October 2003 Archives

WSJ.com - Powerful Connections: Social-Networking Web Sites Attract Venture Capitalists, Evoking Memories of 1999

Hilarious that so many are wedded to the name "Pac Bell Park." Brilliant marketing for a defunct brand. Now it will change to SBC Park. At least the dogs are still warm / Name change has SBC ringing some fans' bells Yuck. I predict a nickname will develop. As this piece quotes a fan: "In the past it wasn't Candlestick, it was 'the 'Stick.' Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia was 'the Vet.' Heck, even Bank One Ballpark in Arizona is 'the Bob'." What will it be for SBC Park. How about taking the "S" from SBC and adding it to Park and calling it the Spark?

I like the idea of calling it Willie Mays Park. Let SBC have all the advertising they want at the park--or call it "Willie May Park, sponsored by SBC." Something has to happen or SBC Park will be like 3Com Park--only spoken with a sneer by real fans.

Just noticed this post and thought it worthy: eLawyer Blog: Milton Friedman on UPL Restrictions.

A worthy speech by Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, United States Department of Commerce, that addresses the issue of offshore outsourcing, particularly in the tech arena. Is this a trend to welcomed or feared? Mehlman discusses both sides of the debate and ultimately, I believe, comes out with the right prescription. These trends are ultimately good things, for our country and for humanity, but the transitions can be painful. There is the inevitable urge on behalf of government to "do something," encouraged by vested interests. The Bush Admin seems relatively resistant to that urge--that is, the best thing to do is to encourage growth and prosperity. Don't protect jobs that become irrelevant with the advance of technology and productivity, encourage the development of new jobs.

Here are a couple of examples from the speech that show how often decisions that protect one interest group merely punish another:

In 2001, New Jersey’s Department of Human Services (Division of Family Development) outsourced a basic call center used to support a welfare program to an Arizona firm, which then sent the work – nine jobs – to India. State legislators were outraged, and in the wake of controversy, the state returned the jobs to New Jersey. Unfortunately, the cost of the call center work was 20 percent higher when done back in the U.S., thereby reducing the amount of funds available for the welfare recipients for whom the call center is needed.

The Pentagon faced similar outrage when it sought to procure black berets from China. Lawmakers were incensed that U.S. tax dollars in the Defense Department, of all places, were not being used to support American manufacturers, and the hats were procured from a domestic supplier. Yet unfortunately this question is a bit more complicated. Since even the Defense Department faces a ceiling on its budget, Defense planners are forced to make tough choices every day. Every dollar spent on clothing is a dollar less for improving soldiers’ pay (to keep military families off food stamps), supporting forward deployments, designing new defense systems to better protect our men and women in harm’s way, and improving the accuracy of our precision-guided munitions to minimize noncombatant casualties. The choices become very real and very difficult.

Auren Hoffman plugs R21 in this post on AO--There Is No Media Consolidation. So right back at ya, Auren. And for more on the topic see this post and comments.

Tony Perkins t's off on Alex Vieux (see "French socialist" relaunches Red Herring) on AlwaysOn in retaliation for Alex’s comments in the Merc. Note that AO and (the new) Red Herring are essentially direct competitors--web site and events companies covering Silicon Valley business trends. For the record, the founders of Red Herring (of which I was one) have nothing to do with the relaunch of RedHerring.com, and it appears that Alex Vieux, new owner of the Red Herring brand, has decided to publicly criticize (in the San Jose Mercury News) the Herring of old.

I have to admit to being puzzled why Vieux would decide to position the new Red Herring against the old Red Herring (and dis the literally hundreds of people who busted their asses working for Red Herring for over a decade), rather than position it against current competitors or position it positively in the context of today’s market (perhaps it’s easier to attack an entity that can’t respond?). But then again I am puzzled why a “socialist” in the Valley wants to run a media company about capitalist ventures in the first place.

One would hope that the messaging around a re-launched Red Herring would be about a vision for the future, creativity, and entrepreneurialism, rather than derision for the past and idle chatter about ties and socialists.

If Vieux is embarrassed by the brand, then he shouldn’t have bought it—go create your own brand, Alex. If he is interested in building a new future for the brand then he’s going to have to show a lot more imagination that has been displayed thus far. Good luck to the folks at Red Herring—especially those who played a role in Herring’s past—I hope that you overcome this inauspicious start.

Coda: to all the people of Red Herring’s past, employees and supporters, who worked so hard over the years to make it the great company it was, while I regret that some may not appreciate these efforts, this is one person who has eternal gratitude for what you did and will never forget you.

