Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic

Slash and burn neoconservatism

<![CDATA[House passes $49.9 billion in spending cuts – Yahoo! News:

Democrats assailed the House legislation, complaining that it would hamper the federal government’s efforts to enforce child support payments and “allow dead-beat dads to walk away from their obligations,” said North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy.

They also criticized the bill’s $12 billion cuts to Medicaid funding over five years and complained about more than $14 billion in student loan reductions at a time when college

costs are soaring. Republicans countered that with this legislation, they were beginning to reform programs so that they help those “truly in need,” said Rep. David Dreier of California.

What’s the best way to increase lifelong learning and earning? Send someone to college. If everyone benefits from having people go to college—the economy lives on increased educational capacity among citizens, not savings on education loans—what is the long-term benefit of cutting student loan funding? In the face of increased competition from overseas workers, it is like abandoning the middle class to the sharks, and all to pay for tax cuts to the rich.
If the rich have extra money to invest, will they put it in under-educated Americans out of a sense of obligation? Not likely.

Technorati Tags: , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic Life

One for the good guys

<![CDATA[Bloggers 1, Campaign Regulators 0:

Some great news out of the Federal Election Commission today. In a unanimous 5-0 vote, the Commission voted to approve an Advisory Opinion for FiredUp, agreeing that the partisan Democratic sites were entitled to the “press exemption” from campaign finance regulations.

People get to talk, without declaring they have donated to the campaigns they talk about.

Technorati Tags: , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic Life

The war of the middle against the ends

<![CDATA[Doc Searls has an important article up on Linux Journal, Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes, that everyone concerned about the future of the Web should read.
The nut of the story is that the carriers, represented by the troglodytic Ed Whiteacre, CEO of SBC Communications, are trying to take control of the data flowing over their “pipes,” taking a share of revenues generated by third-parties like Google, Yahoo! and Vonage, to name a few. The carriers are are at sea having over-built their infrastructure for a network dominated by the center, where companies use carrier hosting facilities to talk to carrier customers. That network didn’t happen.
Whiteacre recently grunted the following to Businessweek:

How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

Now, if you are like me, you’re paying a handsome fee for bandwidth already. Why on earth would Whiteacre think he needs a share of the value created by the services that I access on the Net? As Doc explains, correctly, it’s basically because he and the other carriers are insanely greedy. They over-built bandwidth capacity, from a demand perspective, at least, in the 1990s, and now the price they can get is lower than they would like. That hasn’t prevented SBC and its peers from making money, but they’d like to have oil industry profits, I guess.
Whiteacre and carriers who want to tie the services flowing over their infrastructures are trying to make it happen by embedding themselves in the data they carry. They do this by, among other things, making proprietary protocols mandatory, working to prevent alternative local access such as municipal Wi-Fi and collaborating with other major industries—Hollywood and big media—to enforce end-to-end systems customers must buy and use with no choice. For example, as ZDNet’s David Berlind wrote recently, “As if it isn’t bad enough that certain Congresspeople are looking to stifle fair use rights with broadcast flag related legislation, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are pushing two other fair-use rights limiting bills on Congress.”
The Wall Street Journal today took Whiteacre’s side, arguing:

In an increasingly competitive broadband world, why shouldn’t providers be able to tailor their services as they see fit, with customers choosing to patronize them or not? If a customer wants all 40 megabits of bandwidth for unrestricted use, somebody will provide it for a price. There’s also a technical consideration here: When consumers suddenly have a vaster pipe at their disposal, a lot of giant applications could quickly jam up the Internet unless service providers have an incentive to artfully manage traffic by storing frequently requested material on lots of local servers.

