Tag Archives: frank

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

OK, I’m up for this. Are you up for this? Sure you are! Together, we can get through the full two hours. We can do it! We can!

11:18 – And that’s a wrap.

11:17 – Trump: I’m spending my own money in this campaign. Actually, no, he isn’t.

11:14 – Carson: fight political correctness!

11:13 – Jeb wants to rebuild the VA.

11:12 – Fiorina: America will literally collapse if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

11:11 – Kasich worries about his children and grandchildren if Hillary Clinton is president.

11:10 – Time for closing statements!

11:09 – Trump: bring back profits from overseas with a tax holiday. Paul: drill, baby, drill. Bush: natural gas is great.

11:04 – Cruz also says Hillary sucks.

11:01 – Bartiromo: Hillary Clinton has an impressive resume. Audience boos. Not really sure what the question is, but Rubio says Hillary sucks and this election is about the future.

10:59 – Hey, I thought Donald Trump had personally guaranteed this debate wouldn’t go over two hours. What’s the deal?

10:58 – Fiorina: Dodd-Frank is socialism. Freddie Mac was responsible for housing bust. Etc.

10:54 – Kasich: Put a sock in it, Cruz. Real executives need to make decisions, not philosophize. Kasich says he wouldn’t bail out banks, but would help the hardworking folks who put money in the bank. Big boos!

10:51 – Cavuto: Just to be clear, if Bank of America were on the brink, would you let it fail? Cruz: Yes. Also: we need fewer philosopher kings at the Fed. And the gold standard would be great for working men and women!

10:50 – Cavuto: Would you go after Wall Street crooks like Bernie Sanders? Freudian slip, I guess. Cruz would “absolutely” go after them. We need less cronyism. Blah blah blah.

10:48 – Kasich: too much greed on Wall Street.

10:46 – Question to Carson about big banks. This ought to be good. Answer: shouldn’t allow banks to “just enlarge themselves at the expense of smaller entities.” Low interest rates are bad. We need less regulation. Hurts the poor and middle class because it raises the cost of a bar of soap by ten cents. Baker: OK, but would you break up the big banks? Carson: I wouldn’t allow them to get big in the first place. But, no, I wouldn’t tear down banks that already exist.

10:40 – Bush thinks we should raise capital requirements on banks. He says we’ve reduced them. This is totally wrong.

10:37 – Kasich winds up with yet more whining about not getting enough time. Put a sock in it, John. Besides, what about Ted Cruz? He seems to have virtually disappeared for the past half hour.

10:36 – Kasich: If anyone cyberattacks us, they should know we will destroy their means to perform cyberattacks. Not really clear what this means. Then a tour of the world showing what a tough guy he is.

10:32 – Rubio: Putin sucks. Obama sucks. Blah blah blah, machine gun speech about all the terrible people in the world. Big cheers.

10:31 – Trump to Fiorina: “Why do you keep interrupting everyone?”

10:28 – Fiorina says she’s met Putin not in a green room, like Trump, but in a private meeting. Yee haw!

10:26 – Bush says Trump is full of shit. Trump says we have no idea who the rebels are. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. He almost sounds like a Democrat. Almost.

10:24 – Trump is now in full ADD mode on foreign policy. Syria! China! Putin! Ukraine! Germany! But we can’t be policeman of the world.

10:22 – Bush says America needs to lead in the Middle East. But his plan is distinctly small-bore: no-fly zone, support the rebels, think about the refugees.

10:18 – Carson: we have to oppose Putin in Middle East. But it’s very complicated. Carson’s plan for ISIS: We have to make them look like losers. We do that by taking their oil fields and then destroying them. “We could do this, I believe, fairly easily.” Carson says he learned that from “several generals.” Names, please!

10:16 – Is anyone ever going to ask Fiorina to describe her tax plan? Come on. It’s only three pages long!

10:14 – Paul thinks Congress should have the ability to amend treaties. This would, of course, make it impossible to negotiate treaties.

10:11 – Trump says TPP is worst trade deal ever. We should sign deals with each country separately instead. Baker: Is there anything in particular you dislike about TPP? Trump: It doesn’t do anything about currency manipulation. China is killing us! Rand Paul points out that China isn’t part of the deal.

10:10 – Kasich tries to barge in. Baker finally shuts him up. Kasich is whining a lot tonight.

