business

In a classic case of missing the point to strike a righteous pose, this:

Twice in two days now, I’ve come across news articles using the term “Big Brother” to refer to private sector information practices that affect privacy. Big Brother is not an appropriate shorthand here. In his book 1984, George Orwell gave the name “Big Brother” to the oppressive government that observed and controlled the lives of the book’s protagonists. The unique oppressive powers of this governmental entity were a central motif of the book.

Jim Harper, of the Technology Liberation Front, a pseudo-libertarian tech blog opposing Net Neutrality, points out that George Orwell's dystopic 1984 was about Communism, and therefore using the Big Brother phrase in the context of corporate invasions of privacy is inappropriate, thus rendering specious, apparently, such perspectives.

This misses the point, though, doesn't it? After all, what was the primary difference between the totalitarian control of Communism in the Soviet Union and the totalitarian control of Fascism in Nazi Germany? In the latter, corporations collaborated and cooperated with the government in exercising power over the people.

Perhaps it might be safe to assume that Mr. Harper would not appreciate life under Fascism, either, where claiming it was "Big Brother" would be technically incorrect, but pretty much describe otherwise the same result for the citizens.

The important distinction, I submit, is not between Communism and Fascism, but between authoritarian and totalitarian trends and values vs. privacy and choice and liberty and even the pursuit of happiness by the people.

Ironic how people proclaiming "liberation" keep excusing and rationalizing and apologizing for anti-competitive, government-protected corporate power.

Next we're going to hear how wonderful it would be to have government-financed but purely non-government corporate mercenary forces like Blackwater ruling the streets of America. After all, it wouldn't be "Big Brother," would it?

The Gaurdian has an article that starts off:

No wonder Iceland has the happiest people on earth

Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest percentage of women working outside the home = the best country in the world in which to live. There has to be something wrong with this equation.

Of course. Can't have women outside of the home.

But a high birthrate doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. High divorce rate could be an indication of fewer unhappy marriages.

And we all know now that societies with more women participating not just in the workplace but in management thrive more than other societies.

So what's the "something wrong" here?

'That is not something to be proud of,' said Oddny, with a brisk smile, 'but the fact is that Icelanders don't stay in lousy relationships. They just leave.' And the reason they can do so is that society, starting with the parents and grandparents, does not stigmatise them for making that choice. Icelanders are the least hung-up people in the world. Thus the incentive, for example, 'to stay together for the sake of the kids' does not exist. The kids will be just fine, because the family will rally round them and, likely as not, the parents will continue to have a civilised relationship, based on the usually automatic understanding that custody for the children will be shared.

Reykjavic, Iceland, May 2008: City Councillor Oddny Sturludottir tells us why Iceland is the best place in the World. Photograph: Ari Magg
The comfort of knowing that, come what may, the future for the children is safe also helps explain why Icelandic women, modern as they are (Iceland elected the world's first female president, Vigdis Finnbogadottir, a single mother, 28 years ago), persist in the ancient habit of bearing children very young. 'Not unwanted teen pregnancies, you understand,' said Oddny, 'but women of 21, 22 who willingly have children, very often while they are still at university.' At a British university a pregnant student would be an oddity; in Iceland, even at the business-oriented Reykjavik University, it is not only common to see pregnant girls in the student cafeteria, you see them breast-feeding, too. 'You extend your studies by a year, so what?' said Oddny. 'No way do you think when you have a kid at 22, "Oh my God, my life is over!" Definitely not! It is considered stupid here to wait till 38 to have a child. We think it's healthy to have lots of kids. All babies are welcome.'

All the more so because if you are in a job the state gives you nine months on fully paid child leave, to be split among the mother and the father as they so please. 'This means that employers know a man they hire is just as likely as a woman to take time off to look after a baby,' explained Svafa Grönfeldt, currently rector of Reykjavik University, previously a very high-powered executive. 'Paternity leave is the thing that made the difference for women's equality in this country.'

Hmmm.... Maybe progressive values are actually good for children?

Imagine this happening in this country.

We have children eating mud pies -- literally, pies made of mud, water and a little butter [audio] -- while at the same time Mars, a candy company, buys Wrigley, a chewing gum company, for $23 billion.

Twenty-three billion dollars.

What an opportunity Mars/Wrigley has to donate some big money to help alleviate the food crisis that is killing people worldwide.

Buy gum, feed a child. Sounds like good PR to me. Otherwise, it's kind of sickening, people spending billions on such crap that they don't need to consume at all, while people are dying of starvation and malnutrition.

I've always had very low tolerance for the talkbox channels. I never watch them, except maybe when I'm in a hotel, offline, and desperate for any timely news. The two exceptions are (1) This Week with George Stephanopolous, whose "round table" has the most entertaining, low-key horserace discussion (and whose A-B-C-D format makes it easy to TiVo past the nonsense blah-blah interviews), and (2) when there's an interesting political or news event happening. This year's campaign coverage, though, has really brought into high relief the 6 Rules of Bobbleheaded Punditry:

