Google goes after Facebook, will fail
Google Inc. is taking a swipe at Facebook Inc. with a new feature that makes it easier and faster for users of Gmail to view media and status updates shared by their friends.
Google could announce the new Gmail feature as soon as this week, said people familiar with the matter. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment.
The change will add a module that will display a stream of status updates from people that a Gmail user chooses to connect with, said one of these people—a format popularized by Facebook and Twitter Inc.
I use Facebook. I use gmail. The problem for Google is I would hate to combine the two. Facebook’s walled garden, though not impenetrable, allows a level of casualness one can share with friends but does not necessarily want shared with everyone on your email list, a group that can include professionals, relatives, and your kids’ friends parents.
More broadly, Google is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist: Until or unless Facebook decides to charge, anyone who wants a Facebook-like experience is going to go to Facebook. And link to Google products like Youtube as they wish. The only way to beat a Facebook/Twitter if you are Google is to build a better mousetrap. Simply adding a feature to your existing mousetrap is not enough.
Georgia vows to keep throwing child prostitution victims in jail
Depressing story that sort of sums up everything that is wrong with politics. A Georgia state senator has introduced legislation that wouldpush minors caught up in the sex trade into therapy instead of prison. It makes sense: A 15 year old (or younger) walking the streets is not a hardened criminal, it is a person in need of help. Or at least one would think.
Not so, says some. Especially some from the religious right…
Passage, they said at that Monday news conference, would amount to the decriminalization — nay, the legalization — of prostitution. Predators will swarm to the state.
“Who will benefit from the passage of [the legislation]? I’ll tell you who — the very profitable and growing pedophile industry,” said Nancy Schaefer, Unterman’s former colleague in the Senate.
Those lined up against Unterman’s legislation include the Georgia Christian Alliance, the Georgia Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, and the Georgia Baptist Convention.
As the article points out, this same legislative body is currently considering a bill that would make it a crime for a high school student over the age of 16 to have a romantic relationship with a teacher. Common sense too in my mind, but since the age of consent in Georgia is 16, it is now possible for a 17 year old to sleep with their teacher and the teacher not face any sort of criminal charges.
Taken together, the legislature is ready to declare that a child over the age of 16 legally lacks the judgment needed to have a romance with an older man, yet also at the same time declare that a child under the age of 16 is a criminal if forced into sex by a pimp.
Brilliant.
The problem with unionized government workers
Interesting datapoint, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.
It’s now official: In 2009 the number of unionized workers who work for the government surpassed those in the private economy for the first time. This milestone explains a lot about modern American politics, in particular the paradox that union clout with Democrats has increased even as fewer workers belong to unions overall.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that 51.4% of America’s 15.4 million union members, or about 7.91 million workers, were employed by the government in 2009. As recently as 1980, there were more than twice as many private as public union members. But private union membership has continued to decline, even as unions have organized more public employees. The nearby chart shows the historical trend.
Overall unionism keeps declining, however, with the loss of 771,000 union jobs amid last year’s recession. Only one in eight workers (12.3%) now belongs to a union, with private union employment hitting a record low of 7.2% of all jobs, down from 7.6% in 2008. Only one in 13 U.S. workers in the private economy pays union dues. In government, by contrast, the union employee share rose to 37.4% from 36.8% the year before.
I am pro-union, and although not in one am thankful for the hard work done by unions over the years that have led to simple benefits I now take for granted. But as I have said before, while unions are good, and government workers are good, union representation of governments workers is bad. Really bad.
The concept is pretty straight forward: As a third party who (through taxes) has to pay these workers, it is bad news for me that the workers have a huge amount of power to “hire” their bosses, countless politicians who fill out county, state and federal positions of authority. In any negotiation a fair deal is only done if you have two independent and non-conflicted parties sitting across the table from each other. When the governor or mayor or county council who is charged with negotiating with a union over pay rates is also counting on that union’s membership for reelection, bad things happen. Which has happened in many situations, notably San Diego and the NYC Transit, where pension add-ons to contacts all but destroyed large government bodies. The short-term losers are taxpayers who have to carry the weight. Long-term inevitably there are not enough tax dollars, or there are politicians who don’t have the stomach to keep raising taxes, and everyone loses as pensions are cut, workers are laid off and communities are scarred by a collapsing system. (Read Roger Lowenstein’s excellent book for more details.)
Not to mention the basic fact that the necessity of unions is based on the (very real) fear of the profit-motivated corporation, and the need to check that single-minded focus. Corporations by their nature are profit-motivated, and left to their own devices in decades past have treated employees miserably in order to boost the bottom line. Unions in our history have played a very strong role in countering the power of the corporation by creating a power-center out of the workforce. Governments do not have that same single-minded focus, and are already accountable thanks to the ballot box. So in theory, there should not be the same need.
It is sad and worrisome to see unions disappearing from the private sector, the fault of their own success, changing political winds, and if we are to be honest poor leadership by unions themselves. But it is even more worrisome to see the power labor groups now hold over the public sector.
Let the Tebow ad run
I have resisted commenting on this whole controversy surrounding Tim Tebow and his Super Bowl ad, for a very stupid reason: I really don’t like the guy. I hate “preachy” to begin with, and don’t care much for the over-hyped. I will admit I am shallow enough to hope that he does not become an NFL star. Add in the fact that I don’t think much of the group he is working with: James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.