10:09 – Trump: We need a big military so no one will mess with us.

10:09 – Now Fiorina goes into yet another riff about zero-based budget and the three-page tax code. Jesus.

10:07 – Now everyone wants to chime in to show that they want a kick-ass military too.

10:05 – Now Rubio and Paul get into a fight. Somehow this ends up with Rubio saying he wants to spend more on defense, unlike Paul, who’s a big wimp. Then a riff about having the most powerful military in the world Huge cheers.

10:04 – Baker asks Rubio if his child tax credit is just a new entitlement. Rubio doesn’t really respond. He just natters on about how important the family is.

10:03 – Jeb Bush delivers some argle bargle about needing a better economy.

10:00 – Cruz would cut five agencies: IRS, Commerce, Energy, Commerce, and HUD. Paging Rick Perry!

9:56 – Rand Paul wants a flat tax. Ted Cruz wants a flat tax. Cruz promises that his plan totally adds up and it abolishes the IRS. The result will be incredible economic growth.

9:52 – Cavuto wants to know which tax plan God would prefer: Trump’s or Carson’s? Carson sort of rambles on about proportionality and putting more money in people’s pockets. Also: his plan will include some kind of rebate for poor people. I believe this is news.

9:49 – The moderators are fulfilling their assigned roles and asking softball questions almost exclusively. Bartiromo said she was going to get to the bottom of all the tax and budget plans, but so far she’s done virtually none of that.

9:45 – Fiorina: Nobody can possibly understand Obamacare. Follow-up: What’s the alternative? Fiorina: high-risk pools. Obamacare is helping no one and crushing small business. We need free market health care. Also: again with the three-page tax code. Fiorina is really obsessed with this tonight.

9:42 – Cruz delivers pretty good line about elite opinion on immigration being different if it was bankers or journalists crossing the Rio Grande. Probably so!

9:40 – Rubio delivers stock speech about taxes, regulations, energy, and Obamacare.

9:38 – Bush has Kasich’s back. We can’t just ship all the illegal immigrants back. Big cheers (!).

9:37 – Trump: I’m rich, I don’t need to listen to Kasich. Big boos (!).

9:34 – Finally, Kasich starts a fight with Trump over immigration. Then he defends Ohio’s honor.

9:32 – Carson: I’m an honest guy. Trump: Immigration is bad.

9:27 – Very subdued debate so far. Everyone seems to have decided that fighting each other just makes the whole field look like children. I wonder how long this will last?

9:26 – Rand Paul goes through a riff on the Fed that I honestly didn’t understand. Plus: we should all move to cities and states with Republicans in charge.

9:23 – Fiorina: We need five things. Zero-based budgeting. Three-page tax code. Total review of all regs. Pass the REINS Act. Hold government officials accountable for their performance. Big applause.

9:20 – What specific regs would Bush cut? Answer: repeal every rule Obama has put in place. Internet. Clean power. Water. Repeal ’em all.

9:17 – Cruz says keys to economic growth are tax reform, slashing regulations, and sound money.

9:14 – What would you cut from the budget? Kasich tap dances. Doesn’t mention a single thing he’d cut. Follow-up: he’d cut Social Security. And Medicaid. Freeze nondiscretionary spending. Increase defense spending. So: cut basically all domestic spending and increase defense spending.

9:10 – Rubio: if we raise the minimum wage, people will be more expensive than machines. We need more welders and fewer philosophers. (No, I don’t get it either.)

9:08 – Carson: people need to be educated on the minimum wage. Wages are too high. Lower wages will create more jobs. High wages create dependency, or something.

9:06 – Trump opposes $15 minimum wage because….we don’t win anymore. Also: wages are too high. People are just going to have to buck up.

9:04 – Could Jeb Bush possibly look less enthusiastic during the introductions?

9:00 – And we’re off. But first, an inspiring video.

8:58 – Tonight features 90-second answers from the candidates. Substantive!

8:57 – Everybody is already at their podiums. I miss having them walk in and wave.

More here – 

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Posted in Anker, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Maybe Conservatives Have a Point About the War on Christmas

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Joshua Feuerstein has earned 15 million views for his viral Facebook video claiming that “Starbucks wanted to take Christ and Christmas off of their brand new cups.” And you know, the guy has a point. We liberals have been mocking the “War on Christmas” for years, but this time maybe we’ve finally gone too far. Take a look at last year’s cup and this year’s cup and you be the judge.

