Walter Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ Interview, Part 1
Walter Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ Interview, Part 2
Walter Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ Interview, Part 1
Walter Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ Interview, Part 2
Juan Williams feels we don’t have an honest exchange of ideas. He feels we have a niche media landscape. People seek their own media sources that affirm pre-existing opinions. There is little effort to get outside one’s comfort zone.
Williams makes excellent observations.
Extended interviews with Williams
And obviously, every artist has his price.
From POLITICO’s Jon Allen:
It looks like Michele Bachmann can remain an “American Girl” — she paid fees to two music licensing companies the at the end of June, according to her latest campaign finance report.
Bachmann shelled out a total of $900 to the American Society of Composers and Broadcast Music, Inc., in separate payments on June 28.
The singer Tom Petty sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Minnesota congresswoman and Republican presidential candidate after she came to the stage at her launch to his familiar tune “American Girl.” The kickoff event in Iowa was on June 27 — the day before the campaign recorded checks to the two licensing company.
Petty’s protest spurred a couple of days of cable television and print media debate about whether musicians should be able to tell politicians they don’t like to hit the pause button
I am still thinking Petty was being petty. Actually $900 is pretty darn cheap to be an American girl. It makes you wonder why she would continue to use the song after Petty made such a stink. She ought to have one of her adoring fans write a song for her–one of her very own.
This video shows one of the clumbsiest attempts to skirt an issue I have ever seen. Doocy confuses hackers with hackees. Why he attempts to connect companies who have been hacked into with a company that hacked into other people’s emails is beyond me. He also speaks of the mythological ‘they.’
Fox News has been remarkably silent on the Murdoch scandal. Doocy was lame. Does he expect news agencies to not cover the News of the World case? Did the media really ‘pile on’ or is Steve Doocy just a little bit touchy?
Netflix is quickly becoming a loser. First it drove Hollywood and Blockbuster out of business. they failed to respond to the new business/movie paradigm fast enough. Now they have announced their new plan–all streaming for $7.99 unlimited. If you want to get dvds, that will cost extra, lots extra. Here is the plan, announced in email:
We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each. Now our members have a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan, or both.
Your current $19.99 a month membership for unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs will be split into 2 distinct plans:
Plan 1: Unlimited Streaming (no DVDs) for $7.99 a month
Plan 2: Unlimited DVDs, 3 out at-a-time (no streaming) for $15.99 a month
Your price for getting both of these plans will be $23.98 a month ($7.99 + $15.99). You don’t need to do anything to continue your memberships for both unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs.
These prices will start for charges on or after September 1, 2011.
You can easily change or cancel your unlimited streaming plan, unlimited DVD plan, or both, by going to the Plan Change page in Your Account.
We realize you have many choices for home entertainment, and we thank you for your business. As always, if you have questions, please feel free to call us at 1-888-357-1516.
–The Netflix Team
That’s really too bad. It would be one thing if Netflix has all of its dvds on streaming video. Such is not the case. I won’t keep the three movie at a time plan. In fact, there is a lot that isn’t on streaming video. I guess I will go back to streaming and 1 dvd. Their loss. What will other netflix subscribers do? I understand they are catching Hell on Twitter and Facebook. The worst part is that they talk to you in the email like they are doing you a favor.
Further reading: Washington Post
Jon Stewart is right about Fox News
By Adam Serwer
Yesterday Daily Show host Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News Sunday, where he accused the network of taking ideological “marching orders.”
Fox Anchor Chris Wallace took exception to Stewart’s remarks:
STEWART: You can’t understand because of the world you live in that there is not a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change because that’s the soup you swim in. I appreciate that. I understand that. It reminds me of, you know — you know, ideological regimes. They can’t understand that there is free media other places. Because they receive marching orders.
WALLACE: How do you explain me? Do you think I get my marching orders?
STEWART: I think that you are here in some respects to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it, without your presence. So, you are here as a counterweight to Hannity, let’s say, or a counterweight to Glenn Beck, because otherwise, it’s just pure talk radio and it doesn’t establish the type of political player it wants to be.