My dilemma is that while all things Tebow are annoying, what is more annoying, and indeed, more dangerous, is the protest surrounding the ad. Far be it for me to force my opinion on a group that I am not a part of, but then again far be it (or should be) for groups like NOW to force their opinions on anyone either. Tebow is taking a legal position on an issue that there are many different opinions on. His feelings differ greatly from those of NOW, and somewhat from my own. But the last thing I want to do is reinforce a politically correct culture where people are prohibited and discouraged from presenting their views and opinions. And it should be a concern for NOW as well.
Anyway, the reason I bring it up now is that Sally Jenkins, ironically another person I often times find annoying, has written on the topic and hits the nail on the head much better than I ever can. A quick bit of it is below, but however you feel about this it is worth a read.
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow’s pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We’re always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.
Keynes vs. Hayek smackdown
Up to you to choose a winner. Either way you get 3.0 credits just for listening in.
Who said learning isn’t cool?
Orioles GM on how to address the unfairness of baseball
Great stuff from Andy MacPhail, and worth listening to by all baseball fans as he is on Commissioner Bud Selig’s 14-person advisory council and is sometimes mentioned as a potential replacement for Selig. And since his day job is general manager of the Baltimore Orioles, a team charged with facing the Yanks and the Red Sox 18 times apiece, no surprise he thinks a lot about the unfairness of an unbalanced schedule…
For me, finding a way to balance the schedule is the single most important thing baseball can do to restore competitive balance. As I have said again and again, the salary cap is no good solution. But minimizing the impact of the outliers by spreading their games out to include the entire league makes a ton of sense.
MacPhail has some more controversial ideas too, for instance realigning divisions every year or two to give all teams a chance to benefit from the New York and Boston road draw (and to force them to compete against those guys sometimes).
Obviously as an Orioles fan I have a biased opinion, but the system it seems to me is clearly broken. The question is how to fix it. Salary cap, for all of its knee-jerk attractiveness, does not seem the answer. Interesting to hear some thoughts by one of the most intelligent people in baseball on what might be a better, more obtainable, response.
Who dat?
Who would have ever thunk it?And what a party. Mardi Gras comes every year. This has been less frequent in New Orleans than Papal visits for God’s sake.
Geaux Saints. I realize they won’t be favored, but if they can find a way to knock Archie’s boy on his rear a few times I think they have a chance.
Netflix gets it
Quick shout out to Netflix, a company that just lost my business but gained my respect. And the two things only sort of have to do with each other. We have been a customer for years, but more and more find ourselves not using the service. Life is too complicated to watch a lot of movies (at least in our world), and we have rented and watched most of the series we wanted to see (it is so much easier to tune in for a half hour or hour program). So Netflix envelopes tended to just sit on top of our tv for months collecting dust. That, coupled with our decision to bite the bullet and get a DVR, led us to decide to cut back somewhere else and cancel Netflix.
To be honest we would have done it sooner, if not for me dreading the experience. Nothing against Netflix, but banks and other companies have for years conditioned me that even if the choice is a good one for consumers, it is never easy to say goodbye. So I imagined the worst. What a surprise it was then that when I went to Netflix.com and logged in to look for a number to call, I instead saw an easy link to cancel the service. They gave me a few options, and then did ask for the reasons we were saying goodbye (as any smart company would), but after that it was thanks for being you and so long.
Perhaps it is a little thing to ask for, but I was blown away by the ease of the process and the respect they show for their customer. The sort of respect is rare. And it won’t be forgotten. Netflix might not fit into our lives right now, but if that should change I would not hesitate to use them again. *
* Now watch, I have just totally jinxed things and one of the dvds I just put into the mail to return will get lost creating all sort of drama. Hope not.
Comcast’s brilliant scam
How does Comcast get away with charging $6.95 for each digital box? And why can’t I think of a business idea similar to that?
Quick math time… Over the 8 yrs I have had them I have paid more than $650 for each box. That is probably easily triple what they paid for the box, probably more considering the bulk purchasing they do. In that time they have never upgraded my box, so I now am paying way over market rate for outdated equipment.
And yet there is no pushback. Imagine for a second if ISPs charged $7/month to rent the computer if you wanted internet access, and kept you on the same computer for eight years without any upgrades. For Comcast, it is brilliant. But what a scam.
Q: What is the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Craig Ferguson?
A: One is a loud-mouth American entertainer paid millions of dollars to attract attention to himself, boost his ratings and give advertisers what they want. The other is a Scottsman who is trying to do the same thing.
One other difference: Ferguson, unlike Limbaugh, gets it. Or at least will admit it. They are both well-paid clowns. Nothing wrong with that, entertainment is important. And we the people fortunately recognize that is Ferguson’s role, along with Leno and Letterman and Conan and all the rest. I think deep down inside Limbaugh gets it too, and gets his role in all of this, but his audience unfortunately does not.
I will fight for Rush’s right to say whatever stupid things he wants, no matter how they offend me/irritate me/etc. But I do wish we the people would understand what is going on, and not just blindly follow what he says.