There are two arguments here. First, that competition is good, which is true, though the scenario described by Journal editorial writer Holman Jenkins doesn’t actually involve competition. Instead, we’re talking about bundling, where “basic” services come with a carrier restriction that requires whatever flows over the pipe provide revenue to the carrier, in addition to the payment from the customer who bought the data service in the first place. Someone might offer 40 Mbps for “unrestricted use,” but if the carrier controls the options available to the end user, only the carrier is making choices about the services available.
Second, Jenkins is raising the bogey of an Internet “jam up” because of inefficient allocation of capacity. This is a straw man argument. The early Net had its inefficiencies and the carriers built plenty of capacity to keep up at the backbone, but never built last-mile services that really address people’s needs (I still can’t get fast upstream connectivity without paying for T1 or better level synchronous services). The carriers built a network for big companies at the middle to deliver “stuff” to people, but did not make it possible for people to offer stuff efficiently until blogging, P2P, and Bittorrent came along as workarounds to narrow bandwidth at the edges of the network. Yet, being good at delivering bandwidth is exactly what the carriers are supposed to be. They aren’t, and now hope to prevent people from organizing municipal networks to go around them with laws local and national.
Doc writes, introducing his most important concept to this argument, the metaphors we can use to assure there is a commons, a place, a frontier and a marketplace on/in/of the Net (Doc and I have a long-shared passion for the work of George Lakoff):

The problem is that all of these battling companies–plus the regulators–hate the Net.

Maybe hate is too strong of a word. The thing is, they’re hostile to it, because they don’t get it. Worse, they only get it in one very literal way. See, to the carriers and their regulators, the Net isn’t a world, a frontier, a marketplace or a commons. To them, the Net is a collection of pipes. Their goal is to beat the other pipe-owners. To do that, they want to sell access and charge for traffic.

There’s nothing wrong with being in the bandwidth business, of course. But some of these big boys want to go farther with it. They don’t see themselves as a public utility selling a pure base-level service, such as water or electricity (which is what they are, by the way, in respect to the Net). They see themselves as a source of many additional value-adds, inside the pipes. They see opportunities to sell solutions to industries that rely on the Net–especially their natural partner, the content industry.

They see a problem with freeloaders. On the tall end of the power curve, those ‘loaders are AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large sources of the container cargo we call “content”. Out on the long tail, the freeloaders are you and me. The big ‘loaders have been getting a free ride for too long and are going to need to pay. The Information Highway isn’t the freaking interstate. It’s a system of private roads that needs to start charging tolls. As for the small ‘loaders, it hardly matters that they’re a boundless source of invention, innovation, vitality and new business. To the carriers, we’re all still just “consumers”. And we always will be.

The Net always wins when it gets the chance. Carriers wanting to be the choke point must be stopped so the Net has a chance to compete and win.
At the dawn of the consumer Internet, AT&T, Sony and a klatch of companies backed the idea of an intelligent network powered by a proprietary protocol and tools created by General Magic. They spent billions on General Magic, devices that ran General Magic software and network services, and what they described enabling sounds a lot like what we call Web 2.0 today. It was a closed system and the challenge of getting into the developer program, gaining support and resources on the network, were incredibly high, so only the largest software companies stood a chance on the General Magic-enabled network.
The Net, by contrast, was the wild, wild West, unsettled, unclaimed, and it was an inviting and cheap place to build interesting stuff, from tools and features to content. Anyone could try and, as a result, anyone could succeed. The Net won, the General Magic network disappeared, along with every other proprietary network as CompuServe and even AOL embraced Internet Protocol services to a lesser or greater degree—and eventually they all took to IP to the greater degree.
The Net wins through diversity. For Doc, this is the key message, that the structure of the Net must be free of choke points that prevent customers from choices. He writes:

We need to make clear that the Public Domain is the market’s underlying geology–a place akin to the ownerless bulk of the Earth–rather than a public preserve in the midst of private holdings. This won’t be easy, but it can be done.

We need to stress the fact that the primary “end” in the Net’s end-to-end architecture is the individual. The Net’s success is due far more to the freedoms enjoyed by individuals than to the advantages enjoyed by large companies whose existence predates the Net.

We need to remind policy makers that the Net’s biggest success stories–Amazon, Google, eBay and Yahoo–are the stories of Bezos, Page, Brin, Omidyar, Yang and Filo.

We need to make clear that the Net is the best public place ever created for private enterprise, and that the success of the Net owes infinitely more to personal initiative than to the mesh of pipes in the ground beneath it.

