Web 2.0 and Democratization of Data - Say What?

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

If George W. Bush and John Kerry campaigned for the presidency on the Internet four years ago, I wouldn't have seen the point and likely would have laughed in their faces. Who would have heard and listened to them? Fast forward to today, and the joke is on me.

In case you haven't noticed, both of the presidential hopefuls have a presence on the web. John McCain and Barack Obama have accounts on the major social networks, including MySpace, Facebook, YouTube channels, and even Twitter accounts. Social networking is no longer just for geeks. Web 2.0 is going mainstream and everyone (that means you, reader!) has opportunity to be more than an audience. Data is democratizing and everyone's voice can be heard.

Need more proof everyone has a voice that's heard? Take the Steve Job's false report of a heart attack debacle. A simple post on CNN's affiliate citizen journalism site, iReport, generated a massive ripple effect. Within minutes, the unconfirmed "news" spread like wild fire. CNN and Apple quickly issued official statements that report was false, major blogs picked up the story of falsified reports, but Apple's stock still dropped 10%. All from one silly rumor, started by a Joe Schmoe from who knows where. Everyone has opportunity to be heard. Hence, democratization of data.

So what does that mean?

Well, stay with me, as I take this a step further. Most of you probably know me through FriendFeed, where I spend almost 90% of my days posting random pictures and or links. Now FriendFeed was once dominated by veteran bloggers, Internet personalities, - basically folks who have been around for some time, and put years of efforts into their well deserved titles by their names - or the tech 'elite'. It's now been a little over three months since I signed up, and still can't believe I interact with the information sources where tech-news (data) start and circulate around. But honestly? The 'elite' in my eyes, are regular people who are a part of the FriendFeed I love so much. And it's not constrained to FriendFeed. Whether you or anyone else for that matter, likes it or not, there are so many people from all walks of life, from all over the world sharing and discussing information on all social networks across the board. How can every single voice not be heard? Again, democratization of data. And this is only the beginning.

Think about it.

New sites and services are popping up every month. Established, major Social Networks such as MySpace and or Facebook are adding features, functions, and tools encouraging users to share data. The way Social Networks will be used are changing. There are millions of active users like us, sharing our personal stories, the latest news, information pertaining to our professional life, or even stupid cat photos since we - the users, have the choice and control to share whatever we feel is important to share. The bottomline: Information is no longer consolidated, centralized, or coming from a few selected sources. Data is now and will only continue to be democratized.

The path is now paved, so the choice is yours. How will you exercise these options?

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits.

Tech Employees' Political Contributions Dramatically Favor Obama

That the San Francisco Bay Area, surrounding Silicon Valley, is left-leaning is no surprise. With rare exceptions, including eBay's Meg Whitman and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, the majority of tech titans have traditionally leaned in favor of the Democratic Party. Recently, you also saw Google join the fray, joining Democrats in standing against Proposition 8, the California proposition that would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. This comes despite Republicans' traditional strength in more affluent communities, which certainly describes parts of Silicon Valley. Looking a level deeper, by searching public political donation records, the gap between donations to Republican candidates and Democratic candidates from tech company employees in the 2008 campaign is massive.

Utilizing The Huffington Post's FundRace 2008 site, I looked at many household tech names, from traditional hardware companies like Apple and Cisco to newer online brands, including Facebook and LinkedIn. The list is by no means exhaustive, but provides a starting point, should you choose to do more research. Also, despite The Huffington Post's left-leaning foundation, I do not believe their editorial slant had any impact on the database. In fact, the site says, "All calculations are based on public records filed with the FEC of contributions by all individuals totaling more than $200 (and some totaling less than $200) to a single Republican or Democratic presidential campaign or national committee for the 2004 and 2008 election cycles."

Donations to the 2008 election cycle by prominent tech companies:

---

Employer: Adobe (Donations)
$10,649 was given by people who identified their employer as "Adobe".
$2,900 from 5 people to Republicans
$7,749 from 18 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Adobe: 72.7%

---

Employer: Amazon.com (Donations)
$123,703 was given by people who identified their employer as "Amazon.com".
$9,660 from 6 people to Republicans
$114,043 from 132 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Amazon.com: 92.2%

---

Employer: America Online OR AOL (Results Combined) (Donations)
$190,220 was given by people who identified their employer as "America Online" or "AOL".
$11,835 from 12 people to Republicans
$178,385 from 110 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from AOL: 93.8%

---

Employer: Apple (Donations)
$61,817 was given by people who identified their employer as "Apple".
$6,856 from 9 people to Republicans
$54,961 from 73 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Apple: 88.9%

---

Employer: Cisco (Donations)
$119,469 was given by people who identified their employer as "Cisco".
$28,975 from 24 people to Republicans
$90,494 from 103 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Cisco: 75.7%

---

Employer: Digg (Donations)
$750 was given by people who identified their employer as "Digg".
$0 to Republicans
$750 from 2 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Digg: 100%

---

Employer: eBay (Donations)
$68,942 was given by people who identified their employer as "eBay".
$7,565 from 9 people to Republicans
$61,377 from 67 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from eBay: 89%

---

Employer: Facebook (Donations)
$2,700 was given by people who identified their employer as "Facebook".
$250 from 1 person to Republicans
$2,450 from 4 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Facebook: 90.7%

---

Employer: Friendster (Donations)
$563 was given by people who identified their employer as "Friendster".
$0 to Republicans
$563 from 2 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Friendster: 100%

