Clap, clap, clap for Me

OK. Brief post.

Earlier this year I made a bet with another blogger on the outcome of the election races and to C-Nut’s credit, he paid up nicely! Thanks C-Nut!

Click here for more details and to view my singular post . While you're at it, check out some of his other posts – one of my favorites is the post on assisted living/retirement homes.

Top 10 Action Movies [in the last 3 decades]

I absolutely love a great action flick and all but 3 of these are part of my DVD collection. I recently happened upon an interesting top 10 action movie list drummed-up by Entertainment Weekly and it listed Die Hard as the best action movie ever made, and Raiders of the Lost Ark came in third. *Insert twisted face; do a ‘lil head shake*

After reading through the rest of the toppers which even included Spider-Man2 and Desperado (puh-lease), I was suddenly motivated to come up with my own list.

First, the qualifiers:

1) obviously had to be a great action movie with shoot ‘em up, blow shit up, cut ‘em down kind of action.

2) plot moves quickly, the action keeps on coming

3) good storyline told from a unique perspective meaning, no action movies draped in bad clichés made it onto this list. The best action flicks are the result of great action embedded in a great movie.

4) stands the test of time and replays meaning, it’s just as good the tenth time you watch it as it was the first time you watched it three years ago, i.e..

Now,

THE LIST

1. Aliens [What can I say…Ellen Ripley is your definitive badass. This movie has it all: It’s action packed with brilliant explosions, armored marines, non-stop machine-gun fire and cool grenade launchers, exploding aliens that bleed acid, an android that gets ripped in half…. could an action movie get any better? Getta outta here! No contest. It’s hard to believe this movie came out in 1986.]
2. Terminator [This was one of my favorite movies growing up and that still rings true. The gargantuan Schwarzenegger against the thin but muscular Biehn, whose whole head probably equals the width of Arnolds left bicep - great stuff and never a dull moment.]
3. Gladiator [“A general who became a slave; a slave who became a gladiator; a gladiator who defied an Emperor.” Come on, the movie itself knows its own greatness and this line sums up the expectations of the action perfectly. Great movie, great acting, great action.]
4. 300 [My brother recommended this film to me and its pretty much all battle, all the way, through and through. Spears, swords, and rolling heads, this movie is action – turbocharged; makes you want to go out, get your swordplay on and kick some serious ass. And Gerard Butler – so masculine and commanding as the fierce King Leonidis…brilliant, bushy beard and all]
5. Die Hard [It’s MacGuyver meets Rambo’s smaller self. A damn fine action movie that propelled a slew of films into a whole new action film genre. While it doesn’t take the top spot in my opinion, it’s definitely worthy of top-5 placement.]
6. Lethal Weapon
7. Predator
8. The Matrix
9. Kill Bill Vol 2 [Ok, Vol 1 is filled with more bload-soaked action certainly but I chose Vol 2 because I prefer the more natural flow of plot in tandem with some kickass kung-fu acrobatics and ninja swordplay.]
10. LOTR: Fellowship of The Ring [Ugly, foul beasties..dueling wizards..hairy, long-footed midgets and more… Great characters, great story, and great clanking of metal on metal; this is the ultimate action-adventure “fantasy” movie.]

Top 5 very, very close Runners-up [in order]:

Bourne Identity

Braveheart

Bourne Supremacy

LOTR: The Two Towers

Star Wars III Revenge of the Sith [Some might argue here but c’mon, the whole fight scene between Anakin and Obewon? Master Yoda and Darth Sidius? Everyone was waiting for these matched duels and they did not disappoint. A perfect ‘ending’ to an entire series]

Top 10 Most Romantic Movies

Ok, this would be going off my usual marketing/politics/random brainiac blog posts but recently some friends and I got into a most lively discussion trying to agree on the top 10 most romantic movies in “our” lifetime. We each came up with 10 and slowly and painfully voted out movies by rational discussion followed by heated argument followed by majority vote. I’ll have you know that half of my movies made it on the final list (pat pat on the back).

So, after several bottles of wine, a gaggle of oohs and aahhhs, and reminiscing over some very great love scenes, here goes the list with the number one spot of the most romantic movie in the last 30 years going to a tie between the top two movies we split on. OK, so technically it's the top 11 movies....

THE LIST

1. BBCs North and South [The tall, dark, and yummy Mr. Thornton and the sweet, seemingly impervious Margaret Hale – great chemistry – and when they finally kiss at the train depot, trust me - you’ll get familiar with the rewind button. This was one of my top 3; long but well worth the watch. The intensity in the way Mr. Thornton always looks at Margaret Hale – we all agreed - melting.]

1. Titanic
2. Atonement
3. Moulin Rouge [So what if it’s a circus of onscreen ‘bizarre’, the romance between the penniless bohemian writer Christian and his sparkling courtesan Satine brings focus and intensity to the movie. The mushy love duets don’t hurt either.]
   
