tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-204440462024-03-13T10:55:36.318-04:00Planet Abell<p>Good journalism has nothing to do with the medium.</p>
<p>If the medium is the message, you're not doing it right.</p>
<p>Nothing is more important than aspiring to be correct.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger297125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-53092673918561678112013-12-18T08:15:00.003-05:002020-11-10T15:47:06.586-05:00Forget Gold or Bitcoin: Cronut Futures Are The FutureI've never had a cronut, to begin with. Full disclosure: I'm pretty pissed off about this. But no matter. The cronut might be delicious, but that's incidental. There's money in cronuts, and not in the paltry, $5 over-the-counter price. Like any rare commodity, the cronut is ripe for speculation, and I want in.<br />
<br />
The cronut, for the uninitiated, is the bakery industry's version of the iPhone: nothing looked anything like it before, and now <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100798325" target="_blank">everyone wants to get into the act</a>. To aficionados, the cronut is nothing less than the perfect union of a croissant and a donut and — based on <a href="http://www.grubstreet.com/2013/05/dominique-ansel-cronut.html" target="_blank">drooling</a> reviews — quite a bit more.<br />
<br />
If only there were more.<br />
<br />
<i>(<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131216215703-6388496-forget-gold-or-bitcoin-cronuts-futures-are-the-future?trk=mp-author-card">Read the full post on LinkedIn</a>)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-52440382703092139122013-02-22T11:51:00.005-05:002020-11-10T15:47:23.854-05:00Netbook Envy: Getting Down With Downgrading<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<br />
For as long as I can remember I have always wanted a "better" computer — smaller, more powerful, better features, etc. And it's been easy to chase improvements because tech tends to decline in price, year over year. Two decades ago my first home desktop computer "system" (yes, it was a "system") set me back about $2,200 and was probably less powerful (and certainly less portable) than my iPhone.<br />
<br />
Two months ago my daughter and I built a high-end gaming PC for about $1,300 -- and that tower can launch missiles.
Maybe it's part of the maturation process (mine, not technology) or maybe it's because I've become a cheapskate, or maybe because it's clearer now after years of using computers that I actually know what I do 90% of the time and am not as motivated by pay for cachet over function (this might be the time to mention that my newest car is 13 years old).<br />
<br />
Whatever the reasons, these days I think less is more.<br />
<br />
<i>(Read <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130201210544-6388496-netbook-envy-getting-down-with-downgrading">the full post</a> at LinkedIn)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-24333198816576089712013-01-02T14:31:00.002-05:002020-11-10T15:48:32.706-05:00The Real 'Story' of the Fiscal Cliff<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">The Fiscal Cliff story has been a thriller, every bit as dramatic as those Cold War spy stories sadly nobody can get away with anymore. Stop me if you've heard this before: The players are polar opposites, circling each other nervously in a delicate balance of terror — and yet they must work (or at least live) together to save the world! Things are always coming down to the wire. The political angles are so numerous and acute you actually believe up is down and black is white.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the stakes weren't so high (and the apparent outcome of what is now Phase I of this particular sage so unsatisfactory) it would be a great story. But we are so addicted to "great" stories — stories that have familiar touchstones — that sometimes the real story gets ignored. You know, the one that could have changed everything.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Fiscal Cliff story was an unnecessary story — a sideshow. I don't think the media machine is ginning up the prospect of economic disasters just to sell newspapers in the grand tradition of Joseph Pulitzer, Rupert Murdoch and Charles Foster Kane. But I do think our eyes are on the wrong ball.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's hardly the first time. Even in the last few months.</div>
<br />
<i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130101193358-6388496-the-real-story-of-the-fiscal-cliff">Full Post</a>)</i><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-30200111556406360392012-12-20T10:38:00.002-05:002012-12-20T10:38:45.431-05:00This Week in Instagram<div style="text-align: center;">
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" height="380" id="cnbcplayer" width="400"> <param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/> <param name="quality" value="best"/> <param name="scale" value="noscale" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/> <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/> <param name="salign" value="lt"/> <param name="flashVars" value="startTime=000"/> <param name="flashVars" value="endTime=000"/> <param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000136468/code/cnbcplayershare" /> <embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000136468/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object> </div>
<br />
I've done a couple of posts this week on Instagram, and one TV appearance, on CNBC's "Closing Bell" (clip above).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/12/19/instagram-unleashes-a-thousand-words/">In my weekly Reuters column</a> I argue that Instagram has to reverse course, and quickly.<br />
<br />
In a <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121220150025-6388496-instagram-how-not-to-announce-a-business-plan?trk=mp-author-card">blog post on LinkedIn</a>, I describe the controversy as big messaging blunder who's best (and least likely) explanation is that it was rookie mistake. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-77197349548147479682012-12-03T14:21:00.000-05:002012-12-03T14:21:23.339-05:00What We Can't Learn from The Daily's Demise
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOXDmsjG_6r0k52fajUP4MWbcmpYOAJmhMUKJM10eUU9JNZDhieOoS8tAMBvgtotuiCI1bMWSM_IWF3qng-PCanYxberEHcRJNj3tm_STcQPy0WXHSRJxyDBEvJGBPMVK_bJX8/s1600/thedaily.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOXDmsjG_6r0k52fajUP4MWbcmpYOAJmhMUKJM10eUU9JNZDhieOoS8tAMBvgtotuiCI1bMWSM_IWF3qng-PCanYxberEHcRJNj3tm_STcQPy0WXHSRJxyDBEvJGBPMVK_bJX8/s320/thedaily.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I come to neither praise nor bury <i>The Daily</i>, News Corp's iPad-only news app experiment that will <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/news-corp-closing-the-daily-2012-12?op=1"><span class="s1">end with a whimper in two weeks</span></a>. But let's be clear on what went wrong — and what didn't. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
As Wired's business editor at the time <i>The Daily</i> was announced I decided to cover it as a big event — the coming out party <a href="http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/the-daily-launch/"><span class="s1">literally was a big event</span></a> for News Corp, which threw a press conference that seemed to try too hard anoint it as a golden child from inception. When you use phrases like "digital renaissance” and assert that "We believe <i>The Daily</i> will be the model for the way stories are told and consumed,” you are setting yourself up for quite a fall.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
My own initial impression, for <a href="http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/02/the-daily-the-newspaper-as-a-magazine/"><span class="s1">a formal Wired review</span></a>, was that <i>The Daily</i> was "very good" — 7/10. I admired the "cover flow" approach to displaying content and likened the publication to a "re-imagined digital magazine that is updated every day."</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I praised the content: "<i>The Daily</i> looks like it may be onto something editorially, even if the economics are a challenge." But I also hedged: "Content will make or break this app, and it’s too early to judge the quality of <i>The Daily</i>‘s journalism — though nothing we read in the inaugural edition disqualifies it."</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