---

Employer: Google (Donations)
$474,863 was given by people who identified their employer as "Google".
$51,677 from 42 people to Republicans
$423,186 from 306 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Google: 89.1%

---

Employer: HP OR Hewlett Packard (Results Combined) (Donations)
$278,123 was given by people who identified their employer as "HP" or "Hewlett Packard").
$44,586 from 83 people to Republicans
$233,537 from 351 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from HP: 83.9%

---

Employer: LinkedIn (Donations)
$3,375 was given by people who identified their employer as "LinkedIn".
$0 to Republicans
$3,375 from 4 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from LinkedIn: 100%

---

Employer: Microsoft (Donations)
$1,195,146 was given by people who identified their employer as "Microsoft".
$247,090 from 180 people to Republicans
$948,056 from 854 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Microsoft: 79.3%

---

Employer: Mozilla (Donations)
$750 was given by people who identified their employer as "Mozilla".
$0 to Republicans
$750 from 2 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Mozilla: 100%

---

Employer: MySpace (Donations)
$3,989 was given by people who identified their employer as "MySpace".
$0 to Republicans
$3,989 from 5 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from MySpace: 100%

---

Employer: PayPal (Donations)
$4,502 was given by people who identified their employer as "PayPal".
$1,000 from 2 people to Republicans
$3,502 from 7 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from PayPal: 77.8%

---

Employer: Sun OR Sun Microsystems (Results Combined) (Donations)
$179,871 was given by people who identified their employer as "Sun".
$30,164 from 37 people to Republicans
$149,707 from 214 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Sun: 83.2%

---

Employer: Yahoo! (Donations)
$62,282 was given by people who identified their employer as "Yahoo".
$3,815 from 3 people to Republicans
$58,467 from 69 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from Yahoo!: 93.9%

---

Employer: YouTube (Donations)
older results
$5,135 was given by people who identified their employer as "YouTube".
$0 to Republicans
$5,135 from 5 people to Democrats

% of donations going to Democrats from YouTube: 100%

---

There's no question this is by no means an exhaustive list of tech companies, but this sample alone shows the overwhelming leanings the employees of these firms have, and where they have opted to put their money in this year's election campaign. Perusing the lists shows not just support for Barack Obama, but additional funds supporting Hillary Clinton's efforts during the primary season. On the Republican side, you also see some occasional support for Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, in addition to John McCain.

All told, of these 19 companies (including eBay's PayPal and Google's YouTube as separate entities), employees are listed as having donated $2,786,849 to the 2008 election cycle, more than $1 million of that coming from Microsoft. Of the nearly $2.8 million from these select companies, more than $2.3 million was donated to Democratic candidates, representing 84% of all donations.

Also of interest, searches for employees at many Web 2.0 companies didn't show any donations, including SmugMug, Twitter, or Technorati. Since I left so many out, feel free to head to the FundRace page and pass along the results you find.

Top Resources to Help Stay Informed In a Crazy World

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

I completely suck at numbers. I could give a crap about the stock market. I tune out politics since I'm sick and tired of the same old rhetoric. And if you're like me, you most likely skip over all the panicked headlines about how the $700 billion bailout got kicked from Congress.

I mean really - why would all this junk be relevant to regular people like us? The headlines are too damn depressing and most importantly - we don't have power, money or stature for any of this to really matter anyway - right? Wrong.

Listen to me, you guys: Now is not the time to tune things out.

Why is this important for people like us? Because well... I kinda sorta wanna know if I should close all my bank accounts and hide the cash under my mattress - don't you? It's also ... uhhh... election year, too. And as much as I want to turn the other way, this time, I can't. All the signs are pointing to: our country is in deep s--t.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the rest of America doesn't seem like they know what's going on either. Just ask someone to explain the stipulations of the 110-page bailout and how/what we (Americans) need to do to protect ourselves moving forward. Or the presidential candidates' action plans to rectify this economical disaster. I guarantee not everyone can - regardless of who they are or what their pedigrees are.

So you see, now is the time - moreso than ever, that we the regular people, need to come together. And if enough of us get together, our voices WILL matter. How do we do that? It's all about information.

Yes, I know reading the headlines is depressing, but educating ourselves so we're aware of the current happenings is a must; so we can get involved to make differences. How do we get involved? Well that's up to you - the reader to decide.

But what I CAN do for you, is provide resources to keep and stay informed. Hubs, if you will, so you don't have to dig through and search to stay involved. Please remember, to take account all sides, know your options, and if and when action is called - don't hesitate and go for it. Whether it be by voting, informing people around you, or just informing yourself, knowing and keeping up with the current situation means you have power to decide what to do with the knowledge.

So without further ado, I present to you:
"Mona's Top 5 Resources to Stay "Smart" - the Lazy Way"

1. NPR's Planet Money:
   NPR tags all articles pertaining to the financial crisis. It's just one click, and it pulls up all recent articles. The layout is easy on the eyes and there's no hunting or pecking through a mountain of pages to stay up to date.
   
   
2. Google News: Top Stories:
   I prefer Google News over Yahoo News because it's
   • Customizable
   • I can personalize it
   • Easy on the eyes
   All the top headline news from various sources are aggregated there. Pretty neat.
   
