Monthly Archives: November 2008

A: Just sue McDonald’s

Posted on by

Q: What’s the fastest way to make three million dollars?

Editorial Note – this is not the original article. I pulled that article after conversing with a friend. His arguments pertaining to the article made me realize that what I had written did not meet my personal journalistic standards. The article was built on what could be construed as hasty arguments and a rush to judgement.

On Friday, November 21st, a couple from Fayetteville, Arkansas filed suit against McDonald’s for allegedly facilitating the publishing of private, nude photos from a cell phone which had been accidentally left at a McDonald’s restaurant. Though details pertaining to the exact events are scarce, the story is generally believed to be as follows:

At an unknown date and time, Phillip Sherman was visiting a McDonald’s and lost his cell phone. After noticing that his phone was missing, Phillip contacted McDonald’s. The had been recovered and would be secured until he arrived. From there the chain of events grew a bit fuzzy. One source asserts that Tina Sherman began to receive harassing text messages about images, but most are not specific, simply leaping to the point where nude images of Tina Sherman having ended up online.

It isn’t known whether or not the Shermans approached McDonald’s about a cash settlement at this point, but according to the story carried by the Associated Press, they are seeking a trial by jury and an award of $3 million for “suffering, embarrassment and the cost of having to move to a new home.” Drawing from that statement, it appears as if the Shermans felt that they were in imminent danger from the information that had been leaked from a private phone.

The story draws parallels to the 1992 case involving 81 year old Stella Liebeck, the infamous “hot coffee” case. Though many of the details of this case have been overshadowed by the inherent hype, Stella suffered third degree burns to much of her lap due to spilled McDonald’s coffee. Her initial attempts to reach an out of court settlement were rebuffed by the fast food chain and the case was forced to trail resulting in a jury award for damages of nearly $3 million. All semantics and beliefs about the Liebeck case aside, the woman did suffer actual harm which resulted in a week long hospital stay and skin crafts. At this time, that statement is inherently questionable for the Shermans.

I am not asserting that the publishing of private information is not damaging, nor am I saying that it would be less damaging than a coffee burn. The attempt to quantify the actual damages of such an incident is not an easy thing, due in large to the viral nature of the Internet. The infamous-online phenomena known as a Streisand Effect illustrates the vicious nature of the Internet when attempts are made to suppress or remove information through public and legal means.

True to form, the phrase “Tina Sherman Nude” flew up the ranks of popular search terms on Google, yet the image seen here is the one most often returned. There was demand, but no such supply. In all likelihood, no such photos have appeared online.

A Photoshop run at Wired

A Photoshop job run at Wired

Though the absence of proof does not necessarily equate to the proof of absence, online it helps. Alot. If these pictures are online, they have not spread nearly as far as the Sherman’s lawsuit alleges. The online community as a whole is particularly adept at finding such materials. In the eyes of the World Wide Web, Tina Sherman nude is actually a black and white image of a lingerie clad woman Photoshopped onto an iPhone with a McDonald’s logo. The photo, as seen here, appears to have been created by the folks at the Wired.com blog, Gadget Lab.

While the lack of photos online certainly helps McDonald’s, it doesn’t completely make the case. No, that case seems likely to revolve around whether a private establishment is liable for contents found on it’s premises. Though I am not a lawyer, I have a strong feeling that the courts would side easily with McDonald’s on this as well.

And the question waiting to be begged is whether or not this a hoax? The lack of online evidence certainly seems to suggest that. As most avid Internet users could tell you, this type of content is sure to create demand, and would bubble to the surface. However, what has popped up is largely the same story recycled over and over again, and a few sites offering “video” of Tina Sherman as a vector for spyware.

What seems most likely here is a couple saw McDonald’s as an easy target based on assumed information regarding Liebeck’s coffee case, and attempted to capitalize on that with a more modern twist. However, this couple seems to have underestimated possibly the law, almost certainly McDonald’s, and definitely the power of crowdsourcing. But, as with these cases, everything stated is pure speculation until a jury renders it’s verdict, should it ever get that far. Either way, my personal interpretations of the law and responsibility actually has me rooting for McDonald’s at this point. And that’s not something I often find myself saying.

NBC’s Monday Night Needs Saving

Posted on by

For those of you who have to yet to see NBC’s Monday lineup from November 24, 2008, you might want to skip this post, as I’ll be using several plot points as evidence.

As a writer, I tend to watch television with a semi-critical eye. Fully formed characters, well established settings, and plots that are realized and move – these things matter and they are what will get to me to tune in on a regular basis and push me to extol a show’s virtues both online and off. To put it bluntly, television shows should be well-crafted stories. Unfortunately, NBC’s Monday night selection seems to have forgotten this. The network’s flagship scripted drama, Heroes, is in need of some serious saving and the slow motion implosion of this property is threatening to take the rest of the night’s line up down with it. The products aren’t doomed, but they need to return to the basics of story to save themselves.

Heroes’ Hard Reboot

Last night’s episode of Heroes attempted to push the series into a hard reboot, something difficult to do mid-season, yet something that the show has needed for quite some time. The reboot, carried out in the form of an eclipse that robbed all characters of their powers, intended to return the show to where it had been in Season one. Sylar was once again a bad guy. Peter and Nathan were returned to their roles as contentious brothers. And Claire was once again in trouble. While stripping the characters of their powers can easily be written off as contrived and clichéd, it did push the series back towards a much more familiar ground, redrawing lines towards the Heroes the audience once loved. However, the reboot might have come just a bit too late. Even as Claire was being rushed to the hospital, bleeding from a gunshot wound, I found myself not able to care. Not one bit. None at all. All of the emotional capital that these characters had built up in their first season, and managed to hold onto through the short second season, had already been squandered.