That assessment changed quickly for me.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
(<i><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121203191109-6388496-what-we-can-t-learn-from-the-daily-s-demise">Full Post</a></i>)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-3355369725020627492012-12-01T10:35:00.002-05:002012-12-01T10:38:57.564-05:00Surface 'Pro' Sheds The Tablet Pretense<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1d0/2a5/1048655.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1d0/2a5/1048655.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
Back in June, when Microsoft's Surface was announced, I wrote a <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/06/20/scratching-the-surface-when-is-a-tablet-not-a-tablet/"><span class="s1">Reuters MediaFile column</span></a> arguing that it really wasn't a tablet at all. It was a hybrid at best, I said, really going after a piece of the the ultralight market. The target wasn't Apple's iPad — but its MacBook Air.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
An ARM-based version of the Surface has been out <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013173/microsoft-surface-goes-on-sale-to-cheering-crowds.html"><span class="s1">for about a month</span></a>. It goes for $500 — same as an entry-level iPad. It's really more like $630 because you do want that cover/keyboard, and the cheaper "touch" one looks cheap compared to the "type" version, and it's only $10 less. While Apple shows people touching the iPad screen Surface's print and TV ads for all tout the cover and the kickstand — terrestrial, not mobile features.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Five weeks after launch Surface hasn't made a dent in iPad sales. CEO Ballmer said earlier this month that sales were modest, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-surface-sales-2012-11"><span class="s1">and that was on purpose</span></a>.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
But the big shoe drop was always going to be how much Microsoft would charge for the Surface with Windows 8 Pro. This one was going to be more expensive, we all knew. But was it going to carve out a niche for tablet/PC hybrids in the way Apple invented demand for tablets?</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121130202821-6388496-surface-pro-sheds-the-tablet-pretense?trk=mp-author-card">Full Post</a>)</i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-75471597710893041042012-12-01T10:33:00.002-05:002012-12-01T10:36:18.315-05:00Who 'Owns' Facebook?<div class="p1">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/7/000/1d0/281/0084110.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/7/000/1d0/281/0084110.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
One of the oldest tropes in marketing is that the consumer owns the brand. It's nice shorthand for customer passion: It's why <a href="http://reviews.wikinut.com/New-Coke-by-Coca-Cola-Biggest-Marketing-blunder-Ever!/1-gyx.l5/"><span class="s1">New Coke</span></a> had to go, why <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/10/11/gap-logo/"><span class="s1">the Gap</span></a> had to reverse course on their logo change and why the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/hostess-executive-bonuses_n_2210515.html"><span class="s1">Twinkie</span></a> may actually last forever after all.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Companies own their brands, of course, in every literal and legal sense. But most of them know that if they act imperiously with their property they risk losing customers, and worse — their best customers can turn into motivated, evangelical enemies overnight.<br />
<br />
But what if the product is a service that treats you like a product? Where are your alliances — and what are your rights — in that mind-exploding scenario?<br />
<br />
<i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121130184741-6388496-who-owns-facebook">Full Post</a>)</i></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-35938518273491204592012-11-27T16:03:00.000-05:002012-11-27T16:06:17.997-05:00Vote On Facebook! (It Could Be Your Last Chance)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1ce/1c4/3d6a85d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1ce/1c4/3d6a85d.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
Facebook's decision to eliminate member voting on policy changes is coming down to what could be the last member vote ever on the world's largest social network. The good news is that it could still be reversed. The bad news? The only thing that can stop disenfranchisement is if the number of votes cast are equal to nearly the entire population of the United States. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Facebook's pesky democracy problem? Members can vote to reverse a policy change if a) 7,000 people comment on it, and b) one-third of the total membership casts a ballot in an election Facebook is required to schedule. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Facebook is addressing a legitimate problem with the voting protocol — the infinitesimal percentage of its one billion members that can make a vote happen. But rather than fix that, Facebook has decided to scrap the entire member-empowering initiative. By ending it entirely it has set off a nuclear bomb when a grenade would have done.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
Talk about voter suppression.<br />
<br />
<i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121127184956-6388496-vote-on-facebook-it-could-be-your-last-chance">Full Post</a>)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-85368418380274613512012-11-21T14:30:00.000-05:002012-11-21T15:03:24.951-05:00Hewlett-Packard, Autonomy and 'Rules of the Garage'<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1cb/083/0d0bc21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/000/1cb/083/0d0bc21.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It remains to be seen if Hewlett-Packard's investors (or the SEC and <a href="http://businessweek.com/news/2012-11-20/fbi-said-to-be-looking-into-hp-s-allegations-on-autonomy">the FBI</a>) will accept a "shift the blame" defense for an <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578130712448913412.html">$8.8 billion charge</a> it is taking for the $10 billion purchase of Autonomy, a Big Data firm with a big accounting problem that was the landmine in an otherwise unimpressive Q4 earnings report.<br />
<br />
For those who missed the news from Palo Alto, here’s a brief rundown: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-hp-results-idUSBRE8AJ0OB20121120">According to CEO Meg Whitman</a>, Autonomy had been billing low margin hardware sales as high-margin software sales and booked some deals with partners as revenue even though no money changed hands. Making matters worse, the Autonomy charge was the second acquisition-related, $8 billion+ write down in two consecutive quarters.<br />
<br />
Shareholders quickly drove H-P down 12% to a nearly 52-week low. Now starts the finger-pointing.
For his part, former CEO (for 10 months) <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/11/20/leo-apotheker-due-diligence-of-autonomy-was-meticulous/">Leo Apotheker</a> is shocked, shocked that the deal he put together may have been massively flawed: "The due diligence process was meticulous and thorough," he says. Former Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch "<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-hp-lynch-statement-idUSBRE8AJ0Y820121120">flatly" rejects the allegations</a>. An accounting firm that vetted the deal, Deloitte, "<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=20444046"><span class="s1">categorically denies</span></a> that it had any knowledge of any accounting misrepresentations in Autonomy’s financial statements." And Meg Whitman, who as a board member voted in favor of the deal, says H-P <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578130712448913412.html">was duped</a>.
<br />
<br />
Maybe looking for individual bad actors is the wrong way to think about what’s going on. I think the bigger problem is a more simple one. H-P, which invented industries and a start-up culture based on simple concepts, simply forgot to take its own advice.