   
3. Harvard Business Online's Guide to the Downturn:
   A bunch of articles from really super smart people that are free. Plus the layout is nice, easy on the eyes, and surprisingly, the information is relevant to normal people, too. Don't be fooled, go check it out. Even if you think it's irrelevant, you can namedrop like I do. "OH YEAH? Bet you don't know what HARVARD professors are saying!" - or something close to that. ha!
   
   
4. Google Power Readers:
   Explore news sites read by McCain, Obama and political journalists, and see articles the campaigns and political pundits are sharing with Google Reader. What's better than knowing what they're reading and sharing!
   
   
5. Aggregation Sites like FriendFeed
   Since signing up for FriendFeed, I've been exposed to a lot of new blogs, different views, from so many different sources. The best part is, you can see what others are sharing, and choose if you want to read it or not. If you see the same headline shared by numerous people, it's a sign telling you: "READ IT, STAT!"

That about wraps it up. I hope this can help you, as much as it's helped me.

And remember, this is an election year. Our economical and country's future is dependent on us - We the people.

Update: Head on over to Scripting News. Dave Winer has a great write-up: "The US Economy After Katrina".

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits.

BallHype Crew Takes a Vote, and Launches BeltwayBlips

Last week, the increasingly popular Ballhype and Showhype sites were acquired by Future US for a cool $3 million, as the Digg-like sites, focused on sports and entertainment respectively, were seen growing as destination sites for fans of all flavors. Less than 10 days after that news, the Future US team is already seeing dividends from the acquisition, as the husband and wife team, Jason and Erin Gurney, turn their attention toward Washington and politics with the launch of BeltwayBlips.

In the tradition of Ballhype and Showhype, BeltwayBlips aims to bring the hottest political news to the front page by both auto-discovering hot blog conversations through the number of external links, but also adding on users' up or down votes, like Digg. Those hot items receiving many votes in a short amount of time rise to the top, and after some duration, will drop lower in rank.

Earlier this year, when meeting with the Gurneys at their home, they said they didn't want to get into more serious issues, like politics or technology, and the pair felt two sites was just about all they can handle. But following the acquisition, Future US has allowed the Gurneys to add to the team of developers, and given them the support to expand their site portfolio.

The addition of politics to the arsenal should make for some very "lively" discussion for sure, given the clear partisanship shown by both the right and the left in today's charged climate. I have concerns that McCain fans will always vote down positive Obama stories, and vice versa, or a few unsavory characters could make the environment unfriendly. While in sports, one can divide their attention between about 30 professional teams in each league, in Washington, you're usually either "with us" or "against us", as has been frequently said.


Headlines reaching the top of BeltwayBlips in the last few days have included the news of Robert Novak being involved in a hit and run accident, rumors of John Edwards fathering a child out of wedlock, and the two presidential candidates taking opposing positions on Iraq. Forget C-SPAN, this political hotbed isn't going to be a snoozefest by any means.

As with Ballhype and Showhype, the site offers the usual array of features, including comment threads, leaderboards for users and blog sources, embedded video links, and the ability to create groups. If you already have an account with one of the *Hype sites, you can log into BeltwayBlips today.

Alex Hammer: The Most Web 2.0 Savvy Politician?

In the 2008 presidential campaign, much has been made as to how the Obama camp and the Clinton camp have had differing approaches to using new Web 2.0 vehicles. Both Obama and Clinton have Twitter accounts, but Obama has gained many more followers, and the account follows people, while Clinton's does not. Obama's campaign even has a FriendFeed account, and both Obama and Clinton, as well as John McCain, have pages on LinkedIn with full resumes. But it's easy to see through this thin veneer of Web activity and realize it's not the actual individuals staffing the accounts. By and large, they are used as a vehicle for campaign's daily propaganda, promoting the issues of the day.

On this backdrop comes Maine resident Alex Hammer (See: Bio). Alex, 42 years old, with a background as the owner of HSC Media, an online media company based in New York, ran as an Independent candidate for governor in Maine during the 2006 campaign, is considering running again in 2010, and his name has even come up in some circles at the national level as a small number of supporters are urging him to take a run at the White House. (See: DC Political Report)

In the meantime, Alex is putting his efforts behind a vast network of 14 destination Web sites called Media 2.0 aimed to develop communities for engaging and discussing a wide array of topics, from Politics 2.0 and Financing 2.0, to a site dedicated to today's tech leaders at Tech Leaders 2.0. Alex's daily information consumption routine also extends well beyond the day's ink-stained papers and cable news networks, taking in Techmeme, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, BlogLines and Toluu, aiming to use these next generation tools to enable knowledge and empowerment.

Late Monday night, we had a phone call where he expressed his excitement for both technology and politics.

He told me, "It's about empowerment. I see politics and technology as a natural overlap and bridge. People look to politics and technology for change and for prosperity. Politics are supposed to benefit our lives if they are done right."

Alex mentioned a number of people who have successfully managed to maintain high profiles in both the world of politics and the Web, including Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and Micah Sifry of the Personal Democracy Forum, as key influencers, as well as TechCrunch's Michael Arrington's interviews with various presidential candidates of both parties early in this election cycle.

Luckily for Alex, the state of Maine has a long history of supporting independent candidates. Maine had the first independent governor in the country, James Longley, who held the position from 1975 to 1979, and later, saw Angus King, another Independent, hold down the fort for two terms from 1995 to 2003. In 1996, during King's first term, Maine also passed the Maine Clean Election Act (MCEA), which established a program of full public financing of political campaigns for candidates running for Governor, State Senator or State Representative positions, making it easier for elections to be open to more participants. As with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, the MCEA was intended to "take big money influence out of politics" and "level the playing field", Alex said. This led to 17 candidates in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, which saw many raise in excess of $1 million apiece.