The Road Ahead

The show needs some serious help to get back on its feet; the reboot, in and of itself, was not enough. Returning Heroes to the general, comfortable status of Season one will not work. In this case, the viewers are demanding blood, retribution, and they should be placated. NBC needs to show that it is willing to take serious risks on it’s flagship drama, and in doing so, get the audience to once again invest. How? It’s not easy, and perhaps the story will be kneecapped by contracts of those involved, but Heroes needs to start killing off characters. Not just second or third tier characters, but actual primary characters. The cheerleader? Dies from wounds. One or both of the Petrelli boys? Killed in the jungle. Any many more need to die. The show needs a serious cleansing.

A Map Drawn in Blood

The end results of the killings would pay dividends on multiple fronts. First, it provides a story-based motivation for those who survive to actively regain their powers. Second, it thins the cast out, allowing the story to return to a core group of characters, making the show easier for the audience to follow, and easier for your writers to craft. Third, if enables your writer to develop a believable, and seemingly insurmountable external conflict that humanizes the heroes (fear of death is perhaps the most human quality there is). And finally, and most importantly, it allows the viewers to re-invest in the characters. This might seem counter-intuitive, why would “we the audience” invest in characters that stand a very real chance of dying at any minute? Because we’re Americans, we love acts of redemption and of underdogs. Right now, your characters need to redeem themselves. Right now, they’re just wasting our time, and we’re going to stop watching.

Heroes Is Not Alone

NBC already pulled the plug on Christian Slater’s quasi-futuristic spy drama, “My Own Worst Enemy,” proving that perhaps the suits who make the decisions regarding scripted properties don’t have the heart for long, drawn out plots. Not that “Worst Enemy” was a piece of pure magic, but the premise of the show did show some serious heart, and stacked against the weakened and delirious third season of Heroes, it looked much better by comparison. As this show has been canceled, I won’t waste any bits over it. I will write about perhaps one of my current favorite television shows, Chuck.

Chuck

I was apprehensive about this show from the beginning. Why? It had ample opportunity to go wrong. And NBC has a history of not allowing most of its properties to get things right before pulling the plug. The show, however, has proven to be quite the success, due in large to the chemistry of the actors involved, and has become the highlight of my television week. Last night’s episode, the close of a three-story arc, showed a bit of self-awareness that crept beyond the fourth wall, and could have been seen as a plea from inside the writer’s room. The title character, very bluntly, asked if everyone in his life was actually a spy.

Exposing Flaws

Chucks question, while providing a means to reveal the doubts and frustrations of the character, also highlighted a weakness in the show’s formula – how many people can one person know who are actually covert agents on either side of a secret war? To answer the question, “Chuck, I think you’re pretty close to knowing all of them.” This means that the show is quickly coming up on a moment where it has to decide where exactly it’s going.

Remember the Basics

As I noted in the introduction, the basics of a good story, be it a short story, a novel, or a television series all revolve around three main areas: character, setting, and plot. So far, Chuck has pushed furthest into character and left the setting understood, and seems to have mined a bit too far into its general plot, using premise points as specific points, and in doing so, the show itself is in need of some serious guidance.

Embrace the Plot

The current plot formula is quickly running out of room to operate in. Right now, the two largest external forces which drive the plot are Chuck’s competing lives – that of a spy, and that of a hapless civilian. The character is leaning more towards hapless civilian, yet, his moments of spy ascension are the ones that get the audience to cheer. The powers that be need to move Chuck more on the path of breaking from his civilian life and towards being the spy, coming to grips with the role of reluctant hero.

Reinvent the External

The best means to do this is to allow the repeat antagonist to become something more than an ephemeral idea. Some work needs to be done on Fulcrum, the evil spy organization that serves as a string of cardboard baddies. Who is Fulcrum? What are their motivations? What is Fulcrum’s history? And what does that have to do with Chuck? The measure of a hero isn’t who he is, but that which he fights. Chuck is in dire need of an adversary.

Embrace the Backstory

Several Chuck episodes have paid more than lip service to Chuck’s being kicked out of Stanford. The Bryce Larkin character was used as a device to show him saving Chuck from the life of an analyst in the intelligence community, while single-handedly dooming Chuck to his current situation. Jill, Chuck’s old girlfriend, was also recruited at Stanford. The humiliation of being kicked out, wrongfully accused of cheating, has time and time again, been a motivating factor in Chuck’s personal arc. And thanks to Sarah,  Chuck’s spywork, he has been granted his degree, partially closing the book on perhaps the single most humiliating time in his life. The “what” of Stanford has been discussed, but the over-arcing “why” has largely been untouched. Why were both the Intelligence community and Fulcrum recruiting at Stanford? Was Stanford unique? Was Chuck’s story unique? Is there a group of similar recruits, a virtual spy class of two thousand and X out there, right now, fighting an unseen battle? These are questions that should largely be answered to move the plot of the show forward.

Grow the Characters

Last night’s “Unleash the Casey” line brought a smile to my face, and was mentioned over a dozen times on Twitter, a sure sign that the primary character trait of the show’s pit bull (played marvelously by Adam Baldwin), resonated with the audience. Casey, who’s largely a foil for Chuck, shows that they know how to handle at least some of their assets.

The character of Sarah Walker, who’s primary trait seems to be the mystery surrounding her past, largely remains an unknown. Other than the knowledge that she dated Bryce, and that her high school life as a nerd was a cover, not much has been established about her. Her relationship with Chuck is constantly flirted with, and it’s generally understood that she has definite feelings for him. By keeping her sense of mystery, that relationship isn’t done justice, and her character should either have her backstory exposed, or have a her current story grown. This isn’t just a desire to have more screentime for Yvonne Strahovski, it’s a desire to keep one of the principle characters as a character and not mere a lighting rod for the title character’s failed and frustrated romantic interests.

