Event Horizon

Memorial Day

In Memoriam

Idol Thoughts

 

I have a confession to make, I've been watching American Idol for the past couple of weeks. Long time readers of this blog will know that I really dislike reality TV, mostly because it's changed the TV network landscape by making programming much cheaper for networks in a time of declining ad revenue, forcing them to rethink broadcasting regular dramatic series (which are more expensive to produce) and creating an artificial (and arbitrary) expectation for the ratings they expect from series TV. I tend to see reality TV as junk food and regular dramatic series as a full meal, and naturally, these attract different kinds of viewers and should not be evaluated according to the same standards. The networks should not introduce a new dramatic series, put it on for a few episodes and then cancel it because it did not provide the appropriate ratings buildup for the reality show that followed (as NBC did with Kings) on the schedule. I don't think you can make that kind of linkage when you are talking about different kinds of shows. No matter how good the drama is, I'm not sticking around for the next iteration of Dancing With America's Favorite Celebrity Dog. In general, I would prefer to see more dramatic episodic programming rather than more reality TV shows.

So, how do I explain my recent interest in Idol? I blame Susan Boyle. After watching the video of the Scottish singing sensation, I thought it might be interesting to see what the Americans were up to, so I started watching Idol. I've been very impressed with the contestants and not so impressed with the judges. The contestants having been very talented and although I have not always agreed with the votes (I thought Allison Iraheta showed more talent than Gokey or Allen), I have been impressed with their potential. As for the judges, I think they display a marked lack of professionalism in their comments and demeanor and I can forgive the contestants if they feel they are not getting the artistic feedback from them that they deserve. I really dislike the way the judges have fawned over Adam Lambert. I think Lambert is phenomenal and deserves to win, but the judges should really show more professional objectivity and restraint. It's unlikely that I'll continue watching Idol after this season, but I do plan on following the careers of Lambert, Allen and Iraheta and hope to hear good things from them in the future.

Photo: AP Photo/Fox, Frank Micelotta

Star Trek Returns

As you may have heard, the new Star Trek movie opens today. As a longtime fan, I have a lot of trepidation about this move. Yes, I accept that the franchise needed a reboot, that last movie was horrible, but I'm concerned about the idea of a prequel. A prequel looks to the past, and Star Trek has always been about looking toward the future. I will definitely see this movie, and so far, the reviews I've read have almost all been very positive, so there is reason to hope that this movie will be a giant step forward for the franchise and not a step backward. When I see this movie I will hoping to see if it lives up to the Star Trek dream, those enduring elements that have made Star Trek a cultural phenomenon and touchstone. If I had to define those key elements crucial to the success and enduring power of the Star Trek vision I would say that they are:

• Optimism: Above all else, Star Trek is an optimistic vision of humanity reaching out and exploring the cosmos. Science fiction has given us many dark and disturbing tales of the future, dystopias reflecting our deepest fears, while Star Trek was a utopian vision of humanity successfully overcoming our present social, economic and political problems to chart a course for the stars. This MSNBC report suggests that this utopian vision of the future may not be so unrealistic. I certainly hope it's not, but even if it is, I think the vision is one worth working towards.

• Technology: The technology envisioned by the Star Trek series was futuristic to be sure, but it was also an extrapolation of known science, making it something we could well imagine actually using one day. The technological and engineering feats of the series inspired generations of real scientists and engineers who have actively worked to bring Star Trek tech to reality. The modern cell phone you have now is a direct decedent of the communicator that Captain Kirk used to signal the Enterprise. See this Computerworld report for a look at how Star Trek and other sci-fi films have given us visions of tech tomorrows that are close to true today.

• Relationships: More than the optimism and the technology, it was the close relationships among the characters that really powered the Star Trek series. The interplay of complex personal backgrounds as well as interspecies and cross-cultural relationships provided ample drama as well as light comic moments that proved the series was far more than space battles and explosions.