<br />
<br />
<i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121121180347-6388496-hewlett-packard-autonomy-and-rules-of-the-garage">Full Story)</a></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-5775826526643947992012-11-15T11:59:00.001-05:002012-11-15T12:07:30.295-05:00Why Facebook Didn't Tank (Again)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXzl9v7fVxemPEewdWQRQCOZhEmrGuU57na-PiBqnOtPQ5Mc-2PwTTxKDI2ssWgYq4Gt8Gf55LEx0CEDMxnfbuFoxRouevI6hv5dZGKOS7-y6y5vNcY0yuqzYy2uU-pZDgAo6q/s1600/7216473832_fae637eacc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXzl9v7fVxemPEewdWQRQCOZhEmrGuU57na-PiBqnOtPQ5Mc-2PwTTxKDI2ssWgYq4Gt8Gf55LEx0CEDMxnfbuFoxRouevI6hv5dZGKOS7-y6y5vNcY0yuqzYy2uU-pZDgAo6q/s320/7216473832_fae637eacc.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
A funny thing happened on the way to Facebook's second lockup expiration Wednesday — it sent the bears running for cover, unlike lockup expiration version 1.0 back in August.<br />
<br />
This is good news — but it's not all good.<br />
<br />
The good news is obvious enough: Facebook shares not only held their own but rallied — more than on <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/facebook-posts-largest-single-day-gain-after-third-quarter-earnings-call/"><span class="s1">any other day</span></a> of the company's brief, rocky existence as a public company. Shares <a href="http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-14/markets/35103038_1_facebook-shares-stock-jumps-lockup-expiration"><span class="s1">shot up about 13%</span></a>, to close at $23.23. And to emphasize that wasn't some kind of irrationally exuberant fluke, $FB was essentially flat and in line with a slightly down NASDAQ in early Thursday trading.<br />
<br />
The bad news is not as obvious: Insider holders of Facebook stock saw the prospect of dumping as many as <a href="http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-14/markets/35103038_1_facebook-shares-stock-jumps-lockup-expiration"><span class="s1">800 million shares</span></a> on the market all at once as a holding opportunity — not a chance to cash in on a windfall that is a significant part of their compensation package.<br />
<br />
The "maybe good, maybe bad" news? Strong, counterintuitive performances like this shift the conversation from talk about the stock to talk about fundamentals (see below).<br />
<br />
(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121115165453-6388496-why-facebook-didn-t-tank-again"><span class="s3"><i>Continued ...</i></span></a><i>)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-68173453617021091932012-11-14T12:03:00.002-05:002012-11-14T12:03:37.699-05:00'Black' Day at the Gray Lady<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/3/000/1c6/191/39c596c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/3/000/1c6/191/39c596c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span>Oh, to have been a fly in the room when Research in Motion Chief
Executive Thorsten Heins briefed the <i>New York Times</i> on the face (and
potentially company) saving Blackberry 10, due out Jan. 30 and not a
moment too soon for the company which rivals Nokia for top prize in the
mobile phone "How Far The Mighty Have Fallen" honors.</span><br /><br /><span>I
flatter myself but also Bits writer Ian Austin by saying confidently
that I infer from his report the mood of the room was ... cautiously
pessimistic.</span><br /><br /><span>How else could these seasoned journalists have processed this Money Quote from Heins: "I don't expect things to get much worse."</span><br /><br /><span>It's right up there with "What could possibly go wrong?" and "</span><a href="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgoodnightandgoodluckmurrow.html" target="_blank"><span>This might just do nobody any good</span></a><span>" and "The check is in the mail."</span><br />
<br />
<span><i>(<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121114154103-6388496--black-day-at-the-gray-lady">Continued ...</a>)</i> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-12617931448501152432012-10-07T20:38:00.001-04:002012-11-14T12:10:31.659-05:00Breaking Bad: Available Evidence<div>
<div dir="ltr">
It's been killing me: How can Walt be free at 52 (albeit miserable, evidently alone and more in fear of his life than ever) since Hank now knows (or soon will realize) that Walt is Heisenberg.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Here's a possibility: Walt comes clean (how can he not?) but blackmails Hank. What story would Hank's superiors be more likely to believe? That Walt eluded Hank's scrutiny, or that Hank was in on it? Hank has even accepted money from Walt for medical bills.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But the fact that neither family is living beyond their visible means supports the conspiracy theory. It's all in the family. The settling up will come someday, but needn't now.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Walt has already decided to quit the meth business; this is another pressure point to Hank since he wouldn't be asking the DEA ASAC to turn a future blind eye, only the lies that were necessary in the past. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Clearly, even if this is the scenario for season 5, part II, it won't hold forever. Hank wouldn't take this lying down. He'd play for time, to figure a way out if this mess. And we know Walt is in New Hampshire nine months later evidently alone and on the run.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
No, it won't be the feel good hit of 2013. </div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-32344587631016552922012-10-04T18:39:00.002-04:002012-10-05T09:04:54.557-04:00Get Over It: It Was a Fair Fight, And Obama Blew It Himself<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYQwy4YF3y9MTgu-nrMKO817BFNTalDudewvnowVAyXFtsRIczHJoCw8CXqfD537gXDBt5hyphenhyphenRnKDqAAJkFRsQW-ZHcVyFoCaJCwvTPEmTg61tkrSo1Ou_lh4l2XL0m0Fcf3FTT/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.22.19+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="114" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYQwy4YF3y9MTgu-nrMKO817BFNTalDudewvnowVAyXFtsRIczHJoCw8CXqfD537gXDBt5hyphenhyphenRnKDqAAJkFRsQW-ZHcVyFoCaJCwvTPEmTg61tkrSo1Ou_lh4l2XL0m0Fcf3FTT/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.22.19+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
I can't help but think that many of my liked-minded friends have completely missed the point of last night's debates. It doesn't matter how much dissembling Romney might have done, or how preposterous the internal logic of his statements may add up to. The moderator's role is a sideshow — moderators are a stupid modern convention that clever politicians know how to play.<br />
<br />
Debates are not about policy discovery. They are theater. That is all. It's all about heart.<br />
<br />
The day before, and the day after — that's the time to score the head. On stage it's all about your media training.<br />
<br />
What makes so many Obama supporters angry is that the distance between head and heart were so wide. But there is nobody to blame for that, and for the appearance — the performance — that conveyed.<br />
<br />
I saw Felix Salmon today (thanks again for RT'ing, even if, as you explained, it must have been a mistake / the result or boredom or all you have left to do when your own Twitter feed blew up) and after some witty (One-sided. Guess which side) banter I told him how I had watched the debate.<br />
<br />
Even I didn't realize it until today:
I essentially stopped listening after the first question to live blog it (along with the entire planet, apparently), and kept one ear and one eye open for a clue that the dynamic was changing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiKNiVyWBmNvDAfghw_z0yQ8f9FmLjLpxIQOCeTGPYIB3Eers2DZ7ZqH9q8rFd5qCsEvrs9zDEuvqYYy7MjMuJA8BAVQEhs4NyNQOmA_GtvlT0Bku4fgduw2s9hXCTKJYpzigA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.18.21+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiKNiVyWBmNvDAfghw_z0yQ8f9FmLjLpxIQOCeTGPYIB3Eers2DZ7ZqH9q8rFd5qCsEvrs9zDEuvqYYy7MjMuJA8BAVQEhs4NyNQOmA_GtvlT0Bku4fgduw2s9hXCTKJYpzigA/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.18.21+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Obama lost because he didn't take the initiative. He even looked at times as if he didn't want to be president anymore. He's made a case for a Democrat, but not for this Democrat, and for a person who has often seemed so blasé in office — in stark contrast to the often passionate 2008 campaigner — this is not a good meme to feed.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wHmBk9qE46yz_a-GwCwwwhRrJMBiIVSFWanbtBD1n3Q4cYEmjruus18mVjy_NAag90RXa7h973cqyqOLzhqrWB-JqE5zTXb_YL9-9_y8kP1VLnvQxPdFte9YtDe3aBvIbVDm/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.26.37+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="127" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wHmBk9qE46yz_a-GwCwwwhRrJMBiIVSFWanbtBD1n3Q4cYEmjruus18mVjy_NAag90RXa7h973cqyqOLzhqrWB-JqE5zTXb_YL9-9_y8kP1VLnvQxPdFte9YtDe3aBvIbVDm/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-10-04+at+6.26.37+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The setup now is for Biden to take the heat off, and for Obama to close strongly. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But you only get one chance to make a first impression, and that was it</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here's the Storify of my <a href="http://storify.com/johncabell/obama-romney-debate">Obama / Romney Twitter live blog</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-72560724765256115992012-10-03T10:12:00.000-04:002012-10-03T10:12:19.203-04:00How The Blog Ethic Will Cripple Debater Romney<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAcDluUFWB6BLJZWBN9TQfI-13aL7oms9khuHP3XWa7AU66KZUcogdQf_91qg9yTY8sLHI8L2ygAnCj9DxY7u_1EKkL7U29bPGdAaSwPPxR0SB-3kURxIrrK7BBRrc8iuYGCw5/s1600/teachers-pet-end-title.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAcDluUFWB6BLJZWBN9TQfI-13aL7oms9khuHP3XWa7AU66KZUcogdQf_91qg9yTY8sLHI8L2ygAnCj9DxY7u_1EKkL7U29bPGdAaSwPPxR0SB-3kURxIrrK7BBRrc8iuYGCw5/s320/teachers-pet-end-title.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