4. Somewhere in Time [Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour, two gorgeous people in a sweet time-travel romance. I absolutely loved this movie the first time I saw it 10-12 years ago on some obscure movie channel.]
5. The English Patient
6. The Notebook
7. Pride and Prejudice (with Keira Knightley) [So it doesn’t exactly stay true to plot but who cares. The chemistry between Elizabeth Bennett and Fitzwilliam Darcy is still delish. The only real downside to this movie is the absence of a passionate kiss the moment Darcy professes his love for the second time. A hand kiss does this romance a disservice, but it still made my list.]
8. Persuasion (BBC remake)
   
9. Bridges of Madison County
   
10. Pretty Woman [I prefer more drama-based romantic movies but I was over-ruled]
    

Top 5 Runner ups that almost made the list:

1. Dirty Dancing

2. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

3. BBC Pride and Prejudice (with Collin Firth)

4. When Harry Met Sally

5. Ghost
   

Thoughts? Share ‘em if you got ‘em.

You Know You're a Democrat When....

• You believe the NY Times and the Washington Post are iconoclasms of great journalism
• You believe that Bart Simpson would be every parents dream if only his community showed him more love, understanding, affection and support..
• Someone says "count your blessings", and you start making a list of government agencies
• You’re against capital punishment but support abortion (and, upon request, can provide documented research material explaining the rationality of the contradiction)
• The bulk of your economic policy conversations start or end with “It’s only fair….”
• You get your nightly news from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, or NBC
• You believe that NBC is actually a legitimate "News Station"
• The bulk of your foreign policy conversations start with “I went to get gas and…”
• You are "moved" by the words of a politician
• You favor free speech, except for the ugly words about minorities, the disabled, the poor, "undocumented workers," or endangered species
• You believe the phrase “the glass ceiling” increases the intellectual value of a conversation
• You believe the axis of evil is Bush and his ilk
• You believe Jimmy Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore and Michael Moore is an American hero
• You drive an SUV with a "go green" bumper sticker
• Your answer to every question is "higher taxes" so long as you're not the one paying
• You’ve tried to argue that poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people would redistribute their wealth
• You’ve tried to argue that global poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people of America would redistribute their wealth
• You forwarded the email "An Angry American with an Idea" to all your friends and have convinced yourself that it makes perfect sense
• You support PETA and Greenpeace, but still eat beef, fish, lamb, and wear leather garments
• You’ve tried being a vegan at least once and are convinced you experienced enlightenment
• You utter the phrase “There ought to be a law” at least twice a month
• You think Al Gore invented the internet
• You think Al Gore invented blogs too
• You think rich people actually do get richer off people who have no money
• You actually expect to collect Social Security

I only came up with a handful of these and pulled the rest from here and there and around the internet. ;-)

Share 'em if you got 'em!

Results of the Final Presidential Debate

Overall, the best debate thus far, hands down.

Bravo to Bob Shieffer – great job moderating the debate. He asked good questions (could have done without the VP question again) but he essentially stayed out of the discussion but to ask the questions, allow follow-ups and redirects and he kept the conversation flowing.

OVERALL: Some sharp exchanges tonight but, will the results sway independent votes to the right? In majority, I think not. People needed to see McCain CRUSH Obama on the issues; all Obama really needed to do was stay afloat and respond to the issues. He’s eloquent, he can do that. A lot of effort from McCain that came a little too late in my opinion. By no means was this McCain’s last chance to close the gap but a stronger performance was needed – particularly in the last 20 minutes which is what most tend to remember. Ronald Reagan was behind in the polls during his first term up until the week before the election so, I wouldn’t close the books on McCain just yet. Side note: what a blunder in speaking to Palin and autism when her child suffers from down syndrome. Wowzahs….

AYERS AND ACORN: I strongly disagreed with other Republicans who felt McCain needed to confront Obama with allegations regarding Ayers and ACORN. Not a good strategy. Why? Because the intent of the debate isn’t to solidify Republican votes (already outraged by the allegations) but to sway independent votes and leaning undecideds from the left… and a) Ayers and ACORN aren’t the key issues for these segments and b) confronting Obama on non-key issues during a televised debate gave Obama an opportunity to eloquently and calmly talk his way out of it, which he did. Allegations are just that and now, that card has been played.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: I would have liked to hear more on this topic because it bears huge impact on the next four years since the next President will likely be electing more than one Justice to the bench. In fact I don’t believe that enough emphasis has been placed on this issue from either campaign. On elections, McCain said he’s against litmus tests and would elect a Justice based on his/her record of adhering to strict interpretations of the constitution and would not elect based on political ideology. First, I don’t like the use of the verbiage “litmus test.” It’s overused and overplayed; and second, McCain should have HAMMERED Obama when Obama “suggested” that he would elect a Justice who shared the same core values. That is a dangerous relationship and puts the value of our highest legal system at risk.