This anchor takes his leader seriously. Does this only happen on state run TV?
My guess is that in Libya, it doesn’t matter who owns the TV station, you do what you are told.
Can you imgaine turning on your TV and seeing Bill O’Reilly with an automatic weapon?
I laughed but this video really isn’t funny at all. This dude is deadly serious.
Barbara Bush, always with her quick wit, tells her husband, George H. B. Bush, that he could be speaker of the house.
George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, appeared yesterday on NBC’s “Today Show” for an emotional Valentine’s Day special about their lasting love. While reading one particularly sentimental segment about their saved love letters, the 41st president began to tear up. Barbara to offered swiftly delivered comparison between her husband and the current Speaker of the House, John Boehner (although not by name).
The new MTV hit series Skins has come under fire for showing too much skin and for dealing with underage sex, drinking, gay/lesbian themes and illegal drug use. One group, Parents Television Council, in particular, has asked for a Congressional investigation of the series.
One advertiser, Taco Bell, has already pulled its advertising because of pressure from the conservative group, Parents Television Council. According to Crain’s New York Business:
Taco Bell has pulled its advertising from MTV’s controversial new hit series following pressure from conservative advocacy group Parents Television Council. The company informed MTV of its decision on Tuesday.
The Council had been calling Skins “the most dangerous program ever foisted on your children,” citing its graphic depictions of sex and drug use, even before the show premiered on Jan. 17.
MTV had the following to say:
“Skins is a show that addresses real-world issues confronting teens in a frank way,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “We review all of our shows and work with all of our producers on an ongoing basis to ensure our shows comply with laws and community standards. We are confident that the episodes of Skins will not only comply with all applicable legal requirements, but also with our responsibilities to our viewers.”
The targeted audience is 12 to 34 years. That could be a problem right there. There is a huge difference in maturity between most 12 and 34 year olds. Congress is certain to complicate matters. By the time they finish, everyone from 2 to 92 will be glued to their TV set, watching the next episode of 15 years olds being the horn dogs they generally are, all whilst shouting obscenities at the top of their lungs.
The Washington Post:
“Misinformation is dangerous when it metastasizes,” Rabin-Havt says. “Fox is going to lie with impunity. Rush Limbaugh is going to lie. The problem is when a story jumps from Fox News to CNN or the New York Times or The Washington Post. Our job is the head these things off at the pass.”
Rabin-Havt is the Vice President of Media Matters. The CEO, David Brock, was a conservative before he was a liberal.
Media Matters is the watch dog group that loves to hate Fox News. .
Fighting Fox is what Media Matters does, relentlessly and obsessively. In the six years since its founding, the watchdog group has evolved from an all-purpose scourge of the conservative media into Fox News Channel’s veritable shadow and constant irritant. From well before sunrise to long after it each day, teams of young researchers sift through video clips and transcripts of programs hosted by Fox stars such as Glenn Beckand Bill O’Reilly to find dubious facts, logical contradictions and poisonous – at least to Media Matters’ liberal sensibilities – rhetoric.
Brock further explains:
The dogged pursuit of Fox, says Media Matters’ founder David Brock, reflects not just the cable network’s popularity among conservatives but its power to set, and perhaps distort, the political agenda. Brock and his staff say they regard Fox as something more than just the televised equivalent of talk radio; they describe it as a de facto political operation, with a leading role in disseminating conservative messages, supporting conservative candidates and mobilizing voters.
The story really isn’t about whether you like Olbermann or don’t like him. Cast your personal feelings aside. Keith Olbermann was fired because he violated company policy. He contributed to three political campaigns.
Olbermann is a commentator, not a newscaster. However, on the night of the elections, he was serving as a newscaster. The company has policy that says their people aren’t to contribute to political campaigns. Apparently no distinction is made between newscasters/journalists or commentators.
Senator Bernie Sanders had the following opinion in Politico.com:
It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.
We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between.
At a time when the ownership of Fox News contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country.