One of the most important modern advances in journalism — courtesy, mind you, of the ethics of blogging -- is the opportunity for writers and publisher to own up to mistakes in the same place, time and fashion where the mistakes were made.</div>
<br />
Journalists have always had an obligation to correct their errors, of course. Not all have, of course. And the truth can be elusive, even a matter of opinion sometimes. <br />
<br />
But what isn't up for debate is requirement to tell the same audience you deluded that a) you were wrong and b) here's the truth. <br />
<br />
Not to pile on, but newspapers haven't always been too good at this. Even when they have grudgingly acknowledged error, they did so in an error section that only the curious few bothered to check, often exposing themselves to the story in question for the first time. Once the paper was out it was out, and gone. Fish wrap. No sane publisher was going to spend valuable paper and ink to re-print old news, just so an error could be acknowledged and fixed in the proper venue. <br />
<br />
But blogs changed that. Blog posts never go away. They beg to be fixed, and the right audience will always see the fix, no matter when they discover the story. <br />
<br />
Oh, if it were only always this in politics.<br />
<br />
The old adage that it takes a second for a lie to go around the world while the truth addles to catch up is not only true in politics, but it has been weaponized. Sound-bite savvy politicians know that even if they have to walk it back that will only be to a smaller, and — more significantly — different audience. Convenient lies are shared only for an audience that is not the target demographic. So there is no real downside to telling a whopper if your big worry is that someone on Fox or MSNBC is going to point that out to the choir a day or even hours later. <br />
<br />
But debates are different. They are like blogs to the old media convention of fail now, fix later (and elsewhere).<br />
<br />
In a well-moderated (and fought) debate, nobody will be able to get away with anything. Because there are two people, right here right now, who will call you out. To the same audience who heard the lie. In real-time. <br />
<br />
This was part of Tim Pawlenty's problem in the GOP primary debates. He called out Romney by using the phrase "ObamneyCare" in some friendly forum, and declined to man up on stage with Romney himself. <br />
<br />
This will not be a problem when Mitt Romney faces off with Barack Obama tonight debates and two more times. <br />
<br />
And this is the risk to Romney. His best material is ... questionable. But deploying Obama surrogates to opine on cable TV about the challenger's Medicare and welfare shots at the president does nothing to prevent the continued spread of that propaganda, even though it has been identified clearly by "fact-checkers" as false. The asynchronous nature of statement and rebuttal (and a lack of shame) enables the lie in the daily give-and-take of a campaign. With both parties, and a ref, on one stage it shouldn't be possible to slide out from under a smear.<br />
<br />
Romney survived the GOP primary debates, with only a few big stumbles — Brother, can you spare $10,000? He's good in formal settings, and he has the best debate prep team money can buy. <br />
<br />
But what he can't do on stage is argue like Romney. That is the path to embarrassment and humiliation and the death sentence that is appearing "unpresidential." That may be why there is talk of prepared "zingers" — a tactic to derail seriousness, play out the clock and fight for tomorrow's viral video sound bite.<br />
<br />
But you can't live on improv alone. Maybe if there was one debate, but surely not when there will be three.<br />
<br />
Which leave one possibility: The Big Reveal.<br />
<br />
I can't wait I hear Romney's argument for himself on debate night. Because if I do, I will be hearing it for the first time.<br />
<br />
<i>(Photo: "<a href="http://annyas.com/screenshots/updates/teachers-pet-1958-doris-day-clark-gable/">Teacher's Pet</a>")</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-2205834157609258022012-10-02T10:35:00.003-04:002012-10-02T10:48:20.529-04:00The NY Times & HTML5: "This Is A First Step."I felt a tiny burst of joy on my morning commute today when I read that the <i>New York Times</i> was going to launch an HTML5 version of its digital edition. Then I had a cow when I discovered that it was iPad only.<br />
<br />
I Tweeted disapproval with my usual reserve:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://twitter.com/johncabell/status/253115184619606016"><img border="0" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqT8VuoZTtLZK8Tu6-FiwzBFPk0bsGeygmn-a2URTgTgFwVYUfT7yfO32bUuY5I84ZhztyZ9IuCtuSYbGP7ufp315rSFmlbs7Gx4xWAJo4jxU4oaQvojV9y2Cbq3TXzQUFBtOt/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-10-02+at+10.08.29+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I also wrote to the <i>Times</i>, which quickly responded:<br />
<br />
"We wanted to test the Web App among a highly engaged audience of NYT subscribers, which made the iPad a natural choice," spokeswoman Linda Zebian wrote back. "This is the first step, but the HTML5 format does allow us to explore the idea of launching Web-based apps other platforms in the future."<br />
<br />
Indeed it does. The question is, why wait and do even a tiny bit of damage to your street cred as a leader in the digital arena? And invite unfavorable comparison (as I did) to the Financial Times, whose HTML5 app works great on both the iPad/Safari and Nexus 7/Chrome/Jelly Bean?<br />
<br />
@OttoBerks had a thought:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://twitter.com/OttoBerkes/status/253122879162560513"><img border="0" height="78" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTCBsYKRC3FFOae_cwXshkLs7VRX_LSIzrHZGSL1ZOlm98cmiQ5pLgW38s7E-LjGMNMnKV9Pkb_RiEfnQ0vFq-M9_3UgsUnJIxTWSNTJNaUsmyFxAtrK3VSsCEnmx4Jke-evZq/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-10-02+at+10.15.14+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This makes sense, and hews to the Times' reply.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It just all seems a little strange. Sure the Android universe isn't huge in tablets, but it is huger than iOS on smartphones (and, guess what, the FT web app rocks there as well).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Why rush — especially since it doesn't seem to be an end-run around the iTunes store; the Times will continue to make the app available, unlike the FT, which pulled it to save that 30% fee.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The Times has lovely iOS and Android apps — the latest upgrade for the Nexus 7 makes it leaner and more navigable. But the appeal of using HTML5 — apart from the cross-platform advantage the Times has forgone for the time being — is that you are better able to lay things out and, more importantly, apply updates dynamically. For a news app the latter is critical and the former an increasingly nice-to-have, since one of the features of the paper itself is the ability to offer nuanced hierarchal clues besides just top-to-bottom headlines.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I'm looking forward to seeing this new Times app on my iPad, when I get home tonight. But it would be AWESOME, <i>New York Times</i>, if you could knock out the Android version by the time I take my evening commute ...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-5620623537398188162012-10-01T08:41:00.001-04:002012-10-01T13:22:50.979-04:00Where Angels Fear To Tread: Bernd Debusmann<div dir="ltr">
Five years ago I wrote about <a href="http://planetabell.blogspot.com/2007/09/reuters-opinion-10.html">the start of an era at Reuters</a>. Now it's time to write about the end of two.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Bernd Debusmann is leaving The Baron after one of the most storied careers not only at that news agency but but surely in journalism.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
He reported from more than 100 countries since joining the company in 1964 and, five years ago, was the marquee name when Reuters began an opinion service with three writers. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