The pervasive integration of technology in a changing economy greatly impacted Alex's political platform. Issues surrounding Clean Technology have seen significant support from the Venture Capitalist community, gaining prominence at times even eclipsing that of Web companies. Alex believes that this trend plays right into the hands of the state of Maine.

"Maine has a lot of strengths," he said. "Maine is positioned to take advantage of these clean technology trends, including forestry, agricultural science, and being a leading state on renewable energy. We have a lot of these expertise for solving these environmental solutions. It's not well coordinated yet, but there are strengths that could be leveraged."

Making Maine a player on this stage could help stem some of the woes the state has seen in the job market over recent years, Alex argues.

"Maine is not a poor state, but it's not a rich state," he said. "It has lost a lot of jobs from manufacturing, and the services jobs don't pay as well comparatively. The state needs help transitioning to a 21st century economy, which is why I turned so much of my efforts to technology."

His efforts around Media 2.0 are aimed to create sticky destination sites that offer a customized knowledge base, as well as aggregated content from leading feeds. Alex claims that at this stage, a robust 18% of all visitors across the 14 active sites stay for an hour or more, and the network has a high volume of repeat traffic. But, so far, Alex is still the primary content generator, and hasn't gained a lot of outside help, which would come following a planned finance round, which currently has him engaged with VCs and angel investors.

The investment of time and community-building on the Web supports his overall belief that you need to be actively engaged, offering a win-win situation for you and your constituents, and to be flexible as change occurs.

"The reason I called it Media 2.0 is that this is about disruptive technology and processes," Alex said. "Now, with the debate of Blogging 1.0 and Blogging 2.0, we see the bloggers who themselves were once disruptive are themselves being disrupted by the way things are changing. We have to go where the action is, but I believe you always have to give more than you take. If you don't help anybody else, then nobody will help you."

By engaging in the blogosphere, and developing new relationships, Alex believes he is creating real value, and a competitive advantage.

"I focus on trying to tap into other people's knowledge," Alex says. "Before I got into politics, I read the biographies of all the recent presidents. Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it, and it's important to maximize the value of time and that's why I have tried to make processes more efficient. You don't have to go to 50 different sites with Media 2.0. I try to be a sponge, to pick people's brains as much as I can, to provide info and take info."

And for Alex, there's no telling where taking his traditional background in politics and getting seriously embedded in the world of Web 2.0 and the tech blogosphere could take him. But he says he's not running for president this year, and while he hasn't yet made a final decision, he's leaning toward Barack Obama in this year's campaign.

He believes the Independent voter hasn't been given its proper share of voice in this country, and that the two-party system isn't interested in making life easy for those with alternative messages, but the 2008 election has already proven that change is in the air, with Hillary Clinton getting further in the campaign process than any female candidate in American history, and with Barack Obama looking sure to take the Democratic nomination.

"In America, a lot more things are becoming possible," he said. "It's an exciting time in the world. There's a lot going on. Not only is there more change, but the rate of change is increasing. Even five years ago, on the Internet, you could take a day off and not miss anything. Now you take 20 minutes off, and you're #100 in the comments. Little differences become magnified. You might be 2% more efficient, but 100% more successful."

Alex will more than likely see a greater level of success in 2010 than he did in 2006, as his campaign was felled short after he was struck by a truck in a major traffic accident that put him in the hospital for a month, and forced him to wear crutches for a full year. He writes, "I am well known and highly regarded across Maine's political and additional leadership, for example, and well poised for a strong run in 2010, should I elect to do so," adding, "The Maine Clean Election Act gave some of my opponents $1 million+ to spend on their campaigns."

For an independent candidate who didn't garner 1% of the vote in a race for one of the smaller states in the country, Alex talks a strong game, anticipating that his focus and effort on the Web to enable conversations and give back to the new online constituency will help further his brand, showing him as engaged and ahead of the curve. He's already penned columns for America 2.0 and The Huffington Post, and is a regular contributor to the Magic City Morning Star, where you can see a February 2006 piece on why he believed himself to be the best gubernatorial candidate and later, discussing some of the struggles that can befall a challenging campaign.

When not taking calls from me, or working on his many sites under the Media 2.0 umbrella, Alex can be found on Twitter (AlexHammer) and on FriendFeed (alexhammer), as well as on Facebook.

This Super Tuesday, My Choice Was Hillary

The presidential primaries are more like baseball's regular season than like March Madness. For the front-runners, every single game (or state) counts. And while at times it seems the broadcast networks are engaging in a rush to judgement, to claim themselves as the first to call a state for a candidate, whether through exit polling, projections or early precinct reporting, it's worth sitting in the seats until the last out to ind out who truly has won. And we're watching, metaphorically ignoring the occasional boo-birds and obnoxious drunks who are in the stands, trying to enjoy the game and root for our favored team.

Tonight, even as the most noisy of tech geeks are loudly cheering on Barak Obama, and seizing upon any glimpse of positive news in his column to show momentum, there's no chance he'll be crowned the nominee tonight. Similarly, Hillary Clinton, who I was happy to vote for this morning, won't have a lock on the Democratic party nomination tonight either. While a few weeks ago, Clinton looked to have a sizable lead in most Super Tuesday states, Obama's had the momentum, and chewed into that deficit.