Of the metaphors Doc offers, I like “frontier” best: It speaks to the unbridled opportunity for those who choose to go forth and compete. “Commons” is an important element of this vision, but a commons is a shared space where everyone in the community can make use of the resources—a commons is an IP-based world where differentiation takes place through individual servers (or clusters of them) in open communication with end-user devices. These services may be open or closed, kinds of monocultures in competition, but they have equal access to the market, the customer and the market and customer have equally convenient access, with a carrier “tax” on the value created, to those services. The “commons” is a place where many monocultures can be practiced concurrently, a polyculture, the “frontier” is where people can offer and choose their monocultures and thrive based on those choices.
The frontier is open to individuals and companies with economic plans and commercial services, regardless of their size. A choke point on network access points is intolerable but a world where we can choose to “lock in” to a service we trust on the open Net is the bedrock of a competitive marketplace—of products and services as well as ideas.
The feedback I offered to Doc and that I want to add to the discussion here is that he is setting up an us vs. them that assumes the companies on the Net are “better” than other companies. This is a mistake. Companies like Google, Amazon, EBay, Yahoo, Skype, and others are the results of individual entrepreneurial work, certainly, but so are other companies. Alexander Graham Bell founded AT&T, for example.
There is a point where the entity becomes not people, but entity unto itself. By the logic of Doc’s contrasting logic, Tellywood is Spielberg, Lucas and Chaplin. So, where is the transition from personal story of the entrepreneur to the corporate story of potentially abusive practices complete? Google’s privacy policy, to flog that horse for example, is incredibly weak, yet they want to index our stuff to better target advertising (by the way, I am about ready to remove Google AdSense ads from this blog—the value of page exposures I give to the message “Ads by Google” seems greater than what they pay me for clicks each month).
It’s a mistake to assume a superior moral compass in companies because you know their founders or are their contemporaries and admire them. Doc points to Google’s plan to offer “free” wireless services all over the world—this primarily organizing local access offered by others—as a more enlightened approach to the business of connectivity.
However, Google’s network plans involve users downloading a virtual private network (VPN) client which for all intents and purposes is a choke point at least as onerous as a carrier’s forcing certain services on you through a local physical Internet connection. No VPN client, no connectivity to the network. Google will watch your traffic, target advertising to you, provide a bundle of services through the VPN client, including Google Talk, the would-be Google Office will eventually be part of the offering. It’s a form of tying, the essence of antitrust. Basically, however, your data becomes Google’s in exchange for the access provided through the network it organizes. That may seem tame today, but in a world where data is the raw material of value, it is an intolerably powerful position for a company which has no obligation to anyone other than its shareholders—like other companies, carriers and General Motors.
Google claims to be not evil. By contrasting the Net versus Control-by-Carriers Doc bless the Net competitors based on their DNA, failing to account for the effects of evolution. Google will eventually be completely isolated from its founders. If all we do is move from carriage of bits to carriage of personal data in trade for access to information, we swap one group of tyrants for others. What if we assume, instead, that the place is open, that we must make our choices as customers, mixing the monocultures we engage with (choice, and Google is a monoculture), to maximize our freedom? That covers our relationships with the carriers and the Net players, treating them all as potentially powerful despots.
Yes, I distrust power. Always have, always will. I trust people to make smart decisions about their relationships with power and in commerce. Pretty much every company, given enough power, can exert ferocious influence over the economy and polity. We have to ensure that we do not hand over our future to companies, but keep the power firmly in our own hands. An environment where people in their role as citizens and customers are free to choose to organize themselves and with whom to do business with and the terms they will accept is absolutely essential to society’s continuing evolution.
A network that values the ends of the system—where people decide their own relationships—over any company that purports to provide end-to-end connectivity to people and information (the very definition of what we call Web 2.0) is the egalitarian platform Doc wants, that we need. We don’t need Web 2.0 if it comes with a new generation of potential benevolent despots. If Google wins your trust, lock in to them, but don’t ask me to because you believe they are the right choice for me.
David Isenberg, author of the seminal paper The Rise of the Stupid Network, provides the simplest definition of what we need, network neutrality:

Network neutrality is simple. It is simply content and application agnosticism. When a network operator deliberately introduces an impairment in their network aimed at specific applications or classes of applications, that violates network neutrality.