They don't make them like this anymore. If ever there was a living Le Carré character, it is Bernd, from his lifelong passion of jumping out of airplanes (most of the time, I think, with a parachute) to the 7.65 mm round, delivered with a silenced pistol on behalf of someone who didn't care for his reporting.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Bernd leaves with that bullet still lodged near his spine, and with the admiration of generations of reporters who got to watch how it was done, day-in-and-day-out, even on those rare occasions when he wasn't being shot, threatened or thrown out of some country. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Generations more may yet benefit from his unique insights and experiences; there is talk of a book. The Reuters career ends but the writing continues, we are promised. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In a farewell letter Bernd alludes to his first Reuters Opinion piece. It was — to quote Joe Biden — a BFD.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I joined Reuters Opinion when they started letting anyone in. But Bernd was Jackie Robinson: entrusted with creating a franchise that lurking internal critics would have brought down at the first hint of trouble. Bernd had the street cred, of course, but he also had gravitas literally no one could question.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Here's another way to understand it: Only Nixon could go to China. Only Debusmann could have launched Reuters Opinion.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://planetabell.blogspot.com/2007/09/reuters-opinion-10.html">Here's how it looked to me in Sept. 2007</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-2940066816148122802012-09-27T11:44:00.000-04:002012-09-27T11:44:21.315-04:00Virtual schmirtual — the virtual wallet wars are a bust so far<b id="internal-source-marker_0.603202712489292" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578016383395015570.html"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Wall Street Journal today reports</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> what those of us who care about these things already know: There isn't a huge, pent-up demand for virtual wallet technology among consumers. Retailers are fired up and ready to go (in some cases, only half-heartedly), but customers aren't taking advantage of this new tech much yet.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Or at all. Consumer use of Near field Communication -- NFC, which beams payment information to a credit-card terminal — still looks very much like a novelty in the wild. Every one of the handful of times I've paid with a virtual wallet it has been then </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">first</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> time the cashier has seen it used. I am talking Home Depot, Radio Shack, Duane Reade. It's not scientific, of course, but it is still extraordinary. These are places that do a lot of transactions. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Starbucks is a big exception; they pioneered a rudimentary method which involves scanning barcodes stored on your smartphone. This is the same method Apple has now introduced with its foray into the virtual wallet, Passbook. And even though Starbucks has now paired with Square, they will still be doing it the old-fashioned way for a while, by continuing to scan codes rather than take advantage of the presence awareness which, under Pay with Square, identifies you, the customer, and your payment information on file, the second you walk into the place.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That's because Starbucks has discovered that, even in a low-tech application, paying with your phone is an easy habit to acquire: I will walk past places that probably make at least as good a cup of coffee as (and are far less crowded than) Starbucks just so I don't have to endure the inconvenience of using cash or a credit card. Your phone (or even your small tablet) is much easier to produce than your real wallet, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">then</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> produce something from that, and put away change, or shown the cashier your physical card ...</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/08/10/starbucks-and-square-want-your-phone-to-be-your-wallet/"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When authentication proceeds you, everybody wins</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. This would seem to be an even bigger win for the small business person. Alas ...</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Just as troubling is that smaller storefronts which actually could benefit from this -- and convey a special brand of street cred at the same time -- also seem to be curiously behind the curve. I encounter virtual wallet tech in small establishments almost never. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Get ready for more unscientific anecdotes. One very hip establishment I know actually signed up for Pay with Square -- but hasn't set it up for months. This is a growler place, where you'd imagine a clientele hip to every cutting edge trend, not just the one of bringing home fresh beer in a bottle you supply.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But no. "You're the only person who asks for it," they tell me, each of the three times I've been there over three months, as they scramble to look for (and fail to even find) the Square dongle that is Plan B, which would at least let me pay with a physical credit card.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My iPhone notifies me as I approach the store that I am now ready to Pay with Square. That remains news to the proprietor.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I used Google Wallet in a major drug store chain the other morning (as an aside, the part of the credit-card terminals that indicate they are NFC enabled were all covered with ads. Sigh.) The transaction was not smooth. It needed a lot of coaxing, elongating what would have been a much faster sale if I had just used my darn credit card.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I thought the cashier was annoyed, and was prepared to meekly apologize for trying to pay so geekily. "That was cool," she said, intoning in that lower register that always conveys sincerity rather than sarcasm. I self-deprecatingly replied it would have been much cooler if it had worked the first time. "That was cool," she repeated. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Maybe there is hope for this. I sure hope so. This is one geeky tech that could easy go mainstream. But it hasn't yet, and the vendors are ahead of their customers, by a country mile. That's worrisome.</span></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-42052659496219603962012-09-26T17:00:00.002-04:002012-09-26T19:21:15.124-04:00Master and Commander The problem with "The Master," The Paul Thomas Anderson film I really disliked, for those who have asked:<br />
<br />
The protagonist really should be "The Master," the Paul Seymour Hoffman character. But it's not -- the character at the center of this self-indulgent maelstrom is the Joachin Phoenix character, Freddie Quill.<br />
<br />
This needed some serious script doctoring.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-30000239918261551962012-09-24T18:41:00.001-04:002012-09-25T14:00:58.724-04:00TaxiCab ConfessionsIt's too easy, of course, to make too much of those pearls you hear from the mouths of babes (the small child variety, please), the mailman or a cab driver.<br />
<br />
But I think I heard the rationale that older, blue collar white guys will find to vote for Obama, in sufficient numbers.<br />
<br />
"I just don't believe him," the driver said today, referring to Romney in a rambling discussion about politics and his charges (black-car drivers LOVE to drop names of the people who've been in the back seat). "I don't like Obama either, but we have him ... so you know ..."<br />
<br />
And there you have it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-74515441462213113852012-09-24T18:27:00.000-04:002012-09-25T14:00:11.360-04:00TurboTax RomneyTwo things I don't get about Romney's self-defense of his tax situation:<br />
<br />
<b>1) A rate of 14% is "fair" because the funds being taxed — capital gains — have already been taxed on the corporate level.</b><br />
<br />
Huh? Capital gains are on realized profits from the sale of real property. If I buy a share of stock for $10, and I sell it for $15, my capital gain is $5. And if I held that share for more than a year, I am taxed at a rate of 15% on that $5, not an whatever rate my earned income is subject to.<br />
<br />
But, who paid a tax on the any of this before I did? Or, looked at in reverse: Every dollar is taxed by the person or entity which owned it at one time. My employer pays taxes on the money his company earns, then pays me from what's left over. I pay tax on that, and spend some at the supermarket. The supermarket pays tax, and its employees ... and so on.<br />