I am looking forward to seeing the new Star Trek movie and hoping against hope that it will live up to the rich legacy of Star Trek while introducing Trek to a new generation of moviegoers. My hope for Star Trek is that it will indeed live long and prosper.

Photo: MTV.COM

Can The Kindle Save Newspapers?

I've blogged about the future of newspapers before (here and here) and so I thought I'd take a moment to point out that it may well be that Amazon has just unveiled the future of newspapers. The new version of the Kindle promises a larger screen and capacious storage along with wireless downloads that will allow readers to have over 3,000 books and publications on a device that is thinner than a magazine. They are marketing the new and improved Kindle to students (hoping to replace textbooks) as well as newspaper and magazine subscribers. I think this is a forward looking technology, with an emphasis on future potential, because right now the device is a bit too expensive for the average student or reader. I'd like to see Amazon dramatically reduce the price and have newspaper and magazine publishers subsidize this device in order to grow their market. Because they already have content they can sell to consumers, their number one goal should be to get the device into the hands of as many people as possible. Transitioning to the Kindle would have huge benefits for major national newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, they could dramatically slash printing and distribution costs. Perhaps they could buy the product from Amazon and lease them to consumers for the life of their paid subscription? Unfortunately, I fear that the major national newspapers will take a "wait and see" approach to this new technology and the moment will pass them by. Still, no one will be able to say, when the last print newspaper folds, that there were no alternatives. And it probably goes without saying that at some future point of technological convergence the Kindle will morph with the new netbooks and become an even better tool for reading and writing. Let the new age of letters begin.

Thinking About Twitter

On a day when Oprah sent her first tweet and Ashton Kutcher won his race with CNN to boast 1 million Twitter followers it's more than time to give some thought to the Twitter phenomenon. I've been on Twitter for about a year or so (say hi to me @utopian) it's not entirely new to me, but I'm as impressed as anyone with the remarkable growth of the service. I use it mostly to share links that interest me, as well as sharing the more mundane details of life. I like the idea that it's so collaborative, that you can share with others and get replies from them, and I like that it amplifies the voice of every person in the public square we call cyberspace. It doesn't mean people are shouting, it means you merely speak and someone hears you, you may speak of very important topics or trivial topics, and you will be heard, and what's more, your words may change minds and lives...if only for a moment. You can bring a smile to a readers face, you may inspire emotion or action, and that, I think, is the real power of Twitter. In the past, the average person's sphere of influence, whether in their family or around the water cooler, was limited to a small circle of people. Now, one person can share their thoughts with many and it takes only seconds. How much power does this give one person to inform, to educate, to mobilize others? Just ask any of those whose lives will be saved from malaria because of the mosquito nets purchased by Ashton Kutcher and CNN after their quest to recruit one million followers on Twitter. How will you use your Twitter power?

When Bad News Is Good News

According to this report in The New York Times, investors may be on the verge of dispelling the cloud of gloom and doom they have been under. Why? Because they recently received some bad news about the economy, but it was not as bad as they expected, so they celebrated and hoped for the end of the downturn:

General Electric, the blue-chip corporation, was stripped of its triple-A credit rating, an emblem of business prowess it proudly held since 1956. But its rating fell just one notch, less than some analysts predicted. Shares of G.E. soared 13 percent. The Commerce Department reported that retail sales fell slightly in February — again, less than forecast. And the head of the beleaguered Bank of America said the lender probably would not need more government money, but other banks might. Less bad was good enough. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 239.66 points, or 3.46 percent, to 7,170.06. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index leaped 29.38 points, or 4.07 percent, to 750.74. The Nasdaq composite index rose 54.46 points, or 3.97 percent, to 1,426.10.

The report goes on to note that a recovery is not imminent and that these kinds of booms are common in recessions. On a day when President Barack Obama's top economic adviser warned of a cycle of fear that must be broken, I just wanted to report some good news and do my part to break the cycle.