There has been a lot of chatter about the fact that we don't know much about Arnold Shwarzenegger's policies. "We don't know anything about him!" comes the cry from people who apparently know enough about him to dislike him. Truth is, anyone who bothers to listen to him knows a fair amount about him. He's a social moderate and fiscal conservative--he's said this time and time again. He's pro-choice and anti-tax. We also know a lot about some of his advisors: Pete Wilson, George Shultz, Milton Friedman, John Cogan, Warren Buffet--these people's views are widely known and widely published. But it is true: he has not said much about specific actions he would take on the job. Instead, we are left with a choice of whether to vote for him based on his principles, not his policies, and his character and charisma. On NPR this morning historian Kevin Starr asked: is this a new paradigm? Let's hope so.

It is perhaps ironic that a process that has on the one hand brought us closer to direct democracy has also, because of the abbreviated timeframe, has brought us in anoter sense closer to representative democracy. There is not enough time to micromanage our candidate--we just have to pick who we trust and hope he makes the right decisions. Folks, this is a good thing.

CA Secretary of State - Vote2003 - Map - - Shall Gray Davis be recalled?

One more prediction for tomorrow: Arnold will get more votes in this election than Gray Davis did when he was elected last year. This despite the intellectually dishonest scare tactics from the Davis campaign that someone *could* win with only 15% of the votes. Yes, someone could, but of course we all know that someone won't. It's phantom problems like this that Davis likes to scare up to deflect attention to the real problem: he's been a disaster as governor.

Wrecked Highway.

In this issue:
The NFL
Fantasy Sports
NYC Schools
Bennifer
Janeane Garafolo

MoveOn.org is urging you to vote "no" on the recall to "defend democracy." Really.

Now I've written that I'm not a fan of the recall at a conceptual level (nor am I of the initiative system for that matter) but I find it hugely ironic that the "progressives" who were the ones who put this provision in the state constitution in the first place (way back when) and are always yammering about "giving the people a voice" are so offended that when the people get a chance to speak they don't speak in the way that progressives want them to. Just look at the poll results (USA Today/CNN/Gallup and LA Times.)

Who's kidding who here? If there had been a conservative in office and a left-winger mounted a successful recall challenge supported by the majority of Californians then MoveOn would be the first the herald this as a triumph for democracy, and the people vs. the politicians. But clearly this is NOT about principle, it's about politics.

Personally I think the recall is a bad provision and admit that those that have a problem with the recall in principle but support the likely political outcome have a mirrored problem as MoveOn. However, here is my reasoning: like it or not, it is legal, it is democratic, it is constitutional, and it is happening. Voting "no" on the recall will do nothing to "fix" the problem in principle (and practice), which is that we have a recall statute in the first place. The proper course of action is to vote based on what you feel would be the best political outcome on the recall, but for those who dislike the concept of a recall to support changing our constitution. So I would support changing our constitution to remove the recall provision, but as it's here, I am going to vote "yes" because I feel that's in the best interests of me (who, after all is who I represent when I vote) and the state.

People who say you should vote against the recall on principle are focusing on the wrong thing: you should support removing it from the constitution if that's what you believe.

Paradoxically for me I find the same reasoning that compels me to dislike the recall in principle is also the same reasoning that compels me NOT to vote "no" on principle. Follow this: we have to learn to be accountable for our decisions. I think that when we elect people, we should suffer the consequences or else we won't take our obligations seriously in the first place. HOWEVER, the same logic applies to our laws. We also have to live by the consequences of the laws we create for ourselves, otherwise we won't take the crafting of our constitution and our laws seriously. So this recall is law, bad law perhaps, but law. If we don't like its use, we should change the law rather than just trying to neuter it and hope it will go away.

Most (not all) people encouraging a "no" vote on principle are simply using it as a partisan tactic. Let's see what MoveOn does when Arnold's elected. Will these great defenders of democracy support the inevitable drive to recall Arnold?

Finally, I find Davis' complaining about the cost to be especially dishonest: first, the cost is already incurred whether you vote "no" or "yes." Second, it will cost the state MORE if you vote "no" because if the recall fails then the state has to reimburse Davis for his expenses. One more reason to throw the bum out.

Coda: I've been surprised by how much this recall has done to get people engaged in state politics. They are talking about avrecord turn out for Oct. 7th. Big statewide issues that many had no clue about 6 months ago are now the talk of the town. If you care about education and immigration issues, these have received a huge amount of attention from this process. If you care about the challenges confronting the California economy--workers compensation, taxation, litigation, regulation, energy--these too have received a kind of attention that would have been impossible without the recall. Maybe, just maybe, with the political will rallied, some of these issues might get the attention they deserve and get fixed. This is a win for the progressives--the people are getting involved in politics and the special interests are taking a back seat (just look how the Indian gaming connection has hurt Bustamante). Popular democracy is happening in practice, even if the principles are not to the progressives' liking.