It’s About Chuck

The character who perhaps needs the most work, is Chuck himself. Though numerous attempts have been made to qualify the character as a nerd, none have been fully embraced. The fact that he “likes and knows computers” is established by his job at the Buy More. However, the measure of a nerd is not a mere “like” or a normal measure of knowledge paired with wearing a pocket protector; nerds embrace their chosen medium like a true artist. That is to say that nerds find their true love and they follow it to the point of obsession. Nerds are rarely the socially awkward Jack of All Trades that Chuck has been made out to be, they’re typically single-field specialists, and it is their single minded obsession that renders them socially awkward.

Chuck works best when he’s taking advantage of his specialized knowledge, and when he readily displays his intelligence he is allowed to not be awkward, but to be shown taking steps on the hero’s journey. This needs to be both highlighted and contrasted. Though the character is ultimately human, he often feels boxed in and two dimensional under the weight of the current plot formula. The point of Chuck seems to be his growth from the emotional destruction of being kicked out of college and his descent into a sad, flat, nerdy lifestyle. Establish the lifestyle, and let Chuck take steps towards becoming a true hero in the fight against something, anything.

Know the Future

Though Chuck does not need to become a heavy serialized drama like 24, Lost, or even the first season of Heroes, the future of the show needs to be established. When the future is known, the characters can move forward, they can grow, and the audience can further invest in them. Doing so will hopefully ensure that Chuck the show gets to grow into the full potential that Chuck the idea has. And that should keep what is perhaps my favorite current show on the air from become stale and tired. However, this it the time where Chuck needs to really start making moves. With Heroes failing, and the audience starting to bleed away, the coattails timeslot and chemistry of the crew are not going to keep the show on the air forever.

NBC, if you need help with any of this, let me know. I’ll lend my pen your way.

A Matter of Identity

Posted on by

South Park is normally a show that’s easily overlooked despite a general level of intelligence and classic Cato Institute-esque principles that tends to outstrip most other shows on television. It’s obvious to see why most people overlook the show, episode after episode it is the collection of 4th graders who, despite typical childhood tendencies, are the smartest characters in the universe that Matt Parker and Trey Stone have created. And for this, they’ve won awards ranging from Emmy’s to a “freaking” Peabody.

Last night’s episode, the season finale, was not an award winner, but it was very good and it did follow the same general formula that Matt and Trey have turned into such a success. At the surface, the guys behind South Park were poking fun at the recent trend towards vampires, juxtaposing that trend against the four goth kids that have acted as foils so many times before. However, as they typically do, this episode had a deeper layer, one that struck at the heart of personal identity and group affiliation. These are two matters that we so often encounter in various forms of the social media landscape, proving that the acute feeling to belong didn’t actually die in high school; they just grow more subtle, as adult lives allow for easy bubbles to form, and differences to seem less noticeable without hallways jammed with those who are different from us six times a day.

Without digging too deeply into questions regarding who I really am – I’ve got an entire website to do that – I would like to point out a few people who I am not.

The first is the one that really bothers me. I’d like to introduce everyone to the Bradley Robb that is most definitely not me. If you Google “Bradley Robb Iraq” (or click here), you’ll see a Letter to the Editor of the Stars and Stripes magazine written by one PFC Bradley Robb in Camp Striker, Iraq. This letter drew some media attention as it was written by a junior enlisted man actively serving in a combat zone who was questioning the war he was fighting. Truthfully, that young soldier was chastising those who saw fit to insult others who were questioning the war. Regardless, the letter has been heavily reprinted online and linked to by other websites.

This PFC Bradley Robb is most definitely not me. When PFC Robb wrote that letter, I had already been back from the war for a year and five days. When I was in Iraq, I was a Specialist, not a Private First Class. I spent my time in FOB Normandy, FOB Warhorse, and LSA Anaconda, and never visited Camp Striker. And my feelings on the war are far too complex to cram into a short missive to the editor of a newspaper. Though I don’t write extensively on the war, I do fear that those Googling for my writings will believe me to be this young soldier. I am not.

This is not me.

This is not me.

Next up we’ve got the answer who for those who always just assumed that the P in my byline stood for Pabst. Yup, it’s Paul; Paul Robb is my legal or “slave” name. Those with some serious music cred, or who are forever stuck in the late eighties and early nineties dance scenes, might remember him from the electro-dance group Information Society and their breakout hit “What’s On Your Mind (Pure Energy)”. For those who don’t, but care to, here’s a link to the video. Others, who happen to really pay attention to the closing credits of South Park might have noticed that the theme song (though recorded by Primus) was remixed by Paul Robb.

Again, this is not me. Paul was making music and questionable fashion choices while I was still in grade school. His musical tastes and mine are rather divergent to say the least. And he was on an episode of VH1′s Bands Reunited. I have so far avoided appearing on any Viacom properties. I’m holding out for either the Daily Show or South Park. Though I do dig his minimalist aesthetic on his website. Makes up for the outfits he wore in his band.

This, also, is not me.

This, also, is not me.

But wait, there’s another one, and this one’s a true Doppelganger. Meet Paul Robb, who also isn’t me. Paul lives in Scotland where he is a copywriter specializing in writing copy for the web. Though he resembles me enough to give both my oldest friend and my girlfriend reason to pause, and though our occupations are almost identical, and though we both are on Twitter, and though we have a similar fashion sense and wear the same shoes, I’m fairly certain that he isn’t actually me. If he is, I’ve somehow managed to be in two places at once, and I’m going to have to tell myself how I did that.

You know, to avoid most of this confusion, I think I will change my first name to Pabst. That’ll eliminate two of the three. After that I just need to pump out a lot of Iraq war writings associated with my name, so that Google points people to me, and not towards confusion.

So, anybody else got doubles running around?