Another Newspaper Folds

In the news today, the death of news, in the form of the end of a major daily newspaper. I've previously noted the troubles the newspaper industry is having and so this news comes as no real surprise. Still, it seems like an important event for our culture and our way of life, to say nothing of the health of our democracy. Am I worried? No, not really, there are so many more media outlets now than there used to be that I'm taking a very contrarian view of the popular lament over the end of newspapers. The newspaper business merely needs to adjust to new market realities, I have confidence that they will survive in some form. There will always be a market for news, they just need to figure it out. Perhaps they need to stop printing newspapers, just get away from paper and save that expense and go totally digital.This report from The Business Insider points out the ridiculous cost of using dead trees to share news in the digital age:

Not that it's anything we think the New York Times Company should do, but we thought it was worth pointing out that it costs the Times about twice as much money to print and deliver the newspaper over a year as it would cost to send each of its subscribers a brand new Amazon Kindle instead. [...] What we're trying to say is that as a technology for delivering the news, newsprint isn't just expensive and inefficient; it's laughably so.

The New York Times Company is not going to send every subscriber an e-text reader, but they should immediately offer subscribers the option of receiving digital delivery instead of paper. Every newspaper should do this ASAP. And by digital I mean every conceivable form of digital delivery they can manage to negotiate a contract for. I want to go to iTunes and buy a daily paper, any paper, and read it on my cell phone or computer, and if I'm paying for it, I want the paid version to offer exclusive content not available on the free website.

Newspapers need to understand one very important thing, they have always been in the community business, and community is what Web 2.0 is all about. They need to leverage the new social networking services to rebuild on the web the local community people used to enjoy reading their local newspaper. A big city daily newspaper was like the heartbeat of a city, it reflected the culture and sensibility of the area, and that needs to be recreated on the web. A digital newspaper should be a community portal offering news, opinion, shopping and entertainment and all scaled in a manner friendly to any user at any level, from plain text to Second Life-like virtual environments. And let's not forget one-click no hassle online subscriptions with options for every budget. I'm convinced that if they take this path, they will survive. If they think they must continue to follow the old business model based on a printed product funded by advertising and meagerly supplemented by subscription fees, then they will fail.

Creating Jobs, Rebuilding the Economy

I've been reviewing the stimulus plan being considered by Congress and even though I really hate to say it, I agree with the Republicans, I don't see a lot here to create jobs. For example, take a look at this comparison of House and Senate bills from Reuters. Where is the job creating portion of the plan? I see money there for rebuilding infrastructure, and that's great, that will definitely put some people to work. But what about those people not already skilled in construction and manual labor, where are their jobs? And as for the rest of the proposed spending, it's hard to see where the jobs will be created. The spending proposals are commendable and things that should receive money at some point, but we need a balance between funding for economic stimulus and funding that will generate jobs. For example, take a look at this report from The AP which notes increases in funding for student aid and university building projects. Both are very worthwhile efforts to support, but aside from keeping students in school and out of the labor force (no need to add to the competition for scare jobs) and the few localized construction jobs, I fail to see where the jobs are being created on a large scale by this specific funding. We need job creation on a national scale, not just in college towns.

It has been said that the vast majority of Americans are employed by small businesses, so I'd like to propose a simple plan to stimulate job creation by small businesses. I suggest in addition to the stimulus spending already proposed we have a one year income tax holiday for new businesses created in 2009 that employ fewer than ten people. And before you say that the federal government and local governments need that income tax revenue, let me point out that this tax break would be for NEW businesses, so the government is not getting any money from them now...you can't lose what you don't have. And when those businesses survive and establish themselves, they will then be paying taxes and supporting their communities. Moreover, their employees will have a steady paycheck and the consumer confidence to go out into the marketplace and start buying again, which really needs to happen. Let's actively promote the creation of new businesses in every town and city in this country by giving them a one year tax holiday. Whose with me?