Is Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz next? Is this simply a ‘personality conflict’ within MSNBC or is one of America’s major corporations cracking down on a viewpoint they may not like? Whatever the answer may be, Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view.
Thomas Fiedler, Dean of Boston University College of Communication sees it differently:
The instant a journalist contributes to a candidate or a political cause, no matter how worthy, is the moment she or he stops being a journalist and becomes an advocate. That is as true for commentators – as Olbermann would claim to be – as it is for news reporters
However, most news stations aren’t holding to that standard, as Senator Sanders points out. The question becomes then, do we all wallow with Fox while they dominate the political landscape, and fight fire with fire or do some stations rise above the obvious bias and try to adhere to the standards of yesteryear?
NBC needs to rewrite its rules to level the playing field. When one network produces its own political channel under the guise of ‘fair and balanced’ the rules of engagement need to be re-evaluated. Olbermann isn’t one of my favorites but fair is fair. Talk about bringing a totebag of David Sedaris books to a knife fight! (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) Reinstate Olbermann. NBC is cannibalizing its own.
Prince William County is full of talent. We have filmmakers and now an investment radio show will be broadcast from Prince William County. Many here know Prince William resident Bob Pugh. Bob is known around the blogs, he has served on various county committees and has even been known to give ‘em hell at Citizens’ Time at the BOCS.
Bob will be the host of ‘The Insightful Investor’ on The VoiceAmerica Business Talk Radio Network. The first show premiers this Monday at 10 am. Jim Bacon will be his guest in October to discuss his book “Boomergeddon.”
Here’s some information about Bob:
Bob Pugh, CFA, CFP®
Bob Pugh, CFA, CFP® has been helping people achieve investing and financial success as an educator and advisor for over twenty years. Bob founded Insight Wealth Management, Inc. to offer fee-based, independent investment and financial planning without the conflicts of interest inherent in firms that sell financial products. He has worked as a financial analyst in government and the private sector, an economic analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency, and a U.S. Foreign Service Officer.
Bob has taught portfolio management, investment analysis and economics for over two decades, most recently for The Johns Hopkins University’s Carey School of Business. He served two terms as President of the CFA Society of Washington, DC and is the CFA Institute’s Eastern Region Presidents Council Representative.
In 1997, Bob earned the CFA designation and later the CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. He has graduate degrees in global political economy from The Johns Hopkins University, SAIS, and in financial economics from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He is a member of the CFA Institute, Financial Planning Association, National Association for Business Economics and MENSA.
Bob has volunteered since 1998 for the Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Personal Finance Program providing free education for the public. He speaks frequently on investing and financial planning for numerous groups including the American Association of Individual Investors.
We have discussed investment, finances and the economy often on this blog. It will be fun having our own local star from right here in Prince William County. We wish Bob all the best and if I can figure out how to tune in, will be doing so!
From Huffington Post:
NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television, saying it is unconstitutionally vague and threatens speech “at the heart of the First Amendment.”
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan threw out the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy, which said that profanity referring to sex or excrement is always indecent.
“By prohibiting all `patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what `patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive,” the court wrote.
“To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster’s peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment,” it added.
The court said the FCC might be able to craft a policy that does not violate the First Amendment.
It cited several examples of chilled speech, including a Vermont station’s refusal to air a political debate because one local politician previously had used expletives on the air and a Moosic, Pa., station’s decision to no longer provide live coverage of news events unless they affect matters of public safety or convenience.
“This chill reaches speech at the heart of the First Amendment,” the appeals court said.
In a statement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said: “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.”
Carter Phillips, a Washington lawyer who argued the case for Fox Television Stations Inc., called the decision satisfying. He said the court had “sent the FCC back to square one to start over” by not only tossing the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy but also a broader indecency policy as unconstitutionally vague
I am not so sure this is a good thing. Talk is trashy enough on TV as it is. On the other hand, what difference does it make if the show is network or cable. It seems the burden of decency is all on network TV and radio and not on the satellite and cable stations. Do our contributors think this is a good plan or not?
Included, in its entirety.