Blocking Port 25 violates network neutrality. Introducing upstream jitter deliberately to make third-party VOIP impossible violates network neutrality. Detecting Skype and blocking it violates network neutrality. The broadcast flag violates network neutrality. Capping long downloads to discourage TV over IP violates network neutrality. These fail the content and application agnosticism test. But saying “don’t run a server,” in a service agreement is not a violation of network neutrality. It is just garden variety discrimination.

Doc’s piece is an important call to action, but let’s be skeptical of the Net companies, too.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Everything Else Impolitic

Only Socratics plan conversations

<![CDATA[palmit.commentary: Blogosphere Smackdown or Calculated Marketing Effort:
Cale Bruckner sort of corrects his assertions that I am a “blogger-for-hire” or PR flack, and asks whether we should come up with a name other than “viral marketing” for what transpired on this blog and others earlier this week. I agree, but we should just call it conversation. Anyhow, Cale’s off to Japan, but I think it’s a worthwhile discussion to have, because what we’ve seen is that there is a pretty classic example of defensive group-think in blogging, just like any other human society.
Here’s Cale’s amended posting:

Blogosphere Smackdown or Calculated Marketing Effort

Set the stage by announcing a product or a service that bloggers might have an interest in.
Audible – WordCast Announcement

Hire Allow somebody with zero PR skills to represent you in the
Blogosphere – somebody more interested in promoting their technorati profile than your product or service: Mitch Ratcliffe

Blogebrity (top bloggers) blog and podcast about the announcement:

• Jeff Jarvis responds 11/11:
Measuring Podcasts

• Dave Winer responds 11/12:
If it’s not MP3, is it still podcasting?

• Om Malik 11/13:
Audible’s unPodcast effort?

• Doc Searl 11/14:
The Past of Podcasting

Blogger-for-hire posts the post that really heats things up (roasting Blogebrity) and the Blogosphere Smackdown begins 11/13: See
More on the future of podcasting – the good stuff is in the comments.

Or, was this a calculated marketing effort that unfolded exactly the way Mitch and Audible wanted it to. Mitch’s inflammatory posts and comments created a ton of free buzz around the Audible announcement. Did Dave, Om, Doc Searl, and others play right into a calculated marketing effort? I guess it would be a form of viral marketing – or, does it deserve a new name.

And here is my response:
Thanks for the corrections, though you’ve chosen to be clever rather than completely accurate. It would be good, however, to discuss the meaning of what happened, because you’re correct that it deserves a name other than “viral marketing,” if for no other reason than I am clearly not a marketer.
You still seem set on the idea I am a “blogger-for-hire,” which I am not. I engaged Dave as one person working on a technology to another, he tried to bite me and I bit back. You say this the result of my “inflammatory” postings, but if you go look at the record (clearly visible on my blog home page, not just the link you provided, which is, admittedly, a pretty nasty flame of Dave, though one aiming at his claim to be able to judge a business opportunity and not a personal attack)—you will find:
<
p style=”text-indent:20pt”>
1.) I was pointing to posters, even critical ones, and just answering questions.

2.) Dave started with the first of his postings, calling Audible “shitty” and suggesting things as fact which were not correct.

3.) When I responded to him, he flamed me, I responded to him, pointing out he was really pissed off about my criticizing him for his Microsoft “leak” exclusive.

4.) Dave fired back that “if it isn’t MP3 it isn’t podcasting,” made a second posting about how poorly Audible’s business is doing (inaccurate).

5.) Dave also posted a defense of his Microsoft exclusive, amazingly repeating other people’s criticisms (including mine) as the explanation for the “leak” to justify his promoting the documents as a leaked exclusive.

6.) Then I posted the response you point to. So, is this a case of my being inflammatory or standing up to someone who could have used their position in the blogosphere to dismiss something I worked to create by burying it under false information and abusive language?