More here:  

Maybe Conservatives Have a Point About the War on Christmas

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Maybe Conservatives Have a Point About the War on Christmas

How Honest Is Your State?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This year, the Center for Public Integrity has once again ranked all 50 states for their transparency and accountability. A high score means your state is tolerably honest. A low score means corruption galore. AJ Vicens has the whole story here, along with plenty of detail.

But for those of you who just want the tl;dr version, I’m here to help. The chart below shows how all 50 states did. Congratulations, Michigan! You’re our most corrupt state, edging out Wyoming by a few tenths of a point. In the “beats expectations” category, I think I’d give the award to Illinois, with New Jersey as runner-up. In the “most disappointing” category, I’d pick Oregon, which really brought down the otherwise impressive performance by the Western states.

Continue reading – 

How Honest Is Your State?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Honest Is Your State?

Here’s the Latest in the GOP Horserace

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Apropos of nothing in particular, here’s the latest Pollster aggregate for the Republican nomination. It looks to me like Trump is finally sliding, while Carson seems to have plateaued around 20 percent or so. Rubio and Cruz are up over the past few weeks, but it’s too soon to tell if this just a blip, or the start of something real. Jeb Bush is declining slightly, but not out of it yet.

So who gets all the Trump and Carson votes when those two inevitably implode? And is it really inevitable? Beats me. This is just the weirdest Republican race ever. Ever since Scott Walker, my early favorite, displayed such awesome ineptitude that he literally dropped to 0 percent in the polls, I’ve been reluctant to utter a peep about who seems likely to win this year. Who knows? Maybe it will all come down to a savage brawl between the two Floridians.

Read original article:  

Here’s the Latest in the GOP Horserace

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Latest in the GOP Horserace

New Suitcase Offers Nothing New, Gets Big Writeup in Slate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today, in what is apparently not an ad, Slate is running an ad for Away, a fabulous new carry-on suitcase designed by two former Warby Parker executives. Here’s the skinny:

To create their carry-on, Rubio and Korey spoke with thousands of people to determine what travelers look for most. They found that many consumers want attractive, well-constructed luggage that provides organization and….

With that in mind, they created a carry-on that has four durable double wheels—a design detail that alone took 20 designs iterations to get right—plus a laundry separation system that keeps belongings organized, YKK zippers that provide stability, and a….

Hmmm. So far that sounds like pretty much every other carry-on suitcase in the galaxy. But wait! What’s behind those ellipses? This:

….and a built-in 10,000 mAh battery that can be charged beforehand and power a smartphone up to five times during a trip.

So let me get this straight. The big selling point of this suitcase is that it includes a built-in battery that’s a lot less convenient than a standalone battery you can put anywhere you want? Or is it just that it has a special pocket for a battery? Either way, who cares? Buy a suitcase and a 10,000 mAh battery (about 20 bucks on Amazon) and you’ll have the same thing the Warby Parker execs are hawking. And probably pay less.

What am I missing? Why did Slate run this?

This article:  

New Suitcase Offers Nothing New, Gets Big Writeup in Slate

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Suitcase Offers Nothing New, Gets Big Writeup in Slate

A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

By now, you’ve probably read about Mother Jones‘ landmark legal win against Frank VanderSloot, a billionaire political donor. If you haven’t, you can read the full backstory here (it’s riveting). Or, if you’re feeling lazy, here’s the TL;DR version:

After the Citizens United decision allowed wealthy political donors to drastically increase their spending, we wrote a piece about one such donor: Frank VanderSloot. He and his company were among the biggest donors to Romney’s super-PAC. It was a straightforward bit of investigative reporting: letting readers know who was funding the campaign.

VanderSloot saw it differently. His lawyers sent us letters complaining about the piece. We didn’t retract our story, and in 2013 he sued us for defamation. Earlier this month, shortly before the case was set to go to trial, an Idaho judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that our reporting was accurate and that the article was protected under the First Amendment.

It was a huge victory. We were up against a powerful billionaire and we won. But it came at a great cost: at least $2.5 million for us and our insurer, and $650,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for Mother Jones, to be precise. Everyone’s been asking whether we can recoup our attorney’s fees from VanderSloot, but unfortunately the answer is no.