The Exact Degree of Boiling Water…

Posted on by

It isn’t everyday, but most of them, that I see a single sticker on the back of a black SUV in the parking lot at work that positively bothers the hell out of me. That sticker is one of those annoying “Fake Country” stickers that instead of saying GB or DE pronounce someone affinity for the Outer Banks (OBX) or overpriced, factory-ripped, preppy clothes (AF). This particular sticker proudly proclaims 212˚, that’s right, the boiling point of water. The exact boiling point of 100% pure water. However, this sticker makes the point of saying that 212 is actually the extra degree.

The Minimum* is A-OK!

The Minimum* is A-OK!

Now, normally I would just assume that person who owned, or at least drove, said random, black SUV failed science in middle school and was ironically proud of this. Or that they were just not the smartest person, and for some reason was proud of that. Little did I know that the driver was just exceptionally motivated. Why? Because I, apparently, had never heard of “two twelve” as the hip kids call it. By hip kids, I mean the people at the office who boldly take down that picture of a kitten that says “Hang in there!” and replace it with the black bordered inspirational posters that the entire internet had proclaimed a tragic joke ages ago.

Yes, 212 – The Extra Degree is a series of inspirational quotes and missives from an author who reminds me an awful lot of Greg Kinnear’s character in Little Miss Sunshine. Except this author didn’t realize that selling inspiration was far less important than being with his family. No, this one apparently found a publisher, and a “film maker”, someone who knew how to operate Microsoft PowerPoint, and the “inspiration” to imitate the European international car decals. However, all of these people failed to note that 212 wasn’t the extra degree, it was the exact degree, it was the bare minimal temperature at which pure water would boil. Not extra, exact. And not only exact, the lowest possibly point of success under the utmost of ideal situations.

Yes, Sam Parker (he’s the “author”) says that 212 is the extra degree that makes water boil. His words, water at 211 degrees is just hot, while water at 212 degrees is boiling. While Parker is shoving science aside (inspiration can’t be hampered by little things like facts), he’s basically admitting that the bare minimum is what people should be shooting for. His supporting “facts” and “figures” are on par with with his “bare minimum to succeed” ideal.

And what “facts” is the 212 camp espousing? Well, the first is that assumption that water that is at 212˚ will create steam, and enough steam to power a steam engine. Welcome to the world of marginal truths, or as our generation has come to call it “truthiness.” Does water boil at 212˚? You betcha. If, and it’s a big if, that water is completely pure, unlike the water used in steam engines, or from your faucet, or even from your Brita filter. Will water in a steam engine pushed that extra little bit from 211˚ to 212˚ create enough steam to actually power that steam engine? Only if it’s a steam-hope hybrid. Last time I checked, no one was making those yet.

And what about the other facts and figures? Ah, those are also equally skewed. The folks behind the 212 campaign went and cherry-picked a nice sampling of sports figures which separate winners from losers. Things like the margin of victory in the 2004 Men’s 800m race (we’re left to assume it was the Olympics as facts are few and far between) which they claim was a slim 0.71 seconds. Now, thanks to the BBC’s website, the exact finish times from not only the final race, but all of the heats leading up to that race are readily available. What most people would qualify as the margin of victory, the time between first and second place, was only 0.16 seconds. That’s a much slimmer margin than one presented in this video. The difference between first and last place? A whopping 8.04 seconds. Where’d the 0.71 come from? That’s the difference between first place and fourth place. It’s the difference between a gold medal, and no medal. It’s what happens when you move just one step passed the minimum. After all, the space between first and third place was so statistically small, that it could qualify as luck. And luck is not a source for inspiration. Fact, however, is that everyone except for the 2nd and 7th place runner ran slower than they did in the semi-finals. Yes, the 2nd place runner gave that extra degree, it just wasn’t enough to take home the gold.

But inspired people don’t care about luck or facts. What inspired people care about is results, right? And the 212 folks give us a list of companies that have successfully used the program. Companies like Citibank Financial, which on November 17th 2008 (yesterday, as of writing this) announced they were slashing 20% of their global workforce (approximately 53,000 jobs) in an attempt to remain soluble. I guess that’s what happens when you do the bare minimum. Or Nextel Communications, which couldn’t compete in the cell phone market and was bought out by Sprint. Or Spherion, which makes their money off of temp workers. Or Countrywide Financial… Yes, THE Countrywide Financial, the ones who folded due to their extreme reliance on subprime mortgages, and share a large part of the blame for our current recession. I guess that’s what happen when your entire philosophy is that doing the bare minimum to succeed, under ideal circumstances (despite what is actually needed) is enough to set you apart. Judging by the prices of the presentation packs that 212 is selling, I’m guessing that Sam Parker isn’t too worried about these little details.

I’m sure that the 212 camp would be quick to rally and say that I’m missing the point. That 212 isn’t about facts, or figures, or a set of companies that said philosophy helped to prevent from failing. It’s about inspiration, about pushing the individual to move passed where they are (hot) and to where they need to be (boiling). I’m sorry. I’m not sorry for me, but for them. You see, inspiration can come from a great many sources. The goal isn’t to move to the next level, it’s to move to the top. It’s not to separate no medal from a medal, it’s to break records, to trounce upon the goals of the past. In that vein, the fourth place runner the wrong end of 212′s margin of victory? His semi-final race was the fastest of his career. He broke his record, and his new record falls comfortably within the statistically insignificant margin.

As for me, when I need inspiration, I’ve got this link to click on.

Hey, Neil Young!

Posted on by

On November 13th, Neil Young put forward an open letter outlining his proposal for how to fix the failing Detroit-based American automobile industry. NPR picked up the story on the 17th, and what proceeds is largely based on a comment I planned to reply with on NPR.org regarding the story. However, NPR’s comment system limits comments to 400 words, and the comment I had drafted tipped the scale above 1000. I clipped my entry down to 400, and am instead redrafting the initial piece here. That is, of course, the point of owning your own website. And fair warning ahead of time, I cut this thing short at 1400 or so words.