7.) Of course, fireworks followed and followed and followed.
By contrast to Dave Winer, Jeff Jarvis, another critic, and I engaged in a very constructive dialogue across both our blogs.
This has nothing to do with PR, and if you’d look at my background you will find that what I do is write honestly, granted not always politely, because I don’t tolerate rudeness, especially from folks in a position to be generous. In the meantime, you attribute to “blogebrity” a status that is out of proportion to their role in the market, as they may have traffic, but they are not invariably correct. The fact we all can talk back is what makes this a completely interesting medium, sometimes.
The outcome of the discussion—the flame war, too—is that many folks commenting on blogs are saying “Hey, wait, Dave’s wrong.” And they go on to actually start thinking and talking about the potential of MP3, Audible’s service and other approaches to allowing those who choose to dedicate themselves to audio production to make some or all of a living from it.
Finally, was it a calculated marketing plan? Absolutely not. However, I did know with whom to talk to get the greatest coverage across the blogosphere, which is what anyone who wants to succeed in society has to do in order to maximize the returns on their efforts, whether at a cocktail party or in a network conversation. That’s the art of living in conversational markets.
I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on this….everyone. I’m thinking of writing it up as a case study on social influence networks, because it verifies a number of things we’ve been learning from data collected by the Persuadio social analytics system.
UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis says I’m throwing more wood on the fire. Well, it’s getting cold at night, so gather round for some chatter…..
Been thinking more about this, the question Cale raised was: “Was what happened the product of a ‘strategy’?” The answer is no, because it was not a chore, but honest, friction-filled human communication that was not a chore one decides to undertake as part of a product launch (see Robert Scoble and Shel Israel on how blogging does not integrate, which is another way of saying, conversations can’t be planned). I was just talking about the product and standing up to a bully—the groupthink I referred to in this posting is the tendency of people to avoid criticizing A-listers and to agree with or defend A-Listers to gain linkage.
Finally, “PR” is traditionally thought about as happy talk, getting people talking about all the good things about a product. This whole kerfuffle (great word, don’t get it use it enough), as Jeff calls it, is unPR, people actually talking. I wonder if it could be made a “strategy” (read “chore“) or whether it is essential that such conversations take place among the principals of project/product teams, which leaves dedicated PR out in the cold to a large degree.
UPDATE2: Micro Persuasion: Audible’s Black Friday: A Case Study in PR vs. BR:
Via Jeff Jarvis. Steve Rubel has an analysis of the Wordcast metalogue of last week. Please go read Steve’s piece, as I respond here.
Interesting analysis, but what is Steve’s take on the discussion as compared to his conclusion about Audible’s format? If by “recovering” he means Audible could change the offering, then the company is listening and gathered a lot of feedback in the last week that it is acting on. If by “recovering” he mean they could change their PR effort, that would be another thing, because my role was not to be the PR interface. Like Dave Winer, I just blog about stuff I help build.
There was no agency involved and my role was as a designer of the service, not to handle PR. It’s virtually impossible to brief Dave, as he has announced his dislike for Audible. What is the benefit of treating reactionary critics like the WSJ, exactly?
That said, I chose to blog about it and got exactly what I expected, which was a reactionary response rather than a constructive one from Dave.
Jeff, Doc and others engaged in a discussion about it, though, and the takeaway from comments on my blog and various other blogs is that, on the whole, Audible did the right thing to push the market toward measurement.
Of course, when we were designing Wordcast we knew the format would be an issue, but the problem it solves is one that is not solvable with the MP3 format. If the market chooses to work with Audible, then Audible “wins,” but if only part of the market does it also wins and others will come along with alternative approaches. This is the essence of competition/ What won’t happen is continued format stagnation and ad rates can start to find the appropriate price based on their auditability or the inability to audit listenership.
As a nine-year-old format, .aa’s not new, but Audible is working to make it available to everyone for the first time. How is that a mistake?
I read every posting Steve points to and many more. No one was “outraged” that the Wordcast service would require the .aa format, because everyone understands that it’s a service hosted by Audible to provide hosting and measurement, not a competitor in the MP3 market. People don’t particularly care about the same conditions when you make a call to Google, Amazon.com or EBay’s APIs—you get data in their formats and are limited as to what you can do with it—people really dont’ seem to be outraged about that. iTunes isn’t hurting, either, for that matter and by working with Audible a podcaster is in a position to penetrate the metrics black hole that is iTunes.
What people do seem to be outraged by is the fact someone stood up to Dave and others to correct a number of inaccurate statements about the product that were meant to dismiss it (such as Om Malik’s comparison to Fruitcast, which is a very different service that includes no hosting or auditing, only ad insertion).