The win means a lot to me, personally, too. As someone who writes about rich and powerful people, it’s good to know that the First Amendment is alive and well. And it makes me beyond proud to write for Mother Jones: Not too many other shops would have had the guts to fight back, but we knew you’d expect us to, and that you’d have our back if we took a stand.

If you haven’t already, can you pitch in to help us pay our legal bills? If you can, your donation will be doubled by First Look Media’s Press Freedom Litigation Fund—they’re matching up to $74,999 in donations (the same amount VanderSloot sued us for). You can give by credit card or PayPal.

See more here:

A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Can Poop Save Us From the Next Global Epidemic?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

About a quarter of deaths around the world are caused by infectious diseases—a number that is expected to increase with rising rates of antibiotic resistance. In the race to catch these diseases before they spread, international disease surveillance systems typically rely on reporting from doctors after infections occur, which can lead to dangerous delays and even more transmissions.

But a group of scientists have suggested a new way to quickly detect diseases: poop. More specifically, poop collected from international flights.

Researchers from the Technical University of Denmark argued in a piece recently published in the journal Scientific Reports that airports could identify infectious diseases immediately by analyzing the bacterial DNA from the waste collected in the tanks beneath on-board lavatories.

“What we did was take a single sample from the entire mixed toilet waste from each plane, purified the DNA, and sequenced everything,” says Frank Møller Aarestrup, who heads the Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology. After sequencing poop samples from 18 international flights, the scientists were able to compile plane profiles that showed the prevalence of common pathogens and the how many antibiotic-resistant bacteria were also onboard.

Aarestrup says the process requires just one lab analysis, and he and his team are now recommending that airports have their own sequencers, which he estimates would cost around $150,000 in equipment and one full-time employee. “Not so much, the impact considered,” he adds.

It sounds like a great solution, but it may not be as easily implemented as Aarestrup and his team suggest.

Jonathan Eisen, a professor at the Genome Center at the University of California-Davis, says he doesn’t think the science is quite there yet. “Yes, people may shed various pathogens that go into the sewer system,” he says, “but we still don’t know what to look for and how to detect at these organisms at low levels.”

Though the data showed promise, Eisen says, there are still many unknowns and far too much complexity involved in trying to drill down into this kind of information to have a functioning surveillance system. And there are are a series of other obstacles that still have to be considered.

“There are issues of privacy that they didn’t address at all or issues of false-positive correlations that you might detect,” he explains. “It is really cool to get data from global populations, and I think it is going to be really useful for some purposes. But I don’t see screening sewage systems in airport facilities as a proven avenue for doing that.”

Unfortunately for now, Eisen says, successful poop surveillance is just an exciting hypothetical.

“It is interesting—really interesting actually,” he says. “But I think right now it is a research project. A cool, fun project on microbial diversity and the human environment that is unquestionably worth doing—but without any obvious use yet.”

More: 

Can Poop Save Us From the Next Global Epidemic?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can Poop Save Us From the Next Global Epidemic?

For Saturday: A Very Long and Possibly Tiresome Conversation About Whether "Anchor Baby" Is a Slur

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday morning, I asked exactly why the term “anchor baby” is considered by many to be offensive. As penance, last night I waded through lots of comments to that post—a few of which were actually on topic!—as well as some email and Twitter and other articles on the subject. So here’s the follow-up.

At the end of this post I’ll offer a tentative conclusion, but first I have a few comments. Before even that, though, here’s a nickel paraphrase of the various answers I came across:

  1. The term was invented by anti-immigration activists, who meant it as a slur. So it’s a slur.
  2. Latinos consider it a slur, so it’s a slur.
  3. It implies that babies of immigrants have a kind of second-class citizenship. You and I are “real” US citizens while others are mere grown-up anchor babies.
  4. It dehumanizes both mother and baby by turning them into a label for political purposes.
  5. It implies that Mexican mothers are coldly calculating parasites. Like the Reagan-era “welfare queen” slur, it suggests they see the child merely as a legal boon, not someone to love and cherish, as the rest of us do.
  6. In reality, this hardly ever happens. It’s basically a lie intended to whip up anti-immigrant fervor, and this makes it offensive.

A couple of comments before I wade into each of these. First, I’m obviously diving into an ongoing conversation that I haven’t followed in any depth. I don’t pretend to any expertise on this topic. Second, we’re talking here only about Mexican/Latino immigrants, not the well-documented “birth tourism” of (mostly) well-to-do Asian families. That said, here are my comments on each of the six items above.