<br />
The fact that someone pays tax on that dollar upstream is as irrelevant as the fact that someone will pay tax on that dollar downstream. My paid tax on that dollar doesn't subsidize the supermarket. Why should a company's dividend to me be taxed any differently? And if you want to encourage long-term holding (a fine idea) you can <i>penalize</i> a short-term owner with a higher tax, rather than offering a discount for a long-term capital gain.<br />
<br />
<b>2) A lower capital gains rate is justified because it motivates investment and thus growth</b><br />
<br />
Doesn't any capital that a taxpayer keeps or is returned motivate investment and growth, potentially? Isn't that, in fact, the blanket argument for lowering taxes across the board? What special magic does money earned from investments have over money earned from work? Would there be <i>less</i> investment if the capital gains rate was equal to that for earned income?<br />
<br />
Yes? Then where would that money go?<br />
<br />
The truth is that the public market is only one way to find money to back or grow one's business — the vast majority of businesses are not publicly-traded companies. Mostly seed money comes from friends and family initially, and, if you lucky then early-stage investors, angels and assorted venture capitalists. But none of this is public market money.<br />
<br />
The biggest source of investment capital comes from a business itself. And the biggest source of capital for a business is receipts — money the buying public pays for goods and services.<br />
<br />
Every time I try to get my head around tax, economy and public policy I end up in the same place: Business invests not when it has money, but when it has customers. The greatest spenders are in the middle class, which is the largest demographic in any developed nation. Make life as easy as you can on these folk, and your country thrives.<br />
<br />
It's not hard. As Bill Clinton said, it's arithmetic.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-71031735205222042182012-09-03T16:59:00.000-04:002012-10-02T18:53:36.666-04:00Marathon Man<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/johncabell/status/242695019511828481"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFiE9Wkjgh86ZmomcYc61aBMNlnpUXqCzBQQ2KLGmE675wOyBGM-jg9KlOz2mHg7jz3UGsHGw-htieruz7YA5re2VFkIDGiZPYP3Cn6u0qYWkOoPeychKs7LyHnXLBz4hKy8w7/s400/Screen+Shot+2012-09-03+at+3.36.35+PM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
In this age of moral equivalence, your inner bad guy is relentlessly held against you — until I do the same thing. And then I get to say a) I am no worse than you, and b) You did it first. It's a push.<br />
<br />
So it is that GOP VP candidate <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/">Paul Ryan's fact-challenged convention</a> speech is judged on one set of criteria, and his malapropisms on another. On the former, well, he's Romney's running mate, these are the campaign's talking points, and he's just doing his job — reinforcing the message sanctioned by the top half of the ticket. On the latter, well, those are just "Bidenisms."<br />
<br />
But then in what seemed like a relaxed moment Ryan inexplicably exaggerated his performance in a marathon some 20 years ago. Yes, one's memory does play tricks, but as these things go (especially for a P90X boot camp guy) claiming you ran a sub three-hour marathon when in fact it took you more than four hours (worse than Sarah Palin's PB, but I digress) <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/ryan-admits-misstating-marathon-time/">takes a little explaining</a>.<br />
<br />
The explanation was simple enough, and homey: Oops. Ryan said he got some ribbing around the dinner table, especially from a brother who reminded the candidate that he has the best marathon time in the family.<br />
<br />
We could just chalk this up to the kind of loose talk that, frankly, Biden has become rather well known for. But we shouldn't.<br />
<br />
For on thing, Biden doesn't lie about himself. Well, not since the 1988 presidential campaign when he plagiarized <a href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/08/26/the-biden-plagiarism-scandal/">the speech of a British politician</a>. Biden's MO is to step in it with peculiar word pictures that even his harshest critics don't think are calculated, like suggesting Romney will put a black audience back in chains, and expressing awe of Obama's (ahem) big stick.<br />
Ryan's excesses are more, shall we say, personal. He's a deficit hawk who's namesake budget — the one which made him famous outside the beltway — doesn't balance the budget for decades. He's a budget pragmatist who'd cut revenue by giving disproportionate relief to upper incomes, re-engineer important components of the safety net like Medicare, but whose blueprint can't be scored because <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/krugman-rosie-ruiz-republicans.html?ref=opinion">it lacks accounting specificity</a>.<br />
<br />
And then there is the haplessness of the long distance runner.<br />
<br />
I've never run a marathon, but I have done a bicycle century. It wasn't 20 years ago, but 10. I don't remember my exact time, but I have not convinced myself I completed the course in the time of an elite athlete. These are memorable events — they are physically grueling, take hours to complete and are far outside one's daily routine.<br />
<br />
Ryan is lying about Obama's adjustment to welfare, and he is telling a peculiar half truth about the president's cut to the growth of medicare (a cut he assumed for his own ambiguous budgeting — and, when, exactly, did Republicans not want to cut Medicare, including Romney and Ryan, today, now?)<br />
These are both matters of fact, as is one's marathon time. But somehow I can't believe Ryan was telling a whopper about his running prowess. Even though the alternative is worse. All kidding aside, a numbers guy who who won't do budget numbers and gets his marathon number wrong is at best careless and cavalier, not wonky.<br />
<br />
What we are seeing in Ryan is a sort of Palin redux: A person with the appearance of seriousness and achievement whose principals are platitudes that won't bear up under great scrutiny. And there is no greater scrutiny than in a presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
The Democratic attack on Ryan will be — in the Rovian tradition of turning an enemy's strength into his weakness — that Ryan isn't serious, or meticulous. And it will stick now because of a silly boast about an insignificant event before he even entered politics.<br />
Lying on a seemingly unimaginable scale is par for the course in presidential politics now, of course. Republicans touted Bush 43's foreign affairs and defense acumen even though the United States suffered the worst attack in the nation's history on his watch, started a pointless war in Iraq and could not figure out how to win the peace in Afghanistan. Republicans, in this election cycle, are pretending things are worse now than on Jan. 20, 2009, when the stock market was severely depressed, credit markets were frozen and the country was shedding 800,000 jobs a month.<br />
<br />
There's little defense when liars can't be shamed. But watch for the Democrats to neutralize Ryan by casting him as just another pit bull, not a philosopher in the league of Obama, Clinton — or even Biden.<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a><br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-77607634620036707882012-08-14T14:28:00.001-04:002012-08-14T18:07:09.912-04:00Romney, The Hispanic Vote and the Capital-ocracy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_i-LEGJg3ETZEPFmH72kqs3gtXbO-6iZhrGeA-eGK1kIk6yEDy8YeWKIht4aits24UP6pJGAAEeItOBG10AXzTWGX40Qaj2P5CH9vsPeYqZe0xhUik1C-H-ZeXO2Zv4ROrrHQ/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-08-14+at+1.56.25+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_i-LEGJg3ETZEPFmH72kqs3gtXbO-6iZhrGeA-eGK1kIk6yEDy8YeWKIht4aits24UP6pJGAAEeItOBG10AXzTWGX40Qaj2P5CH9vsPeYqZe0xhUik1C-H-ZeXO2Zv4ROrrHQ/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-08-14+at+1.56.25+PM.png" width="314" /></a></div>
Bernd Debusmann raises an interesting point in <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2012/08/13/does-paul-ryan-mean-romney-has-already-lost-the-latino-vote/">his latest Reuters column</a>: Does the VP selection of Paul Ryan mean that GOP presidential candidate Romney has conceded the so-called Latino vote?<br />
<br />
Put aside the usual caveats — that voting blocs are usually more complicated than we assume, that they are motivated by single interests and swayed by personality and tribalism — and Debusmann makes a convincing case Ryan is perhaps the least likely to help with Latinos "Of all the potential running mates Romney could have picked from."<br />
<br />
There has been plenty said about the importance of the Hispanic vote independent of the veepstakes during this endless campaign, but very little analysis about Ryan in this context since his VP candidacy was announced Saturday morning.<br />
<br />