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic

Flu and world economic patterns

<![CDATA[Flu pandemic could KO airlines – Yahoo! News:

A mild global flu pandemic could present a buying opportunity for stock investors, while a severe outbreak could see profound changes in the world economy, according to a global Citigroup strategy note released on Thursday.

It’s certain that airline stocks are going to remain depressed and volatile until the world has a viable system for managing a pandemic rather than a series of stop-gap national measures. Moreover, the potential for stock valuations is more uncertain than Citigroup appears to allow in the research note, since they are only looking at a scenario where demand is impacted. What if an executive team from a major company traveling for business comes down with the flu and much of a corporate leadership team is decimated—flu deaths happen in clumps, they are not spread evenly across the population—which could tank a particular stock while the rest of the market is only mildly impacted by flu.

Technorati Tags: , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement

So we will rewrite history ourselves

<![CDATA[Cheney says war critics ‘dishonest, reprehensible’ – Yahoo! News:

“The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history,” said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq’s weapons program.

Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war “is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this

city.”

Well, Dick Cheney would know reprehensible, having dished his share of lies and rewritings of history over the years. But, frankly, Mr. Vice President, you can cry foul and invoke the troops all you want, but we—Americans and the world—know you took those troops into harm’s way for reasons that served your political purposes more than the national security.
You got caught, take responsibility and let’s move on with extracting the United States from Iraq without leaving Iraq a physical and political ruin. Leadership means admitting mistakes, learning from them and moving on. By dwelling on the pre-war record, arguing over whether they made mistakes, the Administration is actually making a bad situation worse.
When are the President and Vice President going to address what’s going on today?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic

Your authority will expire in the morning, when new authorities will arrive with lawyers and money

<![CDATA[The authority of anti-authority Todd Gitlin – openDemocracy:

The attack on elitism, exploited most impressively by the right, is probably an inevitable consequence of egalitarianism. Insofar as human dignity is a value, the disrespect of any opinion, however ill-founded, looks impermissible. But insofar as egalitarianism is taken to imply that all opinions are equally valuable, it succumbs to the mass engineering of consent and the undermining of reason by sensation in an omnipresent, torrential popular culture, with all the attendant demagogueries.

Todd Gitlin argues, with reason methinks, that the anti-authoritarian 60s gave rise the anti-science, anti-liberal 00s. The problem with the revolution is that it always ends and someone else is in charge when it’s over.
Permanent revolution would allow ongoing argument about the value of ideas and things, not just simple renegotiation ever generation or two.

Technorati Tags: , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement

Cheney Love: It's something in the water?

<![CDATA[Some Westerners Still Like Our Veep:

There are just three states in the U.S. where a majority of residents now approve of the job being done by Vice President Dick Cheney — and they’re all right here in the New West. According to the latest polling results from SurveyUSA, residents of Wyoming, Utah and Idaho are the only ones who still give Cheney an approval rating of more than 50%.

The Snake River drainage seems to be infected with some kind of alien virus.

Technorati Tags:

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Impolitic Life

Why advertising networks should not be political networks

<![CDATA[Adrants » Liberal Ad Network Boots Bloggers, Threatens Advertisers:

While all politics are, well, political and most conversation between various entities clinging to one ideological party or another amounts to nothing more than bickering between middle school kids trying to prove who’s cooler, a situation has arisen over at the BlogAds Liberal Advertising Network that’s causing a bit of bitchy buzz. Rogers Cadenhead reports he’s been kicked out of the network, along with Retort, Raw Story and Smirking Chimp, by network organizers Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD which I always thought was a blog about bra size but, surprise, actually focuses on politics.

It’s amazing, the blogosphere has found ways to compound the problems of previous media, run through whole cycles of history in months, and think that the lessons learned are absolutely new. There is a very simple reason why there are no political ad placement networks and, instead, political campaigns buy ads on networks: Editorial and advertising are best separated.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

]]>

Categories
Brilliant Human Achievement Business Impolitic

RIP, Peter Drucker

<![CDATA[Peter Drucker dies at 95:

Peter Drucker, the most influential management writer of the modern era, has died age 95.

Great man, great ideas that have been immensely important to the world and myself. RIP.
Nova Spivack writes movingly about his grandfather’s passing.

Technorati Tags: ,

]]>