Adapt to Win

Arianna Huffington recently wrote on the Huffington Post about a project by Rich Silverstein (the award winning ad exec who came up with the "Got Milk?" and Budweiser frog campaigns, among others).


Huffington says Silverstein "had such a grasp of what makes for effective communication in radio, movies, TV, and online, that I thought he might have some ideas on how to help the Democrats, who continue to struggle with framing an election where they are holding all the cards. He did. When I suggested that he blog about his ideas, he said that since he usually expresses himself best in visual terms, he wanted to see if he could 'blog visually.'"


I think the three posters he's come up with are stunning.

In Rainbows

I don't know what it is exactly, but I feel there's a common thread uniting Radiohead's recent announcement that their latest album will be available on their website for whatever you want to pay with Bill Clinton's most recent comments about philanthropy. It seems to me that they may be starting at opposite ends of the spectrum and finding themselves in a slightly similar middle ground. Both the former president and the world's greatest rock band are shedding old ways of understanding commerce and philanthropy--ways of exchanging symbols of wealth for goods and services.


Both are posing intriguing questions to the business community and society at large. What is something worth to you and what do you truly value? By offering up their music for whatever price you think is fair, Radiohead has sidestepped not only the record industry but many of the common complaints about the record industry today. They haven't replaced the traditional model with a pseudo-traditional model, ala itunes. Pay whatever you think is right.


Similarly, President Clinton, and his Clinton Global Initiative, seek to connect business, government, and non-profits in ways that break out of traditional modes. Non-profits are more able to meet their goals when they're financially sustainable. Businesses are more profitable when they're grounded in realities facing our world today--climate change, poverty, etc. Governments are most effective when they harness the capacities of the private and non-profit sectors to implement smart policy. Don't switch to clean technology merely out of the generosity of your heart--do it because it makes smart business sense. Don't invest in education in lesser developed countries because you take pity on people--do it because it strengthens the global economy, opens up new markets, enhances security, and has a positive impact on global health issues.

We have been ripe for such groundbreaking ideas as they are at once strikingly different from the common sense of the day, yet seem so obvious.

Mass Production of $100 laptop starts this week

The Economist has a great article about the One Laptop Per Child initiative.

A project that was originally discounted by the likes on Michael Dell and Intel is now receiving much praise.

The laptop sports an AMD processor under the hood. Intel originally shunned the project but now wants to be a part of it.

The bottom line: the laptop they've come up with is pretty awesome.

I want one.

If Libya can provide a laptop to every child, can't the U.S.?

Targeting the Community

So I went down to the National Gallery of Modern Art to check out the Jasper Johns exhibit today.

The National Gallery of Art describes it as the following:

Jasper Johns: An Allegory of Painting, 1955-1965 presents some of Johns' most iconic paintings, drawings, and prints selected from public and private collections, including the artist's own. Departing from the format of the survey or retrospective, the show will trace the unfolding relationship of four specific motifs in Johns' works-the target, the "device," the stenciled naming of colors, and the imprint of the body-revealing the works' significance to the following generation of artists. The exhibition includes the largest group of target paintings ever assembled. After Washington, the exhibition will travel to the Kunstmuseum Basel, June 2 through September 9, 2007, the only other venue. The exhibition is organized by the National Gallery of Art, Washington.

One of the motif's the exhibition focuses on is "the target."


Who sponsors this exhibition? Target.


The National Gallery website goes on to say:

Jasper Johns is one of the most influential figures in the history of postwar art and the National Gallery of Art's commitment to his work draws from its profound historical significance," said Earl A. Powell III, director, National Gallery of Art. "We are proud to premiere an exhibition of this scope, which provides enormous insight into Johns' philosophy of painting. We are enormously grateful to Target for this sponsorship- its fourth sponsorship at the National Gallery of Art- and Target's continuing commitment to the Gallery.

An article statement by Target.com says:

Target believes in the power of partnerships with leading cultural institutions to foster creativity, promote learning and build stronger communities. Target is therefore proud to continue its partnership with the National Gallery of Art in Washington as the sponsor of Jasper Johns: An Allegory of Painting, 1955 – 1965. Through this exhibition, guests will experience Johns’ early period of work and view some 80 exceptional works that have had an immense impact on the development of advanced art.

Now, I'm no art expert, but what is fascinating to me is that Johns' work deals with seeing the same image over and over again. He made lots and lots of targets and made pieces about making targets etc. So here's Target paying for an art exhibit about the target icon. I'm not sure which philosophical term applies to that, but I'm sure something's going on there.

more hockey

Briere would later be kicked out for spearing.

Hockey Photos

Drury

Dainius Zubrus
Watching Ryan Miller on the day MSU wins the
National Championship

Romney Supports a State's Right to Choose

Listening to George Stephanopoulos' interview with Mitt Romney on ABC's This Week, I was struck by the Governor's explanation of his stance on abortion. While he was once pro-choice and now describes himself as pro-life, what he really likes to focus on is the states' right to determine whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. He said that under his policy, Massachusetts would remain a pro-choice state.

"My view is that we should let each state have its own responsibility for guiding its laws relating to abortion.

My preference would be to see the Supreme Court do something which is up to them, not up to me. Even if elected president, I don't guide this. The Supreme Court does.

But I'd like to see the Supreme Court allow states to have greater leeway in defining their own laws."