  1. I don’t think I buy this. The etymology of the term probably goes back to the “anchor children” of the post-Vietnam era, and at the time it seems to have been primarily descriptive, not meant as a slur.
  2. This is the kind of explanation that conservatives like to sneer at, but it’s perfectly sensible as long as it’s not abused. Who’s better placed to know if something is hurtful than the person it’s aimed at? That said, there still needs to be some reason they consider it hurtful. It can’t just be a case of hypersensitivity. We’ll get to that in a minute.
  3. I saw this one a lot, but I have to say it always had the ring of something cut-and-pasted from somewhere else to help fill up a column. It was never really explained, just asserted, and always using suspiciously similar language.
  4. I don’t buy this at all. We use labels all the time. It’s human nature. I’m a “baby boomer,” for example. Is this offensive? Does it imply that my parents were mere automatons who pumped out babies just because all their friends were pumping out babies? There are thousands of labels we use for other people, and they aren’t automatically offensive or demeaning. It depends on the label.
  5. Now we’re getting somewhere. I find this, by far, the most persuasive argument. However, it depends a lot on whether there’s any truth to this charge. Keep reading.
  6. This one is….tricky. It also turns out to be heart of the argument, I think.

So: do anchor babies actually exist? Or is this merely a myth? This one gets a bunch of bullet points all its own:

The notion that having a baby in the US helps the parents gain citizenship is legally specious. The child can’t sponsor them for citizenship until age 21, and even then it normally takes another decade before they qualify. It’s unlikely that Mexican immigrants are having babies just on the chance that they’ll gain US citizenship three decades later.
However, in practice it might help parents stay in the US. Judges are probably less likely to deport parents who have a baby that can’t be legally deported along with them.
On a related note, parents might do this not to anchor themselves to the US, but to anchor the child. In other words, they want a better life for their child, and the best way to guarantee that is to give birth on US soil.
All that said, we’re still left with an unanswered question: how common is it for parents to illegally cross the border solely (or primarily) for the purpose of ensuring that their child will be a US citizen? As near as I can tell, there’s basically no research on this point at all—and even if there were, it would probably be inconclusive. Parents who immigrate illegally almost certainly have a whole host of reasons for doing so: a better life for themselves, a better life for their children, money to send home to family, etc. How can you possibly tease out just how important US citizenship is in this jumble of motives?
And now we get to the end. If anchor babies are basically a myth, then the term is obviously a slur. There’s no reason to make up this name for something that never (or very rarely) happens except as a way of demeaning a class of people and appealing to crude xenophobia. But if it does happen, then it makes sense to have a term for it. Otherwise you can’t even talk about the subject sensibly. And if that’s the case, there’s nothing inherently insulting about “anchor baby” as a descriptive term.

I don’t have a firm conclusion here. Sorry. At this point, I guess I’d say that it’s up to the anti-immigration folks to demonstrate that anchor babies actually exist in any meaningful numbers. They’ve had plenty of time, but so far don’t seem to have come up with anything. So put up or shut up, folks. Unless you’ve got some evidence that this is a real (and common) phenomenon, it’s a slur.

Finally, I get why some lefties find this whole conversation amusing. Privileged middle-class white guy just doesn’t get it, and has to write a thousand words of argle-bargle to understand something that’s obvious to anyone with a clue. Sure. But look: you have to interrogate this stuff or you just end up as a tribal hack. And since this is a blog, and I’m an analytical kind of person, what you get is a brain dump translated into English and organized to try to make sense. It can seem naive to see it put down in words like this, but the truth is that we all think this way to some degree or another.

POSTSCRIPT: On Twitter, Frank Koughan good-naturedly suggests that it should be a rule of blogging that if you ask readers a question, you post an update so that everyone doesn’t have to wade through 300 comments. Fair enough. But this post is an example of why I don’t always do this: it can turn into a lot of work! Sometimes there’s a simple answer in comments, but that’s rare. Usually about 95 percent of the comments are off topic and the other 5 percent all disagree with each other. So it’s not as easy as it sounds.