Inauguration '09

I was finally able to watch the inauguration. I was at work yesterday and thought I'd watch it online. I first tried CNN but the quality of the feed was terrible, so I switched the MSNBC and that was a little better, but it was clear that the demand was straining their servers. I had to wait until much later in the day, after I got home, to watch the recording of it. My reaction? A profound sense of wonder at the spectacle of American democracy and a great sense of hope for the country, coupled with a sense of thankfullness to the guiding hand of Providence so often acknowledged by the Founders. Slavery has been called America's original sin, and in the election of Barack Obama we have a historic moment of atonement, an affirmation of that great ideal, so long sullied by our history, that all men truly are created equal.

Jericho Lives!

Jericho was one of my favorite shows and a great example of the sad tendency of my favorite shows to be quickly cancelled by the reality TV-loving networks. Jericho was the show that did well in the ratings, was killed, came back, and was killed again, and it may be, well, back again (cinemarealm - Forget the odds, Jericho lives!):

Jericho, the twice-cancelled CBS series best known for the most passionate fanbase seen and felt in recent decades, is officially back from the dead - for the third time. Executive producer Jon Turteltaub broke the news to iFMagazine earlier today while promoting his upcoming horror/mystery series Harper’s Island, which is expected to premiere on CBS in April. “We’re developing a feature for Jericho“, he said. “It would not require you to have seen the TV show, but it [would] get into life after an event like this on a national scale. It would be the bigger, full on American version of what’s going on beyond the town in Jericho.”

The show is in reruns on the CW network and there is also the potential, after the feature, that the series itself could return to prime time. I've discussed the merits of Jericho before and so I just want to take this opportunity to recommend this series to you as a quality drama featuring a great ensemble cast given some thought provoking material to bring to life every week. The show was badly mistreated by their original network and deserved much more promotion and advertising than they received. I hope things will work out better this time.

Gaza, Hamas and the End of the Peace Process

I've been watching the global protests over the Israeli incursion into Gaza with dismay. I don't find much to protest in Israel's assertive self-defense, but apparently many do (CNN - World rallies around Palestinians amid Gaza offensive):

Israeli attacks on suspected Hamas strongholds in Gaza have triggered protests in more than a dozen countries. [...] In London, England, dozens of protesters gathered outside the Israeli Embassy, waving flags and trying to push their way closer to the building, as police tried to hold them back and erect a barricade. Police in Germany said about 2,000 protesters marched peacefully down Berlin's Kurfuerstendamm Boulevard and dispersed after about three hours. Protesters also have taken to the streets in Denmark, France, Italy and Spain, according to news reports. There also were reports of demonstrations in Caracas, Venezuela.

The key point of protest seems to be the number of Palestinian civilian casualties, but the media conveniently ignores the fact that the Palestinians are doing all they can to maximize civilian casualties, as this report in The New York Times makes clear. As a military tactic, it makes sense to launch rockets from civilian areas and store weapons in civilian buildings (hospitals, schools and mosques) because it forces Israel to attack those sites and suffer global condemnation for the resulting carnage, but from a humanitarian perspective, I'd have to say that Hamas is showing more disregard for their people than the Israelis are.

This report suggests that Israel is now at a decisive moment, they must decide to accept a ceasefire and hope that they have damaged Hamas enough to stop the incessant rocket attacks, or press on and achieve a true military victory over Hamas. For the sake of the peace process, I hope they press on. Why? Consider that the peace process is based on the idea of land for peace: Israel will give up land and in exchange there will be the "two-state solution" of two states living side-by-side in peace. Now consider these facts:

• Israel won Gaza from Egypt in the Six Day War in 1967 and instead of returning the territory to Egypt they gave it to the Palestinians in 2005, an expression of support for the principle of land-for-peace. Gaza therefore became a test case for the idea of land-for-peace: if Israel gives up land, will there be peace?
• Hamas ran in parliamentary elections in 2006 on a war platform: they reject the peace process and reject peace with Israel, their goal is to impose an Islamic state in place of Israel. The majority of Palestinians voted FOR Hamas and so they won their election. In a wonderful and commendable act of imperial hubris the U.S. and the West decided to ignore this untenable outcome even though it is now clear that the majority of Palestinians would vote to reject the peace process if they could.
• Hamas moved into Gaza in 2007 in defiance of Fatah, the rival Palestinian political party/militia ruling in the West Bank, and began importing weapons from Iran via Syria and in tunnels across the border with Egypt. Hamas had an opportunity to begin to prepare their people in Gaza for the two-state solution and instead of building up their people they built up their armaments and used the territory as a launching pad for rockets attacks on southern Israel.The land-for-peace test case finally had an answer: Israel gave up land to the Palestinians and in return they were attacked.