THE ECONOMY: For the first time, McCain finally said “I am not Bush.” I’ve been wanting him to shout this out to the heavens and the people for quite some time now. It goes without saying: he needed to do this much earlier on in the campaign. I think McCain did a much better job than previously of calling out specifics – specific programs he supported, plans for reform, and specific programs he would cut (I would have been in heaven if he had addressed welfare specifically - screw the hatchet, bring on the blow torch!).

I am a huge proponent of free trade and would have liked to have heard McCain push Obama more on his position with NAFTA and other FTA’s and I also think he should have pushed Obama more on previous statements regarding energy independence and specifically, his shifting support of Nuclear energy.

EDUCATION: On outlying specifics of his education plan – I think this was a slam dunk for McCain. State taxes need to be applied more appropriately and reform is necessary BEFORE federal funding is injected into a broken system. Personally, I’m against having more federal government involved in our education system that state government.

HEALTHCARE: I said this after the first (or second) debate, McCain needed to address DIRECTLY the allegation that 20million will be dropped from their employer based healthcare plans under his proposed healthcare plan. This is a critical point, and again, like a fart in the wind, it just soaked up the air and blew right by him. He missed the opportunity. He needed to say ‘Your 20milliion estimation is completely wrong Senator Obama. You keep wanting to throw that number out there to sway middle class voters but this is why it’s wrong and this is why it’s misleading [dot, dot, dot].” And, he also should have detailed his plan clearly and spoke directly to the large part of his healthcare plan which includes system REFORMS and oversight - two key things that would stem discrimination drops, pre-existing condition drops and help address the inflated 20million number (which btw: INCLUDES a proportion of the people who are CURRENTLY UNINSURED). And also for the record, there is no evidence to suggest that even without reform and oversight, any forced drops (for discrimination or other) would occur under McCain's healthcare plan. Having said that, he needs to remember to talk to his plan outside of refundable credits and a free market. Similar to the housing debacle, free market movement with reform and strict oversight would have steered us away from the economic mess we find ourselves in.

There you have it. A good debate but I felt myself reaching for more and the "more" never quite came.

So, who won?

Well clearly....Joe the Plummer!

The Fate of General Motors

Interesting article in BW about GMs current financial crisis and the fate of its future. Particularly within the last 6 months, the books have gone from really bad to frighteningly scary. Some see a potential merger with Chrysler – a monopoly in my view (of financial and managerial failure) – others wonder of a GM bailout, some just see GM as we know it, going the way of the do-do.

The GM 5-point [failed] Plan:
Goals:
- Increase GM US Market to share to 33%
- Improve customer satisfaction as evidenced by points of market share, not fractions

Strategy:
- Implement innovate and proven marketing techniques
- Raise market share 1 percentage point in each of 5 key areas [customers, dealers, employees, salespeople, retirees]
- Remake corporate image as a leader by acting rather than re-acting
- Change focus of advertising from distress to aspirational

Note: GM adds that loss of market share experiences is the result of diminished image of GM in the marketplace. [no kidding]

Let's briefly talk about the success of it's 5-point plan...Almost every one of GM's vehicle lines has lost market share since 2000 if not earlier (except Cadillac which actually had a lift between 2000 and 2008). While most vehicle warranties have been improved, GM vehicles simply aren’t built as well as Honda, today’s Toyota, or even Ford (while they also have their problems).

GMs non-SUV/Sport utility market share in the US went from 42% back in 1970 to just 22% in 2005, while Honda and Toyota each went up 14 and 11% respectively. By 2007, GM shares sank another 2.5%.

Some would agree that GMs globalization strategies in the last few years, trying to combat the movement of DaimlerChrysler and Ford in Europe and China, have been ‘questionable’ as well and, for many parts, undermining due to poor product lineup.

Looking at the goals and strategies laid out in the 5-point plan, it's fair to say they've fallen short on just about every bullet point (though Hummer and Cadillac divisions did come out with some nice ads thanks to Mondernista and other agencies..). But, 33% market share? How realistic was that given the steady sales decline, changes in environmental concerns, changes in gas and oil prices, not to mention resource allocations (manufacturing warehouse locations, suppliers and parts), management and union-issues bloating the company? Not very. That's quite a list of things prohibiting a flailing company of GMs size from regaining their once 33% foothold in the market. Even the most brilliant marketing tactics won't overcome management ignorance, poor quality parts at higher prices, or the $60 it costs to fill up your tank twice a week.

So how does GM stay afloat?
Can a private equity investor or billionaire financier buy-out the fallen company and turn it around (like Kirk Kerkorian who has knocked on GM’s door more than once already)?

Should GM focus solely on it’s legacy lines and sell-off everything else?

Since the popular thought movement to hybrid-thinking and “green technology”, and growing aversion to concepts like “gas-guzzling” and “air-polluting” vehicles, will demand for SUV’s and sport utilities – the bulk of GMs former cash flow – ever come back?

Finally, who’s to blame? UAW – Rick Wagoner and the GM Board - management at all levels – or, the shareholders?