Some expected this momentum would turn into significant victories for Obama tonight, and while he's certainly been competitive, Hillary has won the big states she was expected to win, and I believe, without having the results, that she will win California. However, despite this, the Democratic party distributes delegates by Congressional district in the primaries, not in winner-take-all fashion, as the Republicans do. This means that even if Hillary has the majority of wins, even the biggest wins, Obama will get a significant number of delegates, which will guarantee the race will go on.

Considering we're still nine months away from Election Day, the debates should go forward. The world could change dramatically in the next nine months, and it will benefit us all to have the discussions continue, just as I had said following the Iowa Caucuses last month.

And in case you were curious to my voting preferences today, I see the Democratic Party has an embarrassment of riches right now. Obama, Clinton and John Edwards were all strong candidates, any of whom I would be happy to see in office, especially considering the disaster we've endured the last seven years.

But to be honest, the more I know about HIllary, the more I support her. I read both volumes of Bill Clinton's biography, My Life,, and came away extremely impressed with Hillary, her upbringing, her focus and her intelligence. In the last few years, I've seen Hillary show incredible poise and something largely lacking in politics, serious intelligence. Hillary is really, really sharp. I've seen her take tough questions, and not only deliver a quick response, but one backed up with real data that is justifiable. I see her developing real plans for the economy, real plans for healthcare, and real knowledge about foreign policy and international relations, which I don't believe Obama can match today.

I enjoy hearing Obama speak. He is energetic and very likable. But when he calls for change, it reminds me especially that the change we are looking for is a change away from the Bush/Cheney/Rove years, not a change away from Bush and Clinton, as some have tried to say. While I recognize we're not giving Bill Clinton a third term, the years under Clinton's leadership were good - for the economy, for education, for the budget, and in our reputation around the world, a far cry from how they are today. If it's simply change you are looking for, then anybody on the Democratic side, or even Ron Paul, would be a good option. But if it's leadership, intelligence, and a plan for real action you're seeking, I believe HIllary is the best option. She would have the fastest ramp-up to turn our momentum around, and would have the deepest bench and resources from which to draw.

I hope that she does very well tonight, and that if she does achieve the nomination for her party, that those who support Obama today can see the unquestioned need to put a Democrat in the White House, and not give the Republicans another four years to degrade our reputation, our economy and our intelligence. Regardless of how this shakes out, we will be watching closely.

Also See:
Jan. 2008: The 2008 Elections Are Not Over After One Measly Vote
Jan. 2008: My Political Focus Started 20 Years Ago
Jan. 2007: Don't Blame Me, I'm Rooting for Hillary

The 2008 Elections Are Not Over After One Measly Vote

It's amazing to me how many people are eager to call a winner after one small state, in some of the most unorthodox voting procedures known to man, made its selection of two candidates to receive delegates, representing a miniscule portion of the totals needed to declare a winner.

While Obama and Huckabee were not necessarily the front-runners three months ago or six months ago, and it was clear both the Clinton campaign and Romney campaign had hoped for more than they received, not to mention the campaigns for Edwards, Giuliani or Thompson, one loss does not indicate it's all over.

Yet, I can't seem to read a single story on the New Hampshire primary that doesn't have some side element of how Hillary might drop out if she loses to Obama here, or that Mitt Romney's campaign is teetering on the brink of disaster. It's completely asinine. And the ensuing tidal wave of "what day will Hillary give up?" stories, with everybody jumping on the Obama bandwagon, is driving me a little nuts.

Yes, tradition has it that Iowa and New Hampshire go first. Great. But if you think this political contest is over, when delegate-rich states like California, Texas and Florida haven't even entered the voting booth, then something is terribly wrong. A whole swath of states is set to make a real impact in early February on Super Tuesday. California specifically made this move so we would be part of the process. Heck, I remember we used to hold our primaries in June! And yet, it'd just be easier for the media and the TV gasbags to declare a winner after one vote. Ridiculous.

If you want to get it all over with in one swoop, then maybe the right thing to do is have a national primary for both parties on the same day to choose a nominee. If not, then let the people vote. Let the people who work behind desks have as much impact as those who work behind tractors and quiet down already. And Hillary? Romney? Please don't think of giving up. Yet. The political process needs continued discussion. We have hardly begun.

My Political Focus Started 20 Years Ago

Though but a skinny weakling of a 5th grader in 1988, I remember the political horse race just about as clearly as I do that of the historic Oakland A's team who made headlines the same year. With tonight's results from the Iowa caucuses rolling in, I'm reminded of how I obsessed over the numbers back then as many are with those from today - and the 1988 race set the benchmark in my mind for how all presidential campaigns are measured.

To this day, I can tell you Alexander Haig dropped out of the Republican presidential race after getting 1% of the vote in the state. I can tell you how, on the Democratic side, Joseph Biden was forced to withdraw his candidacy following charges of plagiarism. (Trust me, not even Wikipedia has such obscure knowledge!)

As the 1988 campaign evolved, I pored over the results in the morning's newspaper, and stayed up late watching the news networks project the winners of each state, or in the case of Super Tuesday, several states at once. I openly mocked Michael Dukakis at my elementary school, and attended a rally in Redding, California for the eventual Republican nominee, George Bush Sr. While my political leanings have changed dramatically, and my focus on politics has been knocked down a few pegs, behind technology and sports, despite my Political Science degree, I still love the kickoff of primary season - and am rooting for some favorites, while finding disappointment in how well others are or aren't doing.