I conclude from this that the Palestinians are not sincerely interested in peace with Israel and are really seeking peace without Israel. As long as there are armed Palestinian militias that reject the basic foundation of the peace process there can be no hope for peace. Israel must therefore apply the historically tested method for achieving peace: military victory.  I therefore support the escalation of the Gaza incursion with the aim of destroying Hamas as a fighting force, leaving only the other militia, Fatah, as the sole representative of the Palestinians. In this way a peace agreement can rapidly be signed with Fatah, which has been the peace partner all along, and the whole sad chapter of history can be concluded, at least until Iran decides it can't accept both Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state. Hopefully though, that will be a war for a future generation, maybe decades down the line. For now, Hamas must be destroyed, for the sake of Mideast peace.

UPDATE 1/26/09
And a quick follow-up comment to note this report from the Jerusalem Post which notes that even the EU (usually very pro-Palestinian) blames Hamas for the recent Gaza incursion.

Saving The Big Three

According to this video report from NBC News, the White House and Congress are close to announcing a bailout for the big three U.S. automakers:

I have to admit to mixed feelings about a bailout. I don't think it's the American way to reward failure, and I feel this rather intensely after reading this review of the past history of the automakers. On the other hand, I understand that allowing them to fail would have major repercussions for the larger U.S. economy at a time when the economy is already under extreme stress. I'm also a bit concerned that the media has not sufficiently explained why the standard path to bankruptcy and reorganization is not a suitable remedy in this case. After all, our system provides this option for businesses and individuals facing insolvency and it doesn't mean the end, it means reorganization. Just look at that major newspaper publisher that declared bankruptcy yesterday, those newspapers (Chicago Tribune, LA Times) will continue to be published even as the company reorganizes and then emerges from bankruptcy, hopefully in a stronger position. So, I don't have the answer, I have misgivings about another bailout of the auto industry (didn't they already get bailout money just a few weeks ago?) but in the end I'm sure the politicians will vote to save the jobs of taxpaying voters, whether it's the right thing to do is probably something history will have to decide.

Remembering Pearl Harbor

The New York Times On This Day section reminds us that it was on this day in 1941 that Japanese warplanes attacked the home base of the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, drawing the United States into World War II. More than 2,300 Americans were killed.

I had a chance to visit Pearl Harbor and took this picture from inside the Arizona memorial. It was a very moving experience.

The Future of Newspapers

Techdirt has an interesting post about newspapers facing the dilemma of free online content vs. paid subscribers. This comes on top of the recent announcements that PC Magazine and the Christian Science Monitor will end paper publications and move entirely to web based publishing. Changes in the newspaper industry have been dramatic, with declining subscriber rolls and declining ad revenue taking their toll, similar announcements can be expected from other major publications.

I've been keeping up with this issue because I'm a big consumer of news, but it's been quite some time since I subscribed to a traditional newspaper. For me it wasn't so much the cost of a subscription, it was the convenience of online news vs. the tendency of my printed newspapers to stack up until I had a chance to read them. They took up physical space and I felt like I couldn't throw them away until I read them. With news on the internet it's always fresh, you can easily browse archives at your convenience, and it takes up no space.

So, what could a newspaper do to win me back? I think newspapers need to work with the trends, not against them. Basic news should be free, but they can build a revenue model around charging for added services and features. For example, I can get the news from the online version of The New York Times for free, but if they could send me the entire days paper to my e-mail as a PDF or some other easily readable format (to read on a computer, cell, or PDA), I'd be happy to pay around $25 a year for that service. Similarly, if they would allow subscribers to customize the paper, favor some sections and even omit others entirely, I'd be willing to pay for that. And why not sell the days paper on iTunes or Amazon as an e-text? These are examples of how newspapers can work with subscribers to provide features and services that are worth purchasing, even as news as a commodity with infinite supply is necessarily priced at free.