The "Hispanic vote" looms large in electoral analysis. Bush garnered<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/23/securing-the-hispanic-vote/romneys-best-bet-to-win-hispanic-voters-embrace-the-dream-act"> more than 40%</a> of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 win, but John <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/07latino.html">McCain only 31%</a> in his 2008 loss. Both showings were considered strong contributing factors to the outcomes. As asserted by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/latino-vote-looms-larger-in-this-and-future-elections/2012/06/20/gJQAMQjXrV_story.html">Aaron Blake in the Washington Post</a>, "Republicans’ problem is epitomized by rapid Latino growth in five swing states and three Republican-dominated states that Democrats are hoping to put in play in coming elections." Republicans are identified with such things as Mexican border fences and "<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jan-brewer-press-conference-20120625,0,2272878.story">show me your papers</a>" laws. Hispanics are disappointed with <a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/159929265.html">Obama's mixed record</a>.<br />
<br />
There was an opening here.<br />
<br />
The trouble is that, as tepid as Hispanics might be towards Obama, a Republican presidential candidate has to shake off an association with outright hostility. But Romney has done nothing to distance himself from the GOP meme, and has even exacerbated it with <a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-24/news/30657385_1_mitt-romney-illegal-immigrants-deportation">talk of self-deportation</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/23/securing-the-hispanic-vote/romneys-best-bet-to-win-hispanic-voters-embrace-the-dream-act">Former Reagan aide Linda Chavez has argued</a> that Romney needs to cultivate the Latino constituency by supporting the Dream Act (he has not taken the advice). Chavez titled her argument "Romney's Best Bet." But a VP choice Hispanics could rally behind would have had a much greater impact on the election than a policy shift easily portrayed as politically expedient, yet again.<br />
<br />
Which is Debusmann's point.<br />
<br />
I appreciate the argument, and from a net-neutral POV it is pretty obvious that Ryan does nothing to endear the GOP ticket to Latinos. But look at it another way: Romney's choice is based on ideology, rather than pander or electoral map politics: He has picked a soul-mate, rather than a stranger (McCain/Palin) or someone he detests (JFK/Lyndon Johnson) or someone who seems to have more gravitas (Dukakis/Lloyd Bentsen).<br />
<br />
Ryan does nothing to help Romney with the Hispanic vote, but maybe nobody could have. In the known universe of <a href="https://twitter.com/johncabell/status/235144507283361793">Republican VP prospects</a> nobody stands out except for Marco Rubio. But his conservative Tea Party convictions are probably out of the Hispanic mainstream. And for a little bit of perceived upside choosing the junior senator from Florida could easily have been criticized as not only a pander to lock up a swing state, but a foolhardy one in the tradition of such miscalculations as Dan Quayle (the youth vote) and Palin (disappointed woman supporters of Hillary Clinton).<br />
<br />
Ryan's electoral weakness is thus his greatest strength: He is a Member of Congress, which collectively has <a href="http://www.thetelegraph.com/opinion/columnists/article_eaf60ef0-e330-11e1-ad82-0019bb30f31a.html">a 12% approval rating</a>, and represents only a small portion of a state which has voted for the Democrat in <a href="http://www.270towin.com/states/Wisconsin">every presidential election since 1988</a>.<br />
<br />
The positive spin is that Ryan is an intellectually honest selection, consistent with a core Romney principals: A rising tide lifts all boats, and allowing those with greatest means to keep more of their money de facto leads to a stronger economy which benefits everyone.<br />
<br />
As Debusmann notes, Romney was well aware of the "doom" that might befall his candidacy without a sizable portion of the Hispanic vote. But given no real options to get a voting block or a swing state Ryan can at least be better (read, more comfortable) at making the case for governing based on the primacy of capitalism.<br />
<br />
Ryan could evolve into Romney's Biden, similarly unhampered by constituency baggage: Able to bang the table and connect with an audience in a way his boss can't.<br />
<br />
The difference is that Obama is likely proud of most of the things he's done and stands for. Romney, on the other hand, is tried to avoid detailed talk about his accomplishments because they demonstrate a political evolution that has nothing do with principal and everything to do with winning.<br />
<br />
And you can't really blame a good capitalist for that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-91576634673842692822012-07-18T11:20:00.000-04:002012-08-01T10:38:46.865-04:00Mitt Romney, Class Warfare, and The Rosetta Stone of Taxes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8LMEXSbhwxyjszMQirBhLnsROYAhbcG-XcSoc_hi-lbqa2_JWHf1bq4Ycea4lX4aAimiTTXlpTcObXkniDwA6acsRIMh_7SX9wGUdoDStb_-tmFRe8gZS3g3Dafctd5tZN4ps/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-07-18+at+10.04.37+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8LMEXSbhwxyjszMQirBhLnsROYAhbcG-XcSoc_hi-lbqa2_JWHf1bq4Ycea4lX4aAimiTTXlpTcObXkniDwA6acsRIMh_7SX9wGUdoDStb_-tmFRe8gZS3g3Dafctd5tZN4ps/s320/Screen+Shot+2012-07-18+at+10.04.37+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It isn't true that Romney "owes it" to voters to release more tax returns than he has and has said he would. In politics only two things rule: the law (a very forgiving standard) and your image. If Romney doesn't release more than two years of federal tax returns and he wins, ergo, he didn't owe anybody anything. And if he loses it will be difficult to impossible to assess the extent to which opaqueness contributed to defeat.<br />
<br />
But Romney has a bigger problem. Emphasis on the word "Big."<br />
<br />
Clearly, Romney has calculated that — at this moment in time, anyway — it is better to hold his ground than to give way. This may change, of course, which would present new challenges (is Romney, yet again, cowering to pressure in a very unpresidential way? Is this just another head-spinning flip-flop?). A host of conservative commentators and at least <strike>one</strike> two elected officials have urged Romney to just do it. The most recent is the National Review, whose editorial, "<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors">Release The Returns</a>," leaves nothing to the imagination. (The National Review also believes that Romney should make a full-throated defense of capitalism, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309597/romney-s-chance-embrace-outsourcing-michael-tanner">including outsourcing</a>, something that would, of course, be political suicide, <a href="https://twitter.com/johncabell/status/224896729839968256">but perfectly illustrates the box the candidate is in</a>.)<br />
<br />
On the other hand, should Romney stick to guns the two-year standard might very well inform his choice for a running mate in an unanticipated way: How awkward would it be for the Veep candidate to have a history of being more transparent than Mitt?
<br />
<br />
The irony is, of course, that Romney has almost certainly done nothing wrong, as in, he broke no laws. There are what sound like adequate reasons for him to have filed documents with the SEC as chief executive and sole shareholder during the period when he was rotating out, or considering rotating out, of Bain (whichever you choose to believe was going on between 1999 and 2002). It's plausible that this would have taken years given the complexity of his role, <a href="http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/15/12751962-former-bain-capital-partner-says-romney-was-legally-ceo-of-bain-capital-until-2002">his own hard bargaining</a> to make the most of leaving his baby and the precedent of his exit package — Bain's very first — would have on the expectations of other partners who might subsequently leave. And there is certainly enough in the record of Bain during Romney's stewardship to portray him as a soulless capitalist and thus not the kind of nuanced leader the presidency arguably requires. Team Obama doesn't need for Romney to have technically been in charge when outsourcing was going on to support this narrative.
<br />
<br />
The real problem for Romney isn't the devil in the details he fears will give Obama opposition reseachers a field day. It's the Big Picture. It's not the micro, but the macro. Releasing this data will show exactly how the other half manipulates — and creates — the tax code to benefit themselves. We now have bumper sticker data on Swiss Bank accounts and offshore tax havens, but without the context of previous years the picture is incomplete. This is why when you are audited the IRS looks back three years as a matter of course, six if there is a suspicion of significant underpayment and <a href="http://www.quora.com/How-many-years-back-does-the-IRS-audit">forever if there is evidence of fraud</a>.