-PBR

In his letter “How To Save A Major Automobile Company,” Neil Young states a desire, his desire, that every auto manufacturer who accepts bailout money from the federal government must agree to sweeping, radical changes the govern how these companies are run. Mr. Young’s plan calls for top down changes, a general cleaning of house at the managerial level, sweeping out the ineffective and replacing them with forward thinkers, non-specifically those who have experience guiding more technologically focused fields.

However, Mr. Young’s plan also proposes a set of very strict guidelines that would halt the production of the classic, internal-combustion automobile. His general desire is to drastically shift the entire industry towards the production of Self-Charging Electric Vehicles, or SCEVs. Mr. Young’s plan to do this is to produce the vehicles as they currently stand, but to leave these vehicles as what he calls “transition rollers.” That is a vehicle produced almost to completion though lacking a transmission and an engine. These vehicles would then be fitted to run on current-state electric, or gas-electric motors capable of serving as a stop-gap until the technology exists to produce true SCEVs.

I should say that I support the motivation of Neil Young. Unlike the picture so often presented of a the musician or actor taking advantage of their public profile to espouse their personal beliefs, Mr. Young actually does put his money where his mouth is. He is one of the larger backers and an active participant in a company called LincVolt. LincVolt’s entire mission is to take classic, American cars, remove the internal combustion system, and instead replace these systems with electric power plants. LincVolt works largely because of it’s scale, it’s small, and thus able to capitalize on the relative level of demand for the type of service that it offers.

The concepts that LincVolt has are all very proper solutions to the current situation that the American people, not just the automobile industry, face. However, Mr. Young’s more drastic approach is not. His approach isn’t wrong for wishing to drastically change the cars that Detroit is producing. He’s not wrong for wanting to sweep out the leadership that has largely been deemed ineffective by the woefully unsympathetic judge that is free market capitalism. And he’s not even wrong in proposing that we adapt a stop-gap technology before finally settling on a permanent or semi-permanent replacement for fossil fuel based internal combustion systems. No, Mr. Young is wrong on two very important areas – scale and timing – and how these areas have been models of change in other areas of our day to day life. His scale is too vast and his timing is too poor.

Mr. Young’s proposal is doomed by what Joseph Heller termed “catch twenty-two” – the only time that the federal government could realistically pass such demanding legislation is now, when our country is marred in an economic catastrophe. However, it is this economic situation which would also doom such a plan. The reason is that even if the government were to follow Neil Young’s plan to the letter, there would be far too few buyers to enact the type of change he wishes to bring about.

The law of supply and demand has Mr. Young’s proposal over a barrel. Why? It’s obvious that there is demand for alternative vehicles. The Toyota Prius has been known to actually gain value after being sold and the Chevy Volt is in high demand a year before it’s slated to even be sold. However, that level of demand is hampered by the large scale credit freeze and slow down in overall spending. The perceived demand is more accurately described as a desire. Actual demand, that which is measured in actual buyers, comes nowhere close to the levels which would allow these automakers to continue to make and sell cars while maintaining a positive margin required to continue the process. Though the modern American automobile is weighed down with the pension and benefits of workers present and past, implementing a sweeping change such as this would mean that the new American auto would also be saddled with the cost of new technology.

The concept of starting from a clean slate is appealing in theory, but would prove to be a nightmare in practice. A much more fitting example would be to look at the same industry which Mr. Young proposes the new auto industry talent be culled from – technology. The computer industry, specifically the personal computer industry, serves as an apt analog for the model that the car of tomorrow should be modeled from.

Truth be told, the alternative fuel industry is in much the same situation today, that the personal computer industry was in at the dawn of the 1980s. Back then, computers were slow, large, expensive, and were stacked against an alternative that worked “well enough” – that of paper, pencils, and calculators. But, business as a whole, and a few leaders individually, took to using computers. The competing technologies were judged based on their own merits, and eventually standards arose. The more adopters that a particular computer company had, the easier it was to overcome the initial research costs and the more practiced the producers became. As expected, prices fell. Businesses, which had the most to gain from the computer revolution in terms of increased productivity, shouldered the initial risk and production costs. As that cost was reduced, more and more people started to adopt computers. Soon they made the jump from the office to the home. And the home to the lap. Then the lap to the pocket and to near ubiquity.

The cell phone followed much the same path. And the industries that have formed as off shoots of the computer industry? Like the iPod? The original device was roughly the size of a deck of cards, only came in stainless steel, held a scant 5gb of data, worked with less than 5% of the world’s computers (those running either OS 9 or OSX) and cost an astounding $399. Again, Apple started with a specific subset of buyers, early adopters willing to pay a premium for the initial risk, essentially backing a desired winner. As the price of risk is reduced, the number of people making the change from old to new is increased, often exponentially. And this change isn’t limited to technology, it’s the basis for our entire universe. The reason everything is made of matter instead of anti-matter is due to an imbalance of just one atom.

Mr. Young’s proposal is an attempt to solve two problems with one solution. And because of this, it appears that neither would really get solved. Rather, these two problems need to be addressed independently. The automobile industry must find a way to become economically viable, and America as a whole will have to settle on what the successor to gasoline-based internal combustion will be. The first problem could be legislated into being by attaching strings on a bailout package, the other not so much. To solve the problem with alternative fuels, we must look for who would benefit most and compel them to take the risk of early adoption. When the eventual cost does come down, when the research tax has been paid and production has been sorted out and established, the demand will be there and hopefully the economy will be in a state more willing to buy.

Luckily, there are myriad businesses which would benefit greatly from a sharp reduction in fuel costs, even at the price of an expensive initial investment. The package shipping industry, both private like Federal Express and UPS, or federal like the Postal Service, are obvious candidates for Neil Young’s SCEVs, provided they can overcome the distances that these vehicles travel on a daily basis. And they’re not alone. Taxi and limousine companies, public transportation, long-distance truckers, even restaurants that deliver would all stand to benefit greatly from alternative fuel vehicles. Any one of these industries have the ability to shoulder that initial investment that the American people are too cash-strapped as a whole to endure.