The Economics of Tax Cuts versus Obama’s Plan to “Tax the Rich”

Obama’s plan is to increase taxes on those who make more than 250k per year, or rather, tax the rich folks who get richer under a Republican tax policy, while the poor get poorer. This is what the democrats sing anyway in order to tug at the emotional strings of middle America and those even less fortunate. But, let’s evaluate this tune.

• One of the major purposes of tax cuts is to generate tax revenues – how? – by encouraging people to take their money out of tax shelters and tax-free securities and invest that money in something that will benefit the individual investor, stimulate economic growth and create jobs (i.e., investing in equity capitalization for large institutions, small businesses, startups and new enterprises, etc.). In plain speak, the people with the capital to do so – move their money into company stocks, for example.

When companies have more capital they produce more, they innovate, they expand, they reach further into the market and in turn, create more jobs for the lower and middle classes. All of these things help move our economy and our country forward. So, why didn't the Bush tax cuts move our economy forward(?) you might ask. Because good tax policies need to be part of a strong holistic economic policy package (foreign and domestic), predicated upon strong oversight and strong relationships with other foreign countries, among other things.

• Under the great Ronald Reagan, who put forth one of the largest tax cuts amidst cries from the left of ‘tax cuts for the rich’, tax revenues increased more than they ever had with people in the largest income brackets paying not only a larger amount of taxes than before, but a higher share of all taxes than before.

Wait, the rich had the largest tax cut but then had an increase in taxes?? This doesn’t make sense(!) say the left. Sure it does. First the tax policies of Reagan, Bush (and McCain) do not cut taxes per say but rather, they cut tax rates. Second, income is not a fixed amount during economic change - whether you make 35k per year or 350k per year. Economic change does not simply affect one class of folk for the better and another class for the worse. During an economic downturn, everyone hurts. On the flip side, when economic activity is stimulated and the economy expands, and incomes and employment rise, so do tax revenues. Those in higher income brackets start bringing in more income thereby increasing the total taxes they pay as well. So, they make more and pay even more in taxes despite a tax rate cut. Simple economics.

The real test of an economic policy is whether or not it can produce a rising tide that lifts all boats (Thomas Sowel, a fellow at the Hoover Institution wrote).

Obama wants to raise dividend and all capital gains taxes on those who make 250k or more. First, I don’t know if this is per person or per household but 250k per year certainly does not make one wealthy particularly since most people have to work their way up to that point after many years of hard work and paying off debts (i.e., school loans, business loans, children through college, etc.).

Liberals say that these tax increases do not and will not affect lower income families. Really? I beg to differ. In simplistic terms - every company needs capital. Capital equals investment. Because Obama’s plan to tax dividends penalizes equity investment like stocks and mutual funds and rewards debt investment such as bonds, company stocks are devalued and stocks are devalued relative to bonds. This goes back to the point earlier about the major purpose of tax cuts. Under Obama's plan, accountants and bankers across the country, are going to recommend individuals start moving their money away from stocks and mutual funds in order to maximize their investments. Schwab has already started advising investors as such in prep for an Obama Presidency.

The bottom line: I simply can’t believe that devaluing stock prices (and thereby US stock values) for any American business and its stock holders – is a good thing, either for economic growth and prosperity or for the middle income, working class.

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

I pulled this from RCP....the reality
*********************************************************
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Those Americans on Main Street who own mutual funds, own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

The Debate Drinking Game

On a separate, more fun note: my friend Dan sent me a ‘drinking game’ on Tuesday in prep for the debate and sadly while I had class, had I been able to play I would have ended out the night stone sober…

The Rules:

Take a drink when McCain says...

• Doesn't understand
  
• Unrepentant terrorist
• Get off my lawn
• Bear DNA
• Make them famous

Chug if McCain manages to look Obama in the eye.
Buy the bar a round if he looks Obama in the eye and then doesn't punch him in the throat!

Obviously he's not a McCain supporter....
Now….if I had had time, I would have devised my own drinking game:

The Rules:

Take a drink when Obama says...

• Rich get richer
• Golden parachutes
• The great depression
• The Republicans did it OR McCain did it
• Out of touch
• I wrote a letter
  

Chug if Obama manages not to stutter following a question on foreign policy that doesn't involve Iraq. Buy the bar a round (or chug twice) every time Obama repeats exactly what McCain just said when answering a foreign policy question that doesn't involve Iraq.

Getting ready for the next and last debate, share your thoughts or post suggestions for any new "drinking rules" ;-)

Round 2 of the Presidential Debates

I just finished watching MSNBC’s online video stream of Tuesdays debate and I have to say: not all inspiring, much of the same (but with more detail), too much party jabbing from both sides, few questions that were new, and Brokaw’s constant reminding of the “time contract” was very annoying.

New revelations: McCain is obviously much more comfortable speaking in a town hall format and the McCain ‘my friends’ colloquialism has got to go.