From the News and Messenger:
EDITORIAL: Stewart’s duty is to Prince William CountyOur View
Published: June 26, 2010Corey Stewart, not content to let the spotlight shine only on leaders in another state, is now pushing a law in Virginia similar to illegal immigration legislation in Arizona.
Virginia’s version would, among other things, “Make it a violation of Virginia law to fail to complete alien registration documents,” according to Stewart’s website: http://www.coreystewart.com/ruleoflaw. Police officers would be required to check “in any lawful contact, the legal presence of an individual, when practicable.” Go to Stewart’s website to see all aspects of the proposed law.
The issue here isn’t whether the legislation is a good idea, it’s whether Stewart has any business pursuing it. His job is to be the chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, so what is he doing trying to change state law? That is the job of our delegates and state senators, some of whom have stated that they are pursuing state remedies for illegal immigration already. Perhaps if this were a proposal supported mainly for the good of the county, we would understand. However, arguably, Prince William County, which already has a controversial illegal immigration law, is the jurisdiction that would benefit least—despite Stewart’s assertion that some illegal immigrants who have fled may be returning.
In an interview with Editorial Page Editor Alex Granados, Stewart said that state leaders in Richmond have shown themselves incapable of doing what’s necessary.
“The legislature down there has had three years to do something, and they have done nothing,” he said.
Furthermore, he says that the attention he has received in the past as a crusader against illegal immigration will be a boon to his current effort.
“For better or worse, I have the notoriety on the issue that I can use,” he said.
And by spreading news about the proposed bill to everyday citizens, he hopes they will pressure state legislators to take action.
Stewart is right that state legislators have not found a fix for illegal immigration. But that probably has more to do with the fact that the issue is complicated than with anything else. The newspaper has never found our area’s leaders particularly fearful of controversy. Quite the opposite, in fact. And regardless, it is not Stewart’s place, as BOCS chairman, to do their job for them. He has a responsibility to Prince William County, one that cannot be effectively fulfilled when he is focused on reforming state law.
As for Stewart’s notoriety and its usefulness, he is correct. His reputation will bring attention to illegal immigration reform. However, it will also bring attention to Prince William County—attention that it does not need.
When the county went through its debate over illegal immigration years ago, a great deal of negative publicity was focused here. Perceptions of the area across the country varied widely, but no matter the opinion, the county became intertwined with controversy.
Gradually, the uproar has faded. However, with Stewart’s involvement in this new illegal immigration fight, the county, once again, will become a focal point.
In a time when local jurisdictions are battling a tough economy, Stewart should not hamstring us with a possibly negative reputation. What businesses will want to invest in a seemingly divided community? What professionals will want to move here when all they hear about us in the news relates to strife? Stewart’s notoriety might be good for illegal immigration reform, but it’s not good for the county.
Whether or not the attempt to model Virginia after Arizona succeeds, one of the main people to benefit from this will be Stewart. We have already seen with his short-lived attempt to become lieutenant governor that he has higher ambitions. We don’t fault him for that—that is the nature of political leaders. However, we have a problem with Stewart harping on issues outside the county for the sake of his own reputation, which we believe is the case here.
Virginia probably does need better illegal immigration laws. It also needs strong leaders to make it happen. But we don’t need Corey Stewart to do that now. He was elected to focus on the residents of Prince William County, not the state. Until he is actually elected to higher office, we would like to see him keep his focus here.
Michael Shannon has a guest column in the News & Messenger. Unfortunately, his rantings often go over into the realm of unacceptable public speech. By allowing him to have a column in the News & Messenger, the newspaper gives his voice a platform of legitimacy that includes prejudice, ignorance, and racism. Were Shannon to post his diatribe against Hispanics and Chief Deane as a letter to the editor, he would be exercising free speech. Because he writes as a guest columnist, the News & Messenger becomes complict in spreading this hateful message:
Shannon Column: The 2010 Mexican roundup
There was a near miss in Fairfax County for Prince William County’s Jefe de la Policia Charlie Deane. Authorities there arrested a Belgian accused of soliciting prostitution. A records check, conducted as part of the Federal “Secure Communities” program, revealed this miscreant was also an illegal alien.
Thank goodness this bad man was caught before he had a chance to cross the Occoquan.
Adding Belgian outreach to his already extensive Hispanic illegal alien outreach could have pushed Jefe Deane over the edge. There is only so much apologizing for enforcing the law that one man can do.
Reaching out to Belgians is particularly difficult in that you have to pander in two languages: Flemish and French. Plus Deane would have had to find a police officer with a French surname that spoke French and a Flemish surnamed officer that spoke Flemish otherwise his outreach would not be sincere.
That sort of complication makes last year’s Hispanic Contrition Tour (or Festival de Contrición) look like a model of efficiency, since one abject apology in Spanish covers about 15 countries and most of the landscapers in the county.
“Secure Communities” is actually sort of an SAT test for illegals. It only matches arrestees with a database of aliens who had a visa and overstayed, or aliens who were caught earlier and are making a return visit to the hoosegow.
If Juan is clever enough to avoid attracting attention after he wades the Rio Grande—not difficult under Deane’s lethargic enforcement regime—his name won’t be in the database. And if there is no database hit, then Juan remains in El Norte.
“Secure Communities” is a much less stringent affair than the 287g program that allows deputized local officials to determine whether or not to pursue deportation of illegals.
Of course if it were up to Deane, the welcome mat (or alfombra de bienvenida) would never be withdrawn. He worries that a lot of crime is going unreported due to a victim’s immigration status, hence the constant reassurance that Deane’s heart is not really in immigration work.
But I wonder if when Charlie is talking to “immigrant rights groups”, do the terms “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” ever come to mind?
The audience for his outreach often is illegal or knows other illegals, harbors illegals, knowingly does business with illegals and generally approves of the mass violation of the nation’s borders. Yet our jefe is unperturbed.
It is interesting to compare Deane’s come-one-come-all (or viene uno que llega a todos) philosophy with that of Frederick County, MD Sheriff Charles Jenkins (trust me, the first name is the only similarity).
Jenkins’ policy is to target every inmate identified as an illegal for deportation, which amounts to about 9 percent of his jail population.
“One of the first persons we processed [for deportation] was driving under the influence of alcohol through a school zone during school hours at 30 miles over the speed limit,” Jenkins told the Washington Post. “Is he any less of a threat to the community than a [top-level] offender? I would argue no.”
A sentiment not shared by Deane who downplays illegal alien crime by explaining the most common violations are driving without a license, public intoxication and driving under the influence of alcohol.
That’s certain to be comforting to the taxpayer in an auto crash with an illegal who had neither a licencia de operador del automóvil or insurance.
It’s a mere property crime, don’t you know, and besides the county furnishes Deane with his ride.
But now if looks like Charlie’s foot-dragging has finally paid off.
The census has come to town and thar’s gold in them thar Mexicans. Why our Board of Supervisor’s says Uncle Sam’s bounty on illegals is $1,000 a head and we want to count every last Jesús and Jesúsa.
That measly thousand bucks will just about cover the county fee for the ambulance and first visit to the emergency room for our newly welcome South-of-the-Border guest.
After Obama’s thousand bucks is gone, who pays for the schools and associated social costs that illegals bring?
Once the public gets past the whiplash-inducing political hypocrisy, I don’t foresee a counting problem. Just ask Charlie for the list of groups he’s apologized to and work up from there.
One thing is certain: Hispanics aren’t shy about lecturing the U.S. on how to improve the illegal immigrant experience. Just this week Columbian fanny-shaker Shakira was in the White House to discuss “child development programs in Latin America.”
But she’s behind the curve. We already have a program for that. It’s called “anchor babies.”
Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He wants you to share the machines and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The News & Messenger needs to balance its columnists with individuals who maintain proper public decorum. It is the opinion of this blog’s administrators that Mr. Shannon’s public writings should no longer be a part of the News & Messenger. Translation: Fire Mike Shannon.