The solutions are out there, they just aren’t in the letter that Mr. Young wrote.

The End of ‘Litigation as a Business Model’?

Posted on by

Wired.com picked up on an AP story regarding Harvard law professor Charles Nesson challenging the RIAA’s legal campaign on some rather new grounds. I tend to follow the ongoing saga of the RIAA rather avidly, and cracked a smile when I saw a quote from Nesson. Apparently his goal is to “turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency.”

That single line sums up my feelings regarding the debacle that the RIAA has found itself in. The internet and the portable music revolution turned out to be a game changer for the music industry. And it wasn’t the first time this happened. When the phonograph was introduced, many of the same arguments(pdf) were made regarding loss of sales, unauthorized reproductions, and copyright. The difference is, the music industry changed then. At this point, they’re still dragging their feet.

I do believe that downloading music is wrong, however, I also believe that the what we collectively refer to as the music industry has had ample opportunity to respond to the changing world and has fought the implied need to adapt kicking and screaming.

Of course, I should beg the obvious question: how would I feel if my works were being illegally reproduced? Well, for one thing, I do freely distribute a good many of my written works. The average post here on my website is reproduced on between eight and twenty other websites, often to merely sell advertisements. The unspoken half of that question deals with long form writing. The computer monitor is not well suited to reproduce works in excess of 10,000 words, not when compared to printed paper. Epaper is a good alternative, but still sits outside of the price points of most consumers. The two major producers of epaper based readers, Sony and Amazon, both managed to monetize the market immediately, adapting before the problem even arose. Both make stealing a novel simply not worth the trouble. But, that’s not the real reason I am not worried.

Book reading has become what no one in the publishing industry wants to admit – a niche market. Yes, when extrapolated across the general population it’s a large niche, but for the most part, most people do not read books. The recording industry, perhaps what we should now call the classic recording industry, needs to understand that physical reproductions have become marginalized. The compact disc is now a niche market, comparable to vinyl. Tying up the court system and intimidating fans of music with the prospect of lengthy and expensive court cases only tarnishes the image of the industry.

It’s time to admit that and carry on. There’s always money to be made off of music, the member organizations of the RIAA just need to find better ways to do it. Court costs and damages are, of course, a poor means to do a financial end.

It Started with an Armistice

Posted on by

There’s a distinct chill in the air that marks as official the descent of fall onto central Virginia. I know this because today I am not in one of 130 other countries around the world, countries ranging from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, countries which all have American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen stationed there. Today I am not hunched under a poncho while on guard duty. Today I am not sprawled out on a cot as comfortable as concrete trying to grab some shuteye. Today I am not patrolling through the streets of a foreign town with a rifle in my hands. Today I am not subjected to any of these things because there are millions of others who volunteered to take my place.

Today, Veteran’s Day, is that day in which we thank those who have served on our behalf, those who volunteered, those who fought. And though I cannot speak on behalf of the rest of the veterans out there, I can speak on my own behalf. You see, five years ago, I was those boots on the ground. I was patrolling those foreign streets with a rifle in my hand. I did learn to sleep on those cots that seemed to have concrete

Self Portrait August 2003

Self Portrait August 2003

aspirations. I learned a great deal. About war. About death. About life. About friendship. About meaning.

And in the years since, I’ve learned that it is not easy being a veteran, especially not at this time of year. Veteran’s Day sits at the onset of a very dark stretch of time for deployed service members, that bit of the calendar in which families start to gather for Thanksgiving, and generally stay in touch the New Year. As a vet, as someone who has been there, it’s painful to know throughout the globe there are those who are walking in the same boots I walked in are also going through that longing for friends, family, cheer, warm drinks, Christmas lights.

There is an empathy of common suffering that exists between soldiers, an understanding that starts with basic training. Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen know that despite what might appear to be differences, despite personal quibbles, that two people in uniform have endured the same general hardships, they’ve passed the same tests, and they stand together as general equals. It is this sense of suffering that separates a veteran from a civilian when that uniform eventually comes off. That empathetic bond is something that veterans are better off for having, and when push comes to shove, it’s what gets us through wars.

You see, the men and women on the ground are brutally aware that war is not about politics. It might seem that way when viewed through a television screen or a newspaper but that’s because war is something that’s far too abstract to understand if you haven’t actually been to war. For those on the ground, the reason to fight is much more easily defined; it is to maintain the bond that exists between those to their left and their right, those who have suffered like they have, and those they have shared experiences with. Those are the only things that matter when war puts lives on the line.

So today Americans are supposed to thank our veterans. We’re supposed to think of the myriad romantic sacrifices, the moments of great hardship, the speeches. But, as just one vet, I say don’t do that. Yes, by all means, say thank you to a veteran. Understand that after seven years of constant war, that there are likely veterans all around you. Many of us have come home, some with open scars, some missing limbs. Some have deep psychological demons. Some managed to make it out without so much as a scratch. Each of us fought a different war, no two experiences seemingly the same. Yet we are all joined by that bond of common suffering, especially those of who have yet to return.

As just one of the twenty five million or so living US veterans, I guess all I can really say is that you’re welcome.

Post Election Exhalation

Posted on by

The emotional drain that was the 2008 Presidential Election came to a crescendo on, as one would expect, Tuesday night. Though I didn’t spend a great deal of time writing about the election (save for my final thought), I did fill my day reading about it, watching it, talking about it, and Twittering about it.

So, after President-elect Obama’s speech on Tuesday night, I rode on a high for largely the rest of the week. Outside of work, I didn’t do much writing until the weekend. I devoted as much of my time as possible to catching up on the sleep I’d missed recently, and doing my best to relax, unwind, and decompress from being that connected to the grid.