Tonight, it looks like Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are to be the projected winners for their prospective parties. And while that's good news for both campaigns, Iowa is hardly representative of the much-larger states whose turn will soon come to post delegates themselves. After all, in 1988, Bob Dole captured the state, and falsely looked like he was to gain momentum against the sitting vice president. It would be eight years before he captured the party's nomination, and he never made it to the White House.

In effect, despite going first, Iowa is the exception. The outlier. I don't believe Hillary Clinton will battle for 3rd in New Hampshire, and I don't believe Huckabee's folksy approach will work well very often, outside of Middle America. And while I wouldn't personally vote for Mitt Romney, I hope he eventually does better than he did tonight. But as one pundit said on the radio this evening, tonight was the first pitch in the first inning of what will be a long game. You better believe I'll be watching. Without a sitting president or vice president in the contest, it's going to be an extremely interesting few months.

Faithless Bombs Video: Amazing Music, Piercing Message

One exposure to music from Faithless, led by lead singer Maxi Jazz, will make you sure you've never heard any sound quite like it. I first fell in awe of Faithless' unique vocals in the epic "Insomnia", and gained immeasurable respect for his work with the Iraq War-themed "Mass Destruction", released in 2004. But even that didn't prepare me for the raw message and real emotion shown in his video titled "Bombs" from his latest album, "To All New Arrivals", which hit the iTunes Music Store in early November. While the album hit stores about a year ago, starting in Europe, I only found it today, and ... Wow.

While I highly encourage you to purchase the album (and two accompanying videos) from iTunes, below is the "Bombs" video, courtesy of YouTube. It's very impressive to see an artist I really already like taking such a strong political stance, regardless the consequences.

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Ps_MBXEdA



If you found this music strong or the message moving, pass it along. I'm dismayed it took me so long to find!

Must-See Documentary: Who Killed the Electric Car?

While we may be patting ourselves on the back for the small percentage of consumers who have gone out of their way to adopt hybrid vehicles like the Toyota Prius or the Honda Civic Hybrid, the stark truth is that we could be much further along in the process to reduce air pollution and reliance on fossil fuels, were it not for reluctance on the part of the automakers, government and big oil to promote alternatives, like the electric vehicle.

This week, Kristine and I saw a documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?", which highlighted the creation, introduction and eventual erasure of GM's EV-1 from the marketplace. Almost single-handedly, the viewing of this film made me realize how much of a step backwards we have taken, just in the last decade. While I had once been vaguely aware of California's mandate to require a certain percentage of cars be electric, I didn't know how that mandate was voided, and how while more and more Americans were being guided toward massive SUVs through tax credits (See: The Hummer), a well-oiled political and PR machine was under way to stop the electric car in its tracks.

Now, having seen the massive potential for electric cars, I am almost unwilling to "settle" for a partial solution like a hybrid, which would only lessen my draw at the pump, not eliminate it. Watching the film, I was furious at how the potential was squandered, and how some early adopters of the EV-1, ecstatic about their cars in the same way Apple fans or Linux loyalists are, were told to go pound sand, and saw their beloved vehicles impounded and crushed in a forgotten desert well away from California's roads.

It's been a long time since a good documentary came around without Michael Moore's name on it that reshaped the way I think about everyday activities like driving. If you are looking to buy a new car, or looking to see what you can do to better the environment, if you are curious about the cold realities of business, or just want to know why we're not surrounded by electric or solar vehicles, be sure to put the video on your Netflix queue. I'm glad we did.

I've Already Seen Sicko, and You Should Too

The way that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 was a wakeup call and turning point in the public opinion around the War on Iraq may only have been the controversial filmmaker's opening salvo on the way the American people view their way of life, and the way they trust their government and big business to tell them the truth or offer them the best option available.

Moore's follow-on, 'Sicko', which addresses the state of our healthcare industry, and compares it negatively with universal coverage seen elsewhere in the world, is incredible, a must see for anybody who pays taxes, pays for health benefits, or intends to gain medical care in this country at some point in their life. And it's already available on the Internet, if you know where to look, weeks before its planned debut in the theaters by the end of the month.

While Fahrenheit 911 was seen as starkly political, divided in red state/blue state mentalities, Sicko makes no such alignment. It follows individual American's stories as middle-class couples fight off bankruptcy due to co-pays and premiums from cancer or heart disease. We see a woman whose 18 month old baby is turned away from an out of network hospital with a 104-degree fever, only to die somewhere else. We hear the stories of volunteers who worked at Ground Zero who have come down with debilitating respiratory problems, only to be denied care.

While allusions are made to Nixon's opening up the HMO system, and Bush/Cheney's promises to support our troops and citizens ring comparatively hollow, this is not an attempt to recruit a generation of liberal Decmocrats. Instead, it is a call for change, made ever so stark by the seeming utopia found elsewhere that has me wondering why my wife and I have poured tens of thousands of dollars each of the last several years into a system that doesn't work.

What I strongly advise for you to do is find the movie online wherever you can, and watch it. Then, make sure you take yourself and as many people as you care about to the theater when it opens. Those people who choose not to see it because of what they may think of Michael Moore, or what they might think universal coverage represents, are keeping themselves as close-minded as the Flat Earth Society.