Update: 2/8/09
Time Magazine has a cover story this week on How To Save Your Newspaper, but it doesn't mention the online sales ideas I mentioned, focusing instead on the idea of micropayments. I'm disappointed. I think giving away the news for free but also giving pay subscribers (both paper and electronic) more in-depth content and special services (more for the money) would be a better good way to go than turning to micropayment systems that haven't been proven yet in the hopes that people will pay ten cents for a news report.

Vote!

 

Happy Election Day! I anticipated the long lines and voted early so now I’m just sitting back, eagerly awaiting the ballot counts. There is something truly majestic about the process of democracy. Perhaps it’s merely the mood of the day, but I do tend to get a stirring of patriotic sentiment as I watch the process unfold, the willingness of citizens to brave cold, wind, rain or snow and stand in lines for hours to cast their vote in this orderly nonviolent transition of awesome power. Like many of you, I've lived abroad and in a country where people did not have a say in choosing their leaders. That kind of experiences gives a special appreciation for the rights we have as U.S. citizens. If any of you reading this have not voted, you still have time to take part in this great drama, exercise your right, fulfill your duty, and make your voice heard. Vote!

Ban Ballot Initiatives

This AP report explains why ballot initiatives threaten already fragile state budgets. I've long been opposed to ballot initiatives and this is one reason I'm so against them. If voters mandate state programs by approving ballot measures then state legislatures have to fund them by taking money away from already budgeted programs or borrowing money. It's no way to run a state. The other reason I'm against ballot initiatives is that they run counter to our democratic system. Our system is based on representative democracy not direct democracy, and like many of the Founders I have a great distrust of direct democracy, it's too prone to reckless passion and manipulation. Representative democracy means that state legislatures have time to consider budgets and fund programs based on the established political process, a process that may also lend itself to abuse, but at least allows all the stakeholders and interested parties a voice in the process. The ballot initiatives allow private groups to do an end run around the standard democratic process, and I can't object too strongly to that. I would vote No on all ballot initiatives...except that now they are so deceptively worded that in many cases a No vote is actually a Yes vote. I think the real answer is to start a ballot initiative to ban ballot initiatives. Who's with me?

The Vice Presidential Debate

My initial reaction to the vice presidential debate is that Biden and Palin both won. Neither made any major mistakes and they both hit the important talking points they needed to make to support their candidate and defend their party.

With Palin, I liked how she deflected questions on issues she didn't want to talk about by focusing on her strengths, that' s a real skill in debating. I like how she drilled, drilled, drilled her key themes, and I doubt anyone will walk away from the debate without thinking about McCain as a "maverick" and knowing that "reform" and "change is coming" to Washington. If you repeat keywords often enough, like a political mantra, it helps frame perceptions, even if it does become a bit annoying in a debate. I didn't like her folksy style, dog gone it, that doesn't belong in a national political debate. Maybe her style is real, maybe it's an affectation, either way I find it annoying, you betcha.

With Biden, I liked how he clearly defined policies and outlined plans, he left me with a sense that Obama knows exactly where he is going on issues. Biden owned the debate on the question about Iran, Pakistan and nuclear (not nucular) weapons. I was moved by his personal reference to his family and determination not to cede "kitchen table" issues to Republicans. I liked the way he countered McCain's maverick label with concrete examples of issues on which he has not been a maverick.I didn't like the way he referred to himself in the third person, and I often thought he was speaking more for himself than for Obama. Maybe that's unavoidable, after all, with so much experience, he is his own man, when I hear him talking I think of him as Senator Biden, and when I hear Palin speaking, I think of her as McCain's running mate.

I was hoping that one candidate or the other would decisively win this debate tonight, but from what I saw, it was a win for them both.