View original post here – 

For Saturday: A Very Long and Possibly Tiresome Conversation About Whether "Anchor Baby" Is a Slur

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For Saturday: A Very Long and Possibly Tiresome Conversation About Whether "Anchor Baby" Is a Slur

It’s Time to Cool It On "People Need to Work Longer Hours"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Maybe I’m just being naive here, but I wonder if liberals could give it a rest mocking Jeb Bush for saying “people need to work longer hours”? Yeah, he really did say it, but then again, Obama really did say “You didn’t build that.” Little snippets taken out of context can make anyone sound dumb.

In this case, Bush pretty quickly clarified that he was talking about the underemployed, people who want to work more hours but can’t get them. This didn’t sound to me like some hastily concocted excuse. It probably really was what he meant, and it just didn’t come out quite right. That’s common in a live setting.

Now, after the idiotic way Republicans plastered “You didn’t build that” everywhere short of Mount Rushmore in 2012, maybe they deserve a taste of their own medicine. And sure, politics ain’t beanbag. You get your licks where you can find them. Still, there’s a limit to how hackish we all should be. We’re pretending Bush meant one thing when we all know perfectly well he meant something else. Let’s be better than the Republicans, OK?

Excerpt from – 

It’s Time to Cool It On "People Need to Work Longer Hours"

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Time to Cool It On "People Need to Work Longer Hours"

Why Do Americans Love Tech Startups More Than Europeans?

Mother Jones

Jim Pethokoukis muses again today about the relative success of tech startups in America vs. Europe. He notes that apparently Europe is getting better in this regard, but still lags the US, and offers a few conventional reasons for the US advantage (plenty of capital, lots of talent, risk-loving culture, etc.) and then adds a few other possibilities from comments. This one in particular struck me:

Startups need customers. My experiences is American businesses are generally more likely to take a chance on a new company’s product if they think it will be advantageous, even if that company might not be exactly stable. I say generally, because it is certainly not universal. I was in the past deeply involved with another startup in the U.S. that generated most of its revenue from the UK for its first several years because for this particular market the major players in the UK were more change-seeking than their counterparts in the US. Ironically, this was largely because we addressed some pain points related to labor and energy that were not as painful for similar companies in the U.S.

Back when I was in the tech biz, we introduced a new version of a product we’d been selling for several years. It was already reasonably successful in Europe, though still a bit of a tougher sell than in the US. But the new version was a problem. It worked well. It introduced new capabilities that were pretty useful. And it was basically just a plug-in to the original product. All of that was fine. The product itself was not the problem. Its name was the problem.

No, this is not a funny story about accidentally naming something “cow dung” in Croatian. It was all in English. The problem was this: our new product added the ability to support remote users via the internet, so we called it AC Internet Server (AC being the original product name). Our European distributors and sales force were aghast. They told us no one would buy it if it had “Internet” in the name.

We in marketing were nonplussed. This was 1999, not 1990. Everyone wanted internet versions of existing products. Hell, they wanted them even if internet connectivity didn’t make sense for a particular product. It was hot and new. When we were brainstorming names for the new product, we were willing to consider just about anything. The only rule was that “Internet” had to be in the name somewhere.

But in Europe—in 1999—they wanted no part of that. To them, the internet didn’t suggest hot and new. We were told in no uncertain terms that it suggested fragile and unreliable.

Now, in retrospect, you can certainly argue that Americans went overboard on all things internet in the late 90s. But even in retrospect, I’m still gobsmacked that a lot of large European companies were unwilling to get on the bandwagon at all. Not for anything mission critical, anyway. And this despite the fact that internet connections were roughly as good and as cheap in Europe at the time as they were in the US. This wasn’t a problem of outdated infrastructure.

But there you have it. European companies do seem to be less willing to roll the dice and try something new that might not be fully ready for prime time. Americans, for better or worse, seem almost gleeful about it. Sometimes that spells disaster. But over the long run, it means that (a) our startups do indeed have a bigger pool of potential buyers and (b) new technology gets a quick trial by fire and then gets adopted rapidly if it works. Even when this produces lots of epic failures like pets.com, it probably works out better for everyone in the long run.

Is this still true of European companies? Are they generally less willing to adopt new technologies? Are they generally less willing to buy products from startups with an uncertain future? I don’t know. This all happened 15 years ago and I have no experience since then. Feel free to chime in via comments if you have something to add.

This article is from: 

Why Do Americans Love Tech Startups More Than Europeans?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Do Americans Love Tech Startups More Than Europeans?