionally pick up the tab to ensure criminals are brought to justice and there is fairness in the process.

The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office turned the Hague case over to Redmond to avoid a conflict of interest in prosecuting King County Councilmember Hague. I mean, surely she has personal and political connections in the office. And I can sort-of buy that, even though Dan Satterberg, the Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney, claims to be non-partisan.

Here is what I don’t get. That very same Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney who handed the effort and expense of prosecuting Jane Hague over to us is jointly headlining a Republican fund raising event with Jane Hague this evening.

Yeah…suddenly I’m completely convinced that this is a genuine case with conflict of interest. At the same time, I can’t help feeling abused by it all. The City of Redmond is picking up the tab; so, instead of prosecuting Ms. Hague, Mr. Satterberg is joining Ms. Hague to raise money for Republicans!

It sure feels to me like the citizens of Redmond are, effectively, making a contribution to the King County Republican Party.

That is, unless, Mr. Satterberg’s office intends to fully reimburse Redmond for our expenses.

Yours,

Darryl

Sen. Hilary Clinton didn’t seem to change many minds last night, but apparently she didn’t need to.

I went to Benaroya Hall hoping Clinton would change my mind — or at the very least help set it — turning me into a true blue supporter instead of just somebody who kinda likes her. But mostly I went to see if she could change the minds of the legion of doubters who supposedly fear a Clinton nomination would be the surest path to Republican victory in 2008.

But as I mingled through the crowd I discovered I had walked into the hall under false assumptions, for while I talked to a number of enthusiastic Obama and Edwards supporters, Hillary-haters were ne’er to be seen. Sure, Clinton was not the first choice of many in attendance last night — perhaps even a majority — but my unscientific survey didn’t find anybody who wouldn’t happily accept her as the Democratic nominee, or who even remotely bought in to the familiar “Hillary can’t win” meme. This particular crowd didn’t need convincing; they needed reinforcing. And on that count, Clinton delivered.

Her speech wasn’t a barn-burner or a stem-winder by any account, but it was confident, well measured, personal, and hit most of the right notes. For years, Americans have been told that Clinton is a divisive figure who draws great animosity, but you wouldn’t know it from the Clinton who spoke last night. Most Americans want health care reform; they want to restore America’s reputation abroad and rebuild its middle class at home. Most Americans want to end the war in Iraq, and like Clinton, a majority of those who now oppose the war have seen their own position evolve in response to events on the ground. And while I personally wish Clinton would adopt more liberal rhetoric, and advance more progressive solutions to many of the problems that now plague our nation (ie health care), I think few Americans, listening to her speak last night, would disagree with much of what the senator had to say.

But most importantly, Clinton came across as, well… likable, personable, caring, even funny. Not exactly the hard-edged, calculating bitch Republicans are counting on.

Was I convinced? No. I’m still leaning toward Edwards, if ever so slightly. But I was certainly reassured that should conventional wisdom hold true and Clinton wins the nomination, she will not only easily dispatch her Republican opponent, but will serve our nation well. And once more Americans get to know Hillary Clinton better, I am convinced that they will be reassured too.

UPDATE:
Writing on Slog, Josh draws a more tactical observation from last night’s speech, noting that the best indication Clinton’s political prowess was that she was there at all…

Why is that? Why is it that even though Barack Obama and John Edwards are more popular and raising more money in Washington State than Clinton, Clinton scores the Maggie Awards dinner—a captive audience of the most influential Democrats from the fundraising, organizing, and messaging fronts in the state. Well played HRC. You are a tactical player.

Yeah… um… true. But it should be noted that the keynote address in 2003 was a red-meat-flinging scorcher delivered by presumptive Democratic front-runner Howard Dean. How’d that work out for him?