However, I’ve escaped to the other side and I’m now going to start working through the backlog of content that I have.

How did everyone else make it through?

-PBR

The Eve a Million Moments Coming

Posted on by

Twenty-one months is a lifetime in this, the age of the ten second soundbite. Twenty-one months is forever in the world of the twenty-four hour news cycle. Twenty-one months is essentially a million moments, any of which can prove to be the point of disaster. And yet those string of moments, a million strong and stretched out in a line, represents the current race for the President of the United States of America. The votes to be cast tomorrow surely represent fate, having the ability to decide the direction that this nation, and possibly the world, will follow for the next four years and the millions of moments that will stretch out from there. The race to become the forty-fourth President of this blatantly imperfect union has been less a race and more a war of attrition, tapping into the true military definition of the word campaign. It has been a battle, first within party, and then between parties. And that war has worn down not only those participating, but those of us who have been following. But at long last, we stand on the precipice of a decision.

In my lifetime, this election serves as a first. This election marks the first where I truly care who wins, and the first I’ll actually vote in.

My first adult Presidential Election was the infamous and ill-fated 2000 Election. I, like so many others, did not vote in this election. At the time I was a young man a few days on the other side of twenty years-old. I was living in Georgia but on Election Day I was in California, in the Mojave Desert, at the National Training Center. I was, for lack of a better term, busy. I had a Walkman with me, smuggled out into the active training area, The Box for those familiar with the locale, in the hip pouch that carried my gas mask. Said Walkman had an FM radio on it, and I was instructed by my squad leader, before sacking out for the night to not fall asleep before finding out who won the election.

We were, down to nearly a man, pulling for George W. Bush. Our reasons largely bore down to two primary reasons. The first was that Republicans historically give more money to the military. And when you’re forced to skip training exercises because your unit can’t afford ammunition, having a Republican in the White House is a rather important matter. The second, and this one might surprise people, is because Bush had made bringing the troops home a part of his campaign. Yes, George W. Bush had stood against nation building, and my unit was out in the Mojave preparing for a deployment to Kosovo in the Spring.

These two points were the primary reasons that I, and I believe much of the military, supported Bush’s run for President. They were not huge reasons, but soldiers are people. They have lives and families, and the thought of leaving loved ones for a year at a time can be a major determining factor in anyone’s live. When that decision is not yours to make, you exercise your preference in favor of those likely to decide in ways you approve. We didn’t like Bush anymore than we dislike Gore. Neither, using the military definition of the word, was a leader. At least not in 2000.

Me in Iraq sometime around Feb 2004

Me in Iraq sometime around Feb 2004

As even the most casual historian will point out, nation building did become a focal point of the Bush presidency, but not the reduction of it. September 11th happened. Afghanistan happened. And Iraq happened. I happened with Iraq, resigning from West Point to be there.

I had been back from the war and out of the Army a scant two months when the 2004 election happened. My mother and step-father were both ardent democrats. I, having only recently returned from war, had a natural distrust for Kerry. It was a spot of contention at many a family meal. I had been there, I had been the much clichéd boots on the ground. I been the living example of democracy via a rifle barrel, and I could not bring myself to possibly vote for the man who seemed to have quickly apologized for the war he had fought in for the promise of political silver.

George Bush, however, was not going to get my vote. While I had been in Iraq, and I had known those who claimed up and down to have spent time guarding WMD sites, I had never seen them with my own eyes. What I had seen were a string of moments both miraculous and terrible. And I had seen a situation in which I knew we could not yet afford to leave. Then, in the fall of 2004, Iraq was in a very fragile situation, only recently emerging into statehood of its own and potentially at a risk to collapse at any moment. It was important for the kids and for the future, that we stay in the nation.

Like 2000, there was not a leader available and running to fill the role as President. More so, I found myself unable to trust Kerry, having a hard time even saying his name. My extreme dislike of him forced me by default into the Bush camp. But even as I was in his camp, I could not vote for him. No, I couldn’t bring myself to make a decision between two tragic choices.

Early in this political season, I made the statement that if Obama and McCain each won their party’s nomination, I would have a hard decision ahead of me. Unlike the prior to top-level elections of my adult life, these two men were in fact leaders. Or they seemed at the onset.

Obama possessed the kind of charisma and the ability to construct words in such a fashion that men would charge up hills and gladly take on a nest of machine guns because he said to. Furthermore, Obama possessed the kind of leadership that suggested he would never ask us to charge that machine gun nest lest it were absolutely necessary. Beyond that, he would likely be at the front of the charge. He seemed measured, he seemed passionate, he seemed certain. In a word, Obama seemed to be a natural leader.

McCain had the benefit of coming from a military background. When you’ve served in uniform, even if you never made it through basic training, you have been exposed to this bond. That bond, which we veteran and active duty personnel seem to take for granted, is deep and it’s strong. It’s unspoken not because words are lacking, but because words are unnecessary. McCain also brought to this election a history of being a pragmatist. He, as he so often points out, has a history of crossing party lines.

Each candidate seemed to be a near ideal choice for President in these trying times. One so clearly represented unflinching ideals, tapping into the romanticism that had been lost on Oval Office since Kennedy. The other was practical and realistic, a man’s man, a straight talker, who had somehow been untouched by the Washington Way.

Alas, only one image would survive intact through those million moments. And just the same, only one can be elected. The tolls of the campaign seemed to have drug McCain down from that pragmatic position and worn him down to his most bitter parts. While this tactic can be considered common in a war of attrition, when a soldier is forced to rely on the basest functions to stay alive, the reality is that a President needs to be stronger than that.