Some believe that McCain needed to engage Obama in a "character debate" of sorts. Subtly done, I think it could have worked but Tuesday night’s forum just wasn’t very forgiving there - too personal, too close to the audience,...and so McCain was smart to leave that off the table.

On Obama's performance
Strong lead, but he seemed to come apart a bit in the second half particularly during the discussion on Iran, Israel, and Russia. With regard to meeting leaders of enemy territories, he held his ground very well. *blasted* Good rebuttal on his healthcare plan and tax policies (though I’ve read that the touted financial benefits of his healthcare plan is all a lot of hooey and I'm totally against his tax policies). Still, he spoke to them well and sounded convincing – and let’s face it, that’s really the crux of winning elections: who sounds more convincing, who sounds more knowledgeable, and who appears to have the stronger character.

Surprises of the night
I was surprised to hear Obama mention 9-11 and before the Republican candidate; usually 9-11 is a key talking point for Republicans since it is a tie-back to our foreign policy platform and National defense.. I was not happy to hear Obama talk about how Bush could have rallied the people better; frankly, that just pissed me off.

I was surprised at Obama’s show of clear support for investing in Nuclear power plants – I specifically remember Obama stating that he was not a supporter during the party races. I suspect that he truly is not but recognizes it is a necessary component of a solid alternative energy plan and that it sits well with the majority of alternative energy supporters.

I was annoyed by Obama’s insistence that oil drilling is somehow the entirety of McCain’s plan for energy independence despite the list of alternative fuel sources McCain had already espoused.

And finally...
I am sick of hearing Obama and co blame the Republicans for the state of the economy. First, I believe Clinton before Bush, signed off on deregulatory legislation. Second, McCain didn't just support flagrant deregulation but rather open market movement with, key ingredient here, strict oversight, among other things - much of which was voted down by Democratic leaders. McCain also voted against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exemptions.

And I'll also note that Republicans lost majority seats in both the House and Senate two years ago when supposedly Obama touted the dangers of deregulation. A) De-regulation was in progress long before then and b) obviously Obama did not have the leverage or the political weight to pull his own party as a Senator.

On McCain’s performance
He seemed much more relaxed than he was two weeks ago: his talking points were more succinct, he introduced one or two new things, he answered the questions that were asked, he was direct, he defended his positions more clearly and had some decent rebuttals for position on policy. Overall, he did a better job of connecting with the audience.

But he still falters on one key area – his facts. And no, Obama-ites - I don’t mean misstatements or lying – I mean utilizing more facts in his talking points. Forget about the finger pointing, use numbers and specific examples – and lots of them! McCain needed to be more engaging with regard to specifics – heathcare policy (he did OK here), tax policy – the specifics (he started out well but Obama got the last word and essentially wiped out his efforts), economics (the crisis, the bailout, the result). The people need to hear specifics – numbers and specific examples citing economic cause and effect.

With regard to voting record: on almost every issue where Obama pointed to McCain’s record of voting against a position (insurance for children, stricter institutional regulations, alternative energy, etc) – McCain needs to be very explicit as to why he voted the way he voted. He’s running on a platform of pork spending and earmarks and he needs to speak to those “specifics” when it comes to his voting record - i.e., funding for a new bicycle path(?) and others like it that Democrats slipped into the bailout bill. In this case, obviously McCain couldn’t vote down the bailout bill but he needs to point out those specifics and not just talk to it. A good strategy would be to have 2 or 3 for one debate and 2 or 3 more for the next debate.

And finally...
I’m also tired of hearing McCain and co blame the democrats fo...wait, nevermind. I actually can sit and play the blame game against the Democrats ALL DAY LONG. ;-) I know - how one-sided of me...

Road to the White House – Electoral Vote Predictions

Less than one month to go until election day and it's time to make our predictions. Time sure does fly doesn't it?!?!

Here's where the EVs currently stand:
Republicans:
have 163 Electoral Votes
need 107 Electoral Votes

There are:
9 undecided States
115 Electoral Votes up for grabs

Here are my predictions.....

Best Case:
Elephants [274]: winning swing states CO (narrow, narrow margin), FL, IN, MO, NC, NV, OH, VA,
Asses!! [264]: NH

Worst Case:
Elephants [213]: winning swing states IN, MO, NC, VA
Asses!! [325]: CO, FL, NH, NV, OH

And of course, my fingers are crossed for the Best Case scenario. In fact, this will likely be my final prediction pending results of the next round of debates.

Share your thoughts and post your predictions.

Biden versus Palin: The VP-selects Duke it Out

First of all, I think Palin did well tonight…but she could have done better, particularly in the first 20 minutes. She spent much too much time responding to some of Biden’s more minor points and not enough time answering the question at hand. A key strength of Palin’s nomination and allure is her ability to straight talk and she needs to stay on that path. A key point there is being direct in answering questions – whether or not she fully knows the answer. With Biden following Palin and answering the moderator’s questions first, he looked stronger and more focused.

Note to McCain and Co…Always, always, always,..answer the question first then move on to rebuttal points.