So take a few cues from Slashdot (Michael Moore's New Film Leaked To BitTorrent) and Webomatica (Watch Sicko at Google Video) and get your copy. It is bound to change the way you think about how you go to the doctor and pay your bills today. I know I'll be watching it again.

Steve Jobs Nominates Al Gore for President

Tucked away in a strong Time story on Al Gore, on the inevitable call by many Democrats for the former vice president and disputed 2000 presidential election loser to throw his hat in the ring in 2008 is a rare quote by Steve Jobs, promoting his friend and board member as a candidate. As many Apple watchers know, to catch Steve Jobs in a quote outside of Macworld or a press release is a rare thing, but in this case, Steve makes his hopes fully known.

"We have dug ourselves into a 20-ft. hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder. Al's the guy," says Steve Jobs of Apple. "Like many others, I have tried my best to convince him. So far, no luck."

Gore, pictured in his messy office, featuring a Mac with not one, but three, Apple Cinema Displays, is now being seen as the ultimate Democratic candidate, with the grassroots appeal of Barack Obama and toughness of Hillary Clinton. But after the debacle of 2000, he keeps saying he's not interested, that he's had it with politics and the process. But with friends like Jobs and others sounding the siren song, it will be very interesting to see if he remains on the sidelines, especially if one of the front-runners falters, or if the race ends up too close to call.

Google's Earth Day Logo Makes a Splash

Though Google's home page remains spartan, the company often makes edits to their logo around holidays, notable birthdays, or to commemorate anniversaries of significant events.

Today being Earth Day, Google debuted a logo that shows the Google name partially submerged below water, as an iceberg. The top half of the Google is melting, and much of the mass remains below the presumed ocean.


Today's Google Logo (Earth Day Theme)

Clicking on the Google logo from the home page takes you to a predefined search for the term "Earth Day". So why choose the logo they did? In my best guess mode, I have to assume this is Google's quiet, subtle reminder and buy-in on the theory of global warming, made a topic du jour by the Oscar-winning Inconvenient Truth, fronted by Al Gore.

Google doesn't typically make a stand on political issues. The company has been vocal on the topic of net neutrality and privacy, but steers clear of more partisan conversation. But at the same time, the company houses some of the brightest minds in technology, and with buildings full of Ph.D.'s, it's no surprise they would find the very real issue of global warming as one they would highlight on Earth Day. Good for Google. I hope others besides myself take note.

Update: Welcome visitors from Scoble's Link Blog and TechMeme. Looks like others did take note after all...

Initial Scrutiny of Virginia Tech Police Unfounded

This week's horrific shootings at Virginia Tech defy any in-depth analysis. Although the incident may eventually be more fully documented than any other in our nation's history, in part due to the killer's own use of the media, and vigilante student journalists' attempts to record it with their cell phone cameras or handheld video cameras, no amount of knowledge can let us understand why it happened, or what really could have been done to prevent it. While some look at the two hour gap between shootings and the police's inability to stop it a massive intelligence failure, I can't possibly hold the law enforcement liable.

As I've mentioned a few times on this blog, for just over a year I was the full-time crime reporter for the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Californian. While most stories consisted of tracking the occasional assault and battery or in more fun times, a rash of vending machine thefts, I did have the occasional proximity to bloodshed. And in one incident off-campus, I was at the scene of a double homicide, whose perpetrator, as far as I know, was never found.

That's where I look for some small parallel to the Virginia Tech massacre. To campus police, the shooter had taken two lives in an apparent domestic incident, and fled. While they were of course looking for him, there was no call to cancel classes or lock down the campus, in fear he had more violence in him. In the incident in Berkeley, there was no call to cancel classes or warn neighbors that the unfound gunman would strike them next. It was seen as a domestic incident, and nothing more.

What separated the Virginia Tech incident from the one in Berkeley in the fall of 1997 was, of course, that the killer wasn't done killing. Not by a long shot. For a domestic dispute to balloon into one of mass murder and chaos is so incredibly rare, it's without shock that the shooter caught the entire university community unready for what had come next. And going forward, as there are more calls for police scrutiny, ramped up security and furor to avoid copycats or more bloodshed, it may all be for naught. We cannot predict the next move in the mind of a deranged killer, and we shouldn't expect our law enforcement to be super-human. Given everything they knew at Viriginia Tech, and their expectation they were dealing with a domestic dispute gone bad, we cannot blame the police or the university for what happened next, as horrible as it was.

As easy as it is to find somebody to blame, there can only be one person - the one who pulled the trigger. It's not the police force or the university, or video games, or even the laws which let him purchase the guns. As they say, when there is a will, there is a way, and in this time of terror, his will was unstoppable.

Tidbits from the Link Blog: March 16, 2007

The line between bloggers and journalists is blurring. While a blog's goals can be wide-reaching, from personal updates to breaking news, offering opinions, or collecting interesting items, former Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry is moving to strengthen bloggers' ability to get the information to make news, by further expanding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Yet, it looks like some haven't graduated to the understanding of blogs' pervasiveness, even as the practice reaches a decade old. Steve Rubel of MicroPersuasion notes one particularly glaring example...

MicroPersuasion: Fired Without Cause for Blogging
MyDD: Kerry Sponsors Senate Bill Giving Bloggers FOIA Powers
Robert Scoble: Microsoft Tells MVPs “we’re in it to win” — Really?

We're so far enjoying our time in Phoenix, Arizona. It was a mere 98 degrees when we landed, and we saw the A's lose their ballgame 8-5. We'll be back at it again tomorrow, hoping the outcome changes.