1. Keep talking. Whatever you do, keep talking. Don't pause. Especially when you finish a sentence. In fact, take all periods out of your copy.
2. Sound like you know what you're talking about. Use a quiet, authoritative tone. Remember Rule #1. Pauses betray an apparent uncertainty or may reveal your lack of ideas.
3. Look like you know what you're talking about. Alternately frown thoughtfully and raise your eyebrows occasionally for emphasis. If at a table, lean forward and tip your head slightly forward, forearms on the table. If standing, keep your elbows at your side but move your hands up and down, keeping time with your words. Extra points for coordinating with your eyebrows. If possible, hold a clipboard. (See Wolf Blitzer.)
4. Throw out a Factoid or a Spin Turd.
   • Factoid. It doesn't matter how accurate or relevant it is. We like factoids.
   • Spin Turd. (Advanced pundits only.) Make an outrageous claim that sticks to an undesired candidate. Note: These should be well rehearsed, easy on the tongue, and, whenever possible, coordinated with the Corporate Media Talking Points Committee. The extra work can pay off: Pundits adept at throwing out spin turds can enjoy fabulous careers in punditry. (See Ann Coulter.)

   Use of factoids combined with spin turds can prove very lucrative to the talented pundit.

5. Remember the names of the other bobbleheads. If you don't seem like part of the family or club, you come off as an outsider, and what could an outsider possibly know?
6. Don't pick your nose. Really really really. And whatever you do, don't eat the boogers. Wait until the commercial break. You never know when the camera might be on you.
7. Optional: Know what you're talking about. Caveat: While this can help with regards to bookings on PBS or NPR (though it's certainly not required for those buyers, either), it can get you into serious hot water with the big money market, including FoxNews. Use knowledge with extreme caution.

There you have it: The 6 Rules that can lead to a successful career as a well-paid Bobblehead.

Any others I may have missed?

...the actual candidates try to get a word in edge-wise. Why did Wolf Blitzer feel he had to interrupt every answer? It's like only the questions mattered to CNN. They didn't care about the answers.

And what was with that last question about diamonds or pearls?

This wasn't a debate -- it was a group interview, CNN style. Meaning no questions of substance -- such as, "What is your healthcare plan?" And certainly no time for any answers of substance.

This was CNN trying to assert its alpha dog status over the politicians. All with the highest ethical standards, don't you know. (I.e., selling commercials.)

The post-debate show was like watching a post-game wrap-up. David Gergen, James Carville and company used just about every sports metaphor in the book. "Hillary Clinton was rested and ready."

What are they? Horses?

Is it any wonder we turn to the internet for real news? CNN's "debate" show was a joke. How sad for our country.

...you get this:

The owner of the mine, a fat not very pretty older man, had become a media star, and had said something in the last news cycle that the press had latched onto, and now talking heads were saying nasty shit about him, the kind of stuff they never say about politicians or TV anchors, the stuff they reserve for the powerless, death row inmates, Don Imus.

What he did wasn't so clear. They said (in an amazed tone) "and now he's denying he ever said it." They showed tape of him denying it, but the tape didn't include what he was denying having said. In other words, here's a fat, ugly, old man, being defensive. He's a bad person. I found myself thinking, nahh, he's probably just an average person, caught in the gears on a slow news day....

The thing is, why we need to be paying attention to this in the blogosphere....

Ummm ... yeah, paying attention is important.

REPORT: Academics' donations go overwhelmingly to Democrats

...The report also says that academics donated more than employees of oil companies and drug makers.

It's a conspiracy, see? All the universities are really brainwashing institutes. They pretend they're teaching you critical thinking, you know, how to think for yourself, but they're really turning you into a liberal! That's why all these people are supporting Democrats! That's why we need to get rid of tenure and put ignorant people into teaching positions in colleges so that they can allow us all to remain ignorant! Because what you don't know won't bother you!

--In fact, we should ban professors from being able to donate to political candidates altogether! They're a special interest, doncha know! Unrestricted campaign contributions are only for the Republicans. Can't let just anybody give money to Democrats, can we?

I thought this must be a joke.

In a move that might make some people scratch their heads, a loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards....

"I think people have just gotten to the point where people outside the blogosphere understand the value of what it is that we do on the progressive side," said Susie Madrak, the author of Suburban Guerilla blog, who is active in the union campaign. "And I think they feel a little more entitled to ask for something now."

Ask for ... what? From whom? Where is the Standard Oil of the blogging world? Where are the exploited bloggers slaving away in sweat shops?

I like Susie's blog -- a whole lot more than some others -- but I think if bloggers wanted to form anything, a trade association might be more appropriate -- that is if you could find leaders exquisitely talented at herding cats.

Puhleez!

How can you not be excited about a movie that features a girl with an M16 as her prosthetic leg.

It's pretty easy, actually.

[via ChurchGal]

After all the ways The New Republic has reinvented itself repeatedly over the past 20 years, I can't say I find this development all that alarming, but maybe I'm wrong.

Just days after purchasing the shares from money men Roger Hertog and Michael Steinhardt, Canadian media giant Can West has completely bought out the New Republic.

The Observer first reported in Dec. 2006 (2nd item) that CanWest was taking a majority stake in the company. That was confirmed on Feb 23. Instead of just majority interest, CanWest now owns 100% of the company.

Just another development in the land-grab for printed media, even while many journalists continue to throw fits about the advent of blogging and new media.

Says the press release:

The magazine and its website are currently undergoing a major overhaul. The makeover includes a new frequency of publication, bigger issues and a new reader-friendly design.

If you haven't seen it yet, do go see the Frontline series, "News War."