Having said that, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with the moderator’s performance tonight. Ifil asked good questions but I felt she was clearly leaning in a direction that gave Biden an edge in the debate. On key issues such as healthcare, deregulation, and taxes - Biden had an opportunity to rebut Palin’s initial response but in his rebuttals he continuously threw in misstatements of facts and contrived numbers with no inkling of legitamacy behind them - like the 20 million people who will get dropped from their insurance plan as a result of McCain’s healthcare plan – but then Ifil didn’t allow Palin a rebuttal. When a VP-select makes as many erroneous statements as Biden did in tonight’s debate, how can she not allow for a rebuttal? Ridiculous.

Throughout the debate she gave Biden second rebuttals and final word (and in many cases the only rebuttal) before moving on to the next question. And the problem with that is that once something damaging is said and there is no one to correct the gross misstatement of facts, it’s “out there.” And the people don’t forget.

Major thumbs down to Ifil but I’ll add that Palin also failed in this regard because she should have stepped-up to the mic and insisted on responding to some of Biden’s “facts of fiction”.

On troop funding, Palin should have resoundingly stated McCain’s history in supporting our military. She should have directly responded to Biden's multiple references of McCain voting against one troop funding bill that Obama supported – Reality: he didn't vote against it, he abstained from the vote but noted his clear disapproval of the bill and urged Bush to veto the bill not simply because it included a timetable but because it included a very short, unrealistic, and dangerous withdrawal timetable. And btw: many were against that piece of it as well and McCain felt that abstaining was the right thing to do because of that piece of it. I’ll also note that Obama actually did vote against a troop funding bill because there was no timetable which goes directly to the same point that Biden was trying to make against McCain. Palin needed to throw the facts back to Biden and the people watching rather than let these misperceptions from the Biden-camp linger. She should have made it very clear that McCain’s record has unequivocally supported troop funding and our active duty military and military veterans in general (except when pork, absurdities or nonsensical demands were tied to the passing of those bills). Palin needed to hit that message home and she didn’t.

So, who won tonight’s VP debate? I hate to say it but I think Biden did – due in no small part to the moderator who, to me, appeared to show clear bias towards Biden in her management of response times and rebuttals to key issues. But... I do believe Palin came out ahead from where she started prior to the debate. Her approval numbers of late have been dropping like bombs and I think she helped herself and the McCain camp tonight with a strong performance. Kudos to Palin. A big boo for Ifil; and all my silent curses to Biden.

Round 1 of the Presidential Debates

I watched the debate and I’ve read through the transcripts. The result: McCain came out ahead. It may not have been out of the ballpark, but he landed enough distance hits to potentially get a lift in the numbers (or good momentum in prep for the VP 10/2 debate).

Here’s the breakdown: McCain kicked Obama’s ass on every issue but the bailout package. On this he broke even – maybe a little under even but generally speaking, McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms pretty well and even put Obama on the defensive during the first 30 minutes on an issue that is supposed to be Obama’s trump card in this race.

What needed to happen tonight from both sides: Obama needed to show voters that he is the best choice to be commander-in-chief in foreign policy and affairs. McCain had a much bigger fence to jump: he needed to show Obama as the naive student of political foreign affairs, he needed to continue to separate himself from the last 8 years of the Bush administration, and he needed to be able to respond to the economic bailout issue without sinking himself because even though this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, we all knew questions regarding the bailout were going to be raised.

The Economy
The debate started with talks on the economy and particularly the $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. As for whether or not each candidate would support the proposed recovery plan, fact is: responses from both candidates sucked since they each avoided an answer entirely other than to say “well I think I would.”

Baaaah little sheep.

But here was the key lead question [paraphrasing]: “As President, what are you going to have to give-up in order to pay for the exorbitant costs of the bailout recovery plan?”

McCain focused on cutting government spending to help fan the cost of the bailout package while trying to put an emphasis on the fact that cutting ~$18billion in earmarks and pork spending impacts not only direct funding for wasteful government programs but also corrupt spending and activity across government agencies that go unaccounted for. Earmarks represent only 2-3% of the total deficit and $18 billion plus give or take another $XX billion obviously won’t cover the $700 billion atop the planned tax cuts. I would have liked to hear McCain site 1-2 additional examples beyond simply earmarking and government corruption and think McCain would have positioned himself much better overall given the strong voter focus on the economy. But, he did suggest a spending freeze which, though a fail-safe answer, is still an entirely reasonable proposition.

Having said that, Obama in my opinion missed the mark entirely. Before I elaborate, I’ll say this: it’s important when listening to both candidates that you stay focused on ‘connecting all the dots’ of what they say and how they respond to the question. It’s obvious (and most of us already recognized this) – Senator Obama undeniably is born of the gift of gab. And after watching the first presidential debate and hearing his responses and reading (and re-reading) the transcripts – I realized how easy it is to forget about connecting all the dots when you’re listening to him speak. Particularly because everything is intelligently worded and bundled into a pretty, seemingly non-politicians package. But the reality as I see it – most of his dots when you lay them out just don’t connect.