To see what I'm finding interesting, bookmark or subscribe to my link blog.

Tidbits from the Link Blog: February 17, 2007

With one fell swoop, Google made a ton of bloggers feel a lot better about themselves, as overnight, their site subscribers increased anywhere from 20 to 50 percent, as the search engine began reporting on RSS feed readers, via Google Reader and their personalized home pages. And for some reason, my overall count didn't budge. I'll live. But it got a lot of people talking about statistics, from Don Dodge to Mashable and a host of folks on TechMeme.

Technology:

Don Dodge: Blog Metrics: Subscribers, Readers, Page Views...
Mashable: Alexa’s Inaccurate Traffic Stats Become More Detailed
Mini-Microsoft: Stop Him Before He Speaks Again!

Politics:

Robert Scoble: What You Won’t See about Iraq on American TV
Americablog: USNews: Bush could sink the GOP in 2008
MyDD: Does This Mean Gore Is Definitely Out?

To see what I'm finding interesting, bookmark or subscribe to my link blog.

Three People I Admire Who I'd Like to Meet

While in Chico this last weekend, my friends and I somehow stumbled into one of those mundane rounds of "Truth or Dare", which ends up being 100% truths, since nobody will accept a dare. Most of these end up being hour-long confessionals of past trysts and unlikely conquests, but one question was asked that stuck with me.

If I could meet any three people in the world who I admire, who would they be?

While I could try to put myself on a lofty, intellectual pedestal, and mention religious leaders, that's not where my mind led. Instead, I came up with three solid names: Stephen King, Steve Jobs and Bill Clinton. Each of these three has defined a legacy, and carved out a place for themselves in history. Each of them, I admire, and for vastly different reasons. Each of them probably has amazing stories to tell, ones I would love to listen to.

Stephen King

I often say that Stephen King is like a modern-day Picasso, but for novels. He has absolutely no peers when it comes to the frequency of books he publishes, their quality, and success. He has redefined the horror genre, to be sure, and while some find his books dark or chilling, he is a fantastic writer who loves his craft. His book "On Writing", which taught the process of novel creation, should be a must-read for any aspiring writer. And those of us who have littered our bookshelves with his stories, from Carrie and Christine to It, The Dark Half, The Stand, Insomnia, and countless others, know that he has a tremendous sense of humor. He is very funny, and has a dry, cutting wit. That he is now on the downside of his career, and that we as a people nearly lost him when he was struck by a car a few years ago, is in itself a horror. I wish we could see him continue to churn out new novels year after year after year. When he finally puts away his pen, I'll truly be at a loss.

Steve Jobs

I actually have met Steve Jobs, if only for a brief moment, in a Palo Alto Apple Store. I've even paid good money to see him speak at MacWorld San Francisco. But with that said, I still find him incredibly intriguing. Though he's not the engineer behind the code that makes the Mac or the iPod unique, he puts his own personal touch on everything Apple. He redefines real marketing, and gives a clinic on how to deliver successful presentations. I literally watch the way he uses slides and keeps an audience's attention to learn tips during my own time in public speaking. Steve Jobs, despite having the spotlight on him for the better part of two decades, somehow manages to not just move technology forward one evolution at a time, but he tries to change the world. He comes across not just as an aggressive, rich, business man, but one who wants to accomplish something notable, and help us do the same.

Bill Clinton

This one might be a tad more controversial, but as time goes by, and we see the stark contrast between his presidency and that following it, what he was able to both accomplish and prevent is remarkable. Bill Clinton, like Steve Jobs, knows how to command attention from an audience, and has the highest level of speaking skills. When he speaks on an issue, he knows it inside and out, and would debate it with a fierce passion. While his personal foibles have been well-documented, much of that comes from a burning intensity to be liked and to be friendly with others. I am sure that if I were to meet Bill Clinton, that he would be able to convince me just why I needed to support one cause over another, on just why his plan for an issue is the best one available, and he could give me example after example on why the other side was wrong and mis-informed. Clinton looks like a guy who would be happy talking shop, playing Hearts, or throwing a Frisbee. He looks a lot like a regular guy who just happened to be ambitious enough to be president. Now, his wife just may have that chance to make history as well. Watching him stay to the side of the spotlight will be very interesting.

I'm sure if I wrote this up in a few weeks' time, other names would rise to the top. Conan O'Brien would be fun to meet. Billy Beane, I've met, but briefly. Bill Gates (out of curiousity). If you had to pick three people, who would they be, and why?

Tidbits from the Link Blog: February 3, 2007

Are the Apple vs. Microsoft wars in full swing now, again? Has Vista's introduction given Microsoft the momentum back, when Apple's Leopard hasn't shown up yet? Does it really even matter? If you read the conversations of the last few days on the blogosphere, you'd find that for many, choosing one brand over the other in an unholy deathmatch is a choice of finality.

On with the links...

VentureFiles: Is the “Cult of Apple” really a cult?
Mark Cuban/Blog Maverick: The FanBoy Culture
Applepeels: Another perspective on Apple as a cult
Daring Fireball: Lies, Damned Lies, and Bill Gates

And in other news, a year away from votes that count, Hillary and McCain look like the early front-runners for the 2008 ballot. Yet, there's a lot more time, and not every candidate (Gore?) is in the race.

MyDD: ARG Polls New Hampshire

To see what I'm finding interesting, bookmark or subscribe to my link blog.