I won’t go into a line-item criticism of John McCain out of respect for him, but I will say that despite these million moments, I am still excited about Obama. Yes, at times my affections for him have wained. At times he did drift too close to the center for my taste. And his lack of a filibuster on the FISA amendment did hurt. However, the man does still represent something that I strongly believe in – a drastic change. President Obama will be the polar opposite from that of a President Bush, something that a President McCain could not hope to possibly say. Obama’s campaign has been one of hope and change.

Frankly, President Obama represents the American dream – that of a new beginning.

Yes, that might be a bit of wishful thinking. After all, he is just a man. In the morning Obama puts his pants on one leg at a time. He has the same hopes and fears and apprehensions that the rest of us deal with day in and day out. But he also has an inner strength, a character that says “I am like you, and I can be scared, but when push comes to shove, you can count on me to make the right decisions.”

There is, of course, one very selfish reason why I am proud to cast my vote for Obama tomorrow. As I noted previously, I was in the first year of the modern Iraq war. I served with an amazing group of men the likes of which I could never possibly assemble again. Yet, my contract with the Army expired after the war, and I chose not to reenlist. Many of those that I had the pleasure to serve with were not so lucky. Some thought they were getting out only to be grabbed by the reserves and sent to Afghanistan. Others were locked in and have served their second or third tours in one theatre or another. And yes, some have lost their lives overseas. I have seen the kindest souls I have ever known turn bitter and cynical. This all has taken a very sound toll on me. I am, frankly, tired. I am ready for my brothers and sisters to come home. Barack Obama is the man to do that.

And that is the kind of man I will gladly cast a vote for. That is the kind of man that I want for President.

Meat-Space and Social Media: An Introduction

Posted on by
The first Social Media Networks looked like this

The first Social Media Networks looked like this

I’ve had a bit of an on-again / off-again relationship with what has recently been termed social media. As I might have mentioned previously, I started my online life when I was a teenager by dialing into a local bulletin board system called TopGun. As the board was local, so were the majority of its users. By local I mean the majority of us hung out at the same Denny’s, thus the line between online and off was in constant flux based on where someone was at the time. My understanding of the online world was that it was always an extension of one’s social circle, a meta-layer that sought to augment the real world, to complete instead of compete.

The switch to AOL nearly doomed TopGun. The difference was night and day. TopGun, for all the love bestowed upon it by us the users, was four colors, and could only support two dozen or so simultaneous users. AOL, on the other hand, had email which could reach anyone on the web, IMs to facilitate instant communication, chatrooms that could blow those of TopGun out of the water, and then there was access to the rest of the internet, outside of the walled gardens. I stuck with AOL until I went to West Point, where the firewall would not allow us to connect to AOL’s servers. While at West Point, and through my time in Iraq, the internet became a far less social experience.

After the war, and after getting the internet hooked up in my barracks room, the sense of social began to return. On April 10, 2004, I started my first blog. At first it was merely a place to post my writings online. After all, I had a writing partner and a lit agent in the real world, and plenty of brother’s in arms. What did I need extra relationships online for? Of course, I started plugging more into the Wild West that was the blogosphere of 2004. I started making friends with other bloggers, launched an online magazine, and pushed forward into other, more closed, social networks.

Its So True - Image from XKCD

Its So True - Image from XKCD

I tried MySpace. It seemed silly, juvenile, and filled with spammers. My account languished from lack of attention. I tried Orkut back when it was in beta (rimshot, please), but where MySpace focused too much on the look at me individual and the collecting of friends, Orkut suffered from focusing too much on the look at me individuals and the collecting of groups. Both where inherently pretentious in their grasps of the ego. I tried Facebook, and failed to see the appeal aside from a couple of Facebook related hookups. All of these accounts were deleted at one time or another.

Then the social internet managed to get shorter while somehow still growing. While temping at Kellogg’s (yes, the cereal company) I signed up for a Twitter account. At the time I was manually saving all of my zany text messages from the day and posting them to a blogspot blog. Why? Because they were interesting and funny. When taken out of context, that usually increased. Why not skip the middleman and publish directly to the web? I languished on Twitter until the political season kicked into full swing, discovering that I could get news in appropriate lengths and with blazing speed via the service. I was then hooked.

That pretty much brings us up to the current state. If you look over at my networks box, you can see I participate in three – Twitter (a microblogging service), Rejaw (often incorrectly labeled as a Twitter clone, in reality it’s an asynchronous message board), and Facebook (because I was told that I had to, and I plan on using it to market products out).

Oh, and then there was last night’s King of the Hill. This is not a show which I normally watch. However, I had let the DVR queue up the Simpsons to avoid commercials and when that ended the girlfriend and I were unceremoniously dumped into an episode of King of the Hill, and an argument about blogging. The internet, in particular the social internet, is a point of contention in my relationship. I place an emphasis on what my social cohorts, particularly on Twitter and Rejaw, say. When something happens, I will frequently dash out a quick twitter about it on my BlackBerry, much to KnownGirlfriend’s chagrin.

The episode, embedded below, placed Hank Hill in camp with KnownGirlfriend, and my opinion seemingly to match that of the female accounted who creates a MySpace page for Strickland. As one would expect, there was a juxtaposition of resistance by those who didn’t understand the new technology and those who approached that lack of understanding with zeal usually reserved for religion. Yes, neither the girlfriend nor myself go to quite these extremes, but we have both known to view the other in that way.

This, of course, got me to thinking about what exactly social media is. How it’s not new at all. And each form of social media has its uses, its pitfalls, and its stereotypes. For instance, King of the Hill chose to lump together to disparate terms – blogging and MySpace – in an attempt to simplify the social web into a 22 minute cartoon. Those of us who’ve been around know that MySpace has the worst blogging platform in the history of the net. MySpace stopped being relevant years ago largely due to pages like this.

So, before I launch into my own taken on various social media platforms. What say you? Favorites? Strong dislikes? Notoriously or gloriously overlooked?