Obama mentioned that there obviously would be areas of his plan that would have to be delayed or simply wouldn’t get done but there are some things that simply must be done. An interesting way to avoid responding to the question but in light of his response, I would have liked Lehrer to ask the Senator how he plans to pay for the recovery plan while he continues advocating the provision of tax cuts to 95% of American families, all the while investing in alternative energy: wind, solar, biodesel, etc., all the while pouring out an additional $800 billion into new social programs, and all the while providing healthcare coverage to every American – and no doubt – every non-American…I think he also mentioned education but that probably falls under one of the $800 billion worth of more government social programs…(a top the $xx billion in completely worthless social programs that already exist).

Supposedly, where there are line items that cannot be done as a result of the bailout costs (still not sure what these are), tax bails, alternative energy, healthcare, and social programs to help the “middle class” are all the things that must be done.

So, OK…when you’re suffering through terrible economic woes, this is all the fluff you want to hear and need to hear. But when you add up both economic plans, sure…McCain falls short a bit but at least he stated an economic freeze which is far more realistic than Obama’s “new math” economic plan all verbally dialed up into a fools package.

Pretty little ducks all laid out in a row. Not.

Foreign Policy
Here’s undoubtedly where McCain kicked Obama’s proverbial ass. Obama did a good job of shedding light on the fact that he is intelligent and fairly well versed on some of the issues; but more importantly McCain shed a lot more light on Obamas fundamental inability to connect all the little dots in order to understand the broader picture – a necessity for developing and supporting strategic and tactical initiatives. McCain whipped him on the discussion regarding our strategy in Afghanistan with respect to success in Iraq and disbursement of troop volume in Iraq; he consistently (and successfully) called out Obama’s lack of understanding of the domino effect between the issues in the Middle East; he successfully portrayed Obama’s understandings as being at best, naïve; and McCain consistently put Obama on the defensive on all manners of foreign policy that were raised during the debate to include Russia, Iran and North Korea.

On this, it was critically important for Obama to show voters that he is the man to lead the country in foreign affairs.

And he failed.

For me, the win for round 1 goes to McCain. Not necessarily by a mile but at least by a couple of stretches.

Palin for VP: Brazen or Brash...

Kudos to the McCain camp for keeping the true VP nominee under such tight wraps; another kudos for going against the grain of predictability and thinking outside the box. McCain's decision to select Palin is an interesting one, but I think a smart one. While things can always backfire, the sheer shock factor, coupled with the momentum of curiosity for an unknown governor (and a woman no less), will force the Obama camp to relinquish the spotlight over the coming weeks. If done smartly, this could be a real opportunity for McCain and Co. to capitalize on the publicity and connect with voters with a relevant message.

Now, don't get me wrong - I get some of the anti-Palin sentiment. Some may be inclined to wave a finger and tsk-tsk Palin's nomination, but here's why they should pull back the trigger finger just yet and give a thumbs up:

Briefly side-stepping the fact that she is a woman...
- Palin has solid conservative credentials - something we Repubs knew McCain would need in a running-mate given some of his more 'left-of-center' conservative politics.

- While relatively inexperienced in the core political arena (a quality well-served for baby 'Bama and former President Clinton), Palin is young and still brings more relevant experience (of the executive nature) to the table. Granted, the state of Alaska only has 10 residents but....Palin has also served two terms as mayor and two more as city-councilman. Bottom line: she's not a newbie to the process nor the 'business' of politics. During her political tenure, unlike the democratic President-elect, Palin has actually done things.

On this note, i found it rather amusing, and a downright contradiction, that the Obama camp issued this response upon hearing of Palin's pseduo-nomination:

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency"

Anyone else see the irony in that? Right. And so putting a junior senator with now three years of legislative experience, zero legislative accomplishments, and zero foreign policy experience to speak of in the presidency, says what exactly.....His role on the senate foreign relations committee? laughable. I also found interesting the very carefully chosen words "former mayor" - given the fact Palin has been governor since 2006. Obviously intended to steer attention away from her executive experience. How droll. Lefties...

Moving on...

- Palin carries the "anti-stain" of the stereotypical politician; and for the average Joe (or Josephina), has a niche claim that every politician drools over - she is more relatable to the average American. Let's be honest, when most people think of Alaska Northern Exposure and 'homely' come to mind. It's earthy and hard-working, straight-talking, outdoorsy peeps with close relationships and close familial ties. True or not true, perception is power; perception wins elections. Most loyal Republicans aren't going to go left - regardless of whose on the ticket; and Palin's background, combined with her more mainstream libertarian conservatism, just might be what the party needs to reign-in moderate and conservative democrats.

- Corruption and DC politics was a stain on the Bush Administration and his Republican-majority congress. McCain's efforts to vilify those attributes are strengthened in Palin with her efforts to weed out corruption and wipe-out flagrant misuse of government spending in her own state. I read somewhere that she sold a corporate jet on e-Bay for something shy of $3 million to raise money without raising taxes. I'm all for that. She's innovative and thinks outside the box.

Here's some nice propaganda for you on Palin's conservative nature and political POV:

"She is a throwback to the cowboy individualism of Barry Goldwater, a nod to the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan, and a flag-bearer for the common-sense pragmatism of ordinary working parents everywhere."

- Palin is a union member as is her husband. Though a departure from standard Republican ideals - which generally look on unions with a sense of disregard and loathing (and let's face it, why wouldn't you really...) - having a union-family will resonate more with voters in swing states like MI and IA, heavy in the unions. A side note...Palin also displays the more uncharacteristic qualities of labor unionites, typically reserved for, well... us respectable non-unionites! She's hard-working and yes, actually works. Guess it beats taking an eight hour lunch break cleverly disguised as an eight hour work day...

- Palin, like McCain, talks in plain-speak and has the nerve to bite back which could serve well against a competitor like Biden, known for his manner of directness and occasional tact-lessness.

Now, given the fact that Palin is a woman...
- I don't believe that simply having a woman on the ticket will reign in female voters other than extreme feminists (that's just naive), but a woman or minority on the Republican ticket is an affront to the leftist (and ok, mainstream) perception that Republicans only elect stuffy, old, white-collared, affluent men. And Palin counters any edge Obama has in being a minority. From a diversity standpoint, her nomination will move Republicans in a new direction and put Republicans and Democrats on even keel during the elections. Bravo McCain and Co!

Yes, the fact that she is an unknown will make her vulnerable to media scrutiny and yes, the potential impacts could implode McCain's campaign with the elections only a few short months away. But the typical "what's in your closet" political hoopla can be muted with a smart strategy, open communication and plain-speak: an approach that has served McCain well in recent months with gaining traction among Democrats and swing voters.

Right now, people are very curious, and McCain and Co are well suited to take advantage, spread their message, and drive momentum. Come November, I think they'll prove to be a formidable duo against Obama and Biden.

Mass is out; Niche is in

Lots of conversations surrounding web2.0 lately; lots of conference invitations for web2.0 marketing events (none of which I can or will attend - poo-poo). I read a comment recently that the greatest benefit of web2.0 is that the world is your oyster. Groan. Meaning? Dumb cliché aside – thanks to web2.0 the world is the new audience. Eh? Wrong.

If you start targeting everyone, in reality you’re targeting no one. Web2.0 creates outreach (i.e., targeting] and engagement [i.e., the conversation] but understanding who your audience is crucial for defining your marketing message. Particularly for small businesses, marketers need to be cognizant about knowing who they want to reach but more importantly they need to be realistic about who they can reach. One downside of web2.0 for many is that it can create the perception of static “channels” be it social network sites, blogosphers what have you; but as many already know, these channels are constantly changing - new channels open up, some disappear, and the outreach environment for many in terms of advertising is becoming more and more stringent as web users gain more control. As marketer’s, our hollistic marketing strategy has to be based on audience - not on "channel.” That said,

Stop thinking “broad-base” and start thinking “niche.”

Think Blackberry: a niche product that garnered mass-market attention but it grew from the path of niche-mindedness. For many businesses, small and large - there are probably a hundred and one other seemingly similar products on the market that are either skimming the profit margin or blundering horribly. The unique proposition of a partciular product or service is how you get to niche. And within niche-mindedness lies a more compelling, relevant marketing message for your audience. With time and effort and the right people on your team - at the end of the day you will get better results and it will [should] cost you a lot less.

Bad Managers Be Gone...

So there are managers, and there are “managers.” Fortunately, I’ve never had any “horrific” managers – some were weaker than others certainly…..but I’ve known plenty of people that were bad managers and I’ve known plenty more that have had bad managers. My team recently grew and after having a series of one-on-one’s last week, I started thinking about the importance of being a manager and the responsibilities that we as managers have to our employees.

It’s not an easy job and I believe that the performance review process for managers – in so far as how they’re doing as a manager - is grossly insufficient. There are far too many that continue to take on reports when in reality they should be booted from their managerial seats and stripped of their manager titles.

So, with that said…what are the essential qualities of a good manager? Here’s my vote on the top 6 ….

Good Managers Assume Responsibility and Protect Their Employees

• You can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. When people screw up, a good manager takes responsibility because the chain of command goes up, not down. Managers can address the issue directly with the employee and take separate action but when dealing with higher-ups, a manager does not throw that individual under the bus; that’s just poor form. And yes, it’s happened to me to me once or twice and no, when it happens - you don’t forget. In fact, any manager who violates this essential quality…is a dirt-bag.

Good Managers Empower Their Employees

• They understand the team process and believe in promoting responsibility and accountability. They understand the concept of “delegating authority.”

Good Managers Develop Employee Skills

• Set goals and objectives; develop stretch goals and