<br />
<br />
The scandal here isn't that Romney is a scofflaw, but that he doesn't even have to be one to do much better than the 99%. Being taxed at a staggeringly lower rate than the average American isn't a crime (<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns">even if that rate is zero</a>), but it is an inconvenient fact that those who enjoy it would like to discuss as little as possible.<br />
<br />
The scandal is that the tax code and related laws enable the rich and powerful to shield their wealth in a way that the average American simply cannot. And because Romney is seeking the presidency, he has exposed himself to a tradition of tax-return transparency which would open a very exclusive rope line. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20115870-503544.html">Unless Rupert Murdoch and Warren Buffet settle that bet</a> this would be the best lesson in the practical exploitation of the complicated tax code by a rarified person, and why certain provisions that benefit the few are so obscure and well defended.<br />
<br />
So this is class warfare, after all. The ruling class of which Romney is a member not only exploits loopholes, but writes them into law and would rather not spotlight the unfairness in particular while it broadly calls for tax reform and simplicity (also code for <i>we</i> pay too much). How Romney has moved his money around to make the best use of tax provision which favor him would be a gold mine to forensic accountants.<br />
<br />
There would be silly "GOTCHA" reporting, of course. But silly headlines fade. What won't go away as easily is the deeper narrative of tax unfairness. Romney's tax returns would be a Rosetta Stone explaining the babble that is the US tax code.
<br />
<br />
Romney's finances are fair game because his key economic proposals would reduce his own tax bill — inoculating himself against the self-interest charge alone would be wise enough. But Romney needs to hold fast for as long as he can because this isn't about envy by the 1%, rather the fear of the 99%.<br />
<br />
Releasing his taxes will spark a real debate on tax reform by unmasking the platitudinous battle cries of the right as nothing more than rote stammer to protect their own, not the US economy.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-61986595882439218832012-07-13T12:49:00.000-04:002012-07-13T12:57:47.657-04:00Romney & Uniform-Gate: He Can't Win For LosingLost in the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc">Shocked Shocked</a> outrage over the outsourced order for US Olympic opening ceremonies uniforms (Really? <a href="https://twitter.com/johncabell/status/223513936954265601">THIS</a> is what animates bi-partisanship in Congress?) is the fact that these garments were made in China even though an American company got the order.<br />
<br />
Nobody thought to ask Calvin Klein where the clothing would be made, probably because it occurred to nobody that "Made in the USA" was more important than price. Or because virtually none of the clothing Americans wear is made in America, or has been for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
And this is why the attack on capitalism, as the Romney folks put it, will redound to Obama's benefit.<br />
<br />
Capitalism is not patriotism. Capitalism is not social engineering. Capitalism is not about national boundaries. Capitalism is about making money by providing goods and services for which there is a demand. If you are good at it, lots of people get jobs. If you are bad at it, lots of people lose their jobs and you (and perhaps lots of others) also lose a lot of money.<br />
<br />
Defending capitalism requires acknowledging that there is no obligation to hire your neighbors, or even your fellow citizens. It is an inconvenient truth at best for politicians who, like Romney, wrap themselves in the flag only to discover that it was made in China.<br />
<br />
Romney has no role in Uniform-Gate, of course, and surely falls on the side of the outraged (though he appears to have taken no position at this writing.)<br />
<br />
But this sideshow puts him in a bind, for two reasons: The more that 21st century economics becomes part of the civics lesson of the 2012 election the worse it is for the image of business in general, <span style="background-color: white;">and it also puts a bigger spotlight on his own innocent utilization of legitimate, legal — but politically toxic — business decisions.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Like Romney's tax returns, the reality of capitalism for him is best kept hidden under a basket. One made in the USA, of course.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20444046.post-10232887871562773472012-07-03T11:45:00.004-04:002012-09-03T17:32:33.985-04:00The World That Could Have Been According To Andy TaylorI used to live in Mayberry. For the dozen years we were there our Virginia hometown epitomized the feel of that fictional TV hamlet, a place where people stopped to talk, treated each other right and everything always just seemed to be okay. It was actually Reston, but we joked about the similarities.<br />
<br />
Like lots of kids in the 1960s, I also grew up in Mayberry, at the knee of a quiet hero.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/07/andy-griffith-dies-at-age-86/1">Andy Griffith</a>'s sleepy southern town was an island in the storm. There was little strife or crime. There was a mayor (his boss) and successful businessmen who controlled commerce. But Griffith's Sheriff Andy Taylor was the glue which held it all together, the one person everyone relied upon and turned to. And they were correct to defer to him: Taylor invariably prevented idiocy and excess while promoting common sense, all the while speaking softly and carrying no stick.<br />
<br />
Taylor was a lawman who never carried a gun or raised his voice. He was a single father whose son's upbringing meant more to him than anything. Taylor didn't have to wear this on his sleeve, because the opening credits of <i>The Andy Griffith Show</i> reminded us every week, as Taylor and son Opie (future filmaker Ron Howard) sauntered, fishing poles in tow, to the creek (on what must have been a work day, since Taylor was in uniform). Sheriff Taylor was a faithful mentor to a ridiculous apprentice — Don Knotts' Barney Fife — whom nobody else took seriously and from whom Taylor invariably hid the truth of his own ineptitude in an effort to bring out the best in his well-meaning deputy.
<br />
<br />
Before we knew what a samuri was — and against the backdrop of shoot'em up Westerns which dominated the big and small screens — Taylor exemplified the restraint and wisdom of these swordmasters, who sought to offend no one and to prove their extraordinary abilities only when necessary. Taylor had no swagger, but he managed to keep the peace, solve every one of the few crimes committed in Mayberry and was masterfully persuasive using only simple, southern tones and words of one syllable. He never lied and never said too much. He was never wrong and never made an issue of it. He was Vulcan before Mr. Spock.<br />
<br />
More than any of the matriarchs and patriarchs of the other big 1950-era family dramas — <i>Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show</i> — Taylor showed men that men could be men without being MEN. It was a great metaphor for post-war America, but sadly did not become the cultural template for our male heros, which became more Clint Eastwood than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatoichi">Zatoichi</a>.<br />
<br />
Taylor was an early example of what is sadly not the norm in leadership: He brandished wisdom rather than physical strength, valued temperance over reflex, did not take himself seriously and proved that if you wanted to be heard, you whisper.
<br />
<br />
Heros based on these traits are still written, though as ironic exceptions to the rule. We prefer — and thus emulate on some level — heros with hair-trigger tempers, a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality and the death — literally or figuratively — of one's adversaries. Taylor was measured: Rather than once and for all making an example of the recalcitrant town drunk by putting him away for a long time Taylor always just let Otis Campbell sleep it off the safety of a jail cell. When a con man was wooing a gullible Aunt Bee, Taylor spoke to the suitor in unthreatening language on the front porch after a lovely home-cooked meal. With an unrelenting smile and that easy drawl, he left no doubt that there would be a marriage, and isn't that a wonderful thing. All the while cleaning his shotgun.
<br />
<br />
The one flaw in Taylor's character? He was marriage averse. He dated a schoolteacher for years, and his young son could have benefitted from having a step-mother (no offense to Aunt Bea). Taylor hardly a bachelor's life, but he was drawn in the old school manner which treats marriage as a state to which women must aspire, and men studiously avoid.
<br />
<br />
That's too bad. But the flip side was that Taylor showed a father could be a hands-on parent without compromise, a nurturer whose professional and personal live were entirely in sync.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/101169865857654555922" rel="author">+John C Abell</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0