Describing his position as an assertion of states' rights seems to be an appeal to the conservative base, but the key element of his policy can be summed up in one word: choice. Weird how someone who is trying to position themselves as pro-life is actually emphasizing their belief in choice. In fact, when I heard him describe his position I thought, if I didn't know any better I would think he's arguing for a pro-choice policy.

"I feel a great empathy for women who have difficult decisions in this regard. I don't want to impose my view on the lives of women, and yet this is one of those points where mature men and women have to come together and say, "What's the right course?" And in my particular view, I believe in life, I believe in respecting life, and I believe that we should, as a series of states, allow states to make their own choice in this regard."

If it's okay to devolve the decision on abortion from the federal government to the states, why not let each county decide? And if it's okay for each county to develop their own policy, why not let each municipality decide if they are a pro-choice or pro-life community? Wait...if it's okay for each community to decide why not let each household decide?

It seems to me that in supporting a state's right to choose, Romney has revealed his pro-choice beliefs. I'm not upset with him for this, I just wish he wouldn't try to paint his beliefs in conservative clothing.

Heaven only knows

So The Economist lays out what a possible merger of the Catholic and Anglican churches would look like. It's one of those stories that you read and think--is this an April Fool's joke?

I think it goes to show how religion is understood and discussed in the British press versus the U.S. It is hard to imagine a U.S. newspaper carrying out the same line of reasoning.

A DRM Tipping Point?

Steve Jobs' essay "Thoughts on Music," posted on the Apple.com website yesterday has unleashed a fury of discussion on the future of digital rights management or DRM.

Steve Jobs writes, “With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to ‘open’ the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.”

This rather low key essay resulted in a front page story on today's Financial Times, was discussed on the Economist website, and was the lead story on PRI's Marketplace morning report--among other places.

Not only is the topic of discussion important and potentially transformative, the mode with which this discussion has developed is itself intriguing. Jobs, famous for his theatrical presentations, posted his thoughts on a webpage with little fanfare. This meme was then picked up by numerous sources in the "traditional media." It will be interesting to watch this story develop and see if it has any affect on the use of DRM technology in the music industry.

Stay (i)tuned.

Close but no cigar

According to the Economist, we residents of Washington, D.C. are almost full fledged participants in this experiment we like to call democracy:

"DC's congressional representative—and those of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands—inched closer to gaining full voting rights in late January. The House passed a bill allowing the five territories to vote, although if any of their votes prove decisive, the ballot will be cancelled and retaken without them. Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC's long-time congresswoman, had sponsored a bill to award these representatives full rights. So she was disappointed with the compromise, which restores the rights the representatives had before the Republican congressional takeover in 1994. She has described it as 'heartbreaking'."

Wow, thanks guys. Our elected representative is allowed to vote, but if her vote proves decisive the ballot is cancelled?! Doesn't that really defeat the voting in the first place? It reminds me of when I was a senior in high school and it came time to vote for a class song. Pink Floyd's "Another Brink in the Wall Part II" won decisively. Well this song, with it's famous line "we don't need no education," proved too much for the school administration to handle. What was their solution? The vote was retaken, but this time we were only allowed to vote for one of three pre-approved songs. Wow! How exciting! I could hardly bear the suspense! At least in this case, we were voting on a rather meaningless issue like a class song, not on huge issues like the war in Iraq and what to do about the millions of Americans who don't have health care. (In the end, John Cougar Mellancamp's "Small Town" won, and I have never quite recovered--as is obvious from this post.)

I would almost prefer the District (and other territories) weren't thrown such a pathetic bone by those members of congress (predominantly Republican) who'd prefer to get the issue off the agenda. Now they can pretend like they addressed the issue, when all they really did was come up with a politically opportunistic way to act like they did.

Let's hope our newly elected Democratic Congress will address the hypocracy of working so hard to bring democracy to far flung regions of the world while the citizens who live in our nation's capital enjoy no such right.

New Politics website launches Jan 23

From the Politico Website:

OUR GOAL

The Politico is being launched in January 2007 with the mission of covering politics -- the lifeblood of the nation’s capital -- with enterprise, style, and impact.

We will bring an unblinking focus to three arenas of coverage: the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign, and the business of Washington lobbying and advocacy.

This ambitious goal will be matched with the resources to achieve it. The Politico will assemble the most interesting and revelatory journalists—a mix of established names and promising young reporters—and set them to work on bringing to life the most important stories.

As a new venture, we will embrace the way journalism is changing. Our stories will be conversational and engaging, and illuminate the agendas and personalities behind the news. We will always look for the most creative way to tell stories—on the printed page, on the Web, and on television. But this spirit of innovation will be harnessed to old and enduring values—a belief in rigorous reporting, fair presentation, respect for our audience.

Henry James called Washington “the city of conversation.” The Politico’s place is to cover that conversation, and to set it.

The Countdown to 1000 hits

We are now a mere 10 hits away from the big millennium mark.

Truly cause for celebration.

The only question remains...where will lucky #1000 be from?

Nose to the Grindstone

My posting on this blog goes in waves. I have periods of time when I'm on here frequently and then I'll go for a month or two without saying much. I'm going to try to post on a more regular basis. (This a rather lame attempt to get the ball rolling). Maybe my lack of activity has something to do with the Nov-Dec holiday season, but there are lots of interesting things going on that I plan on writing about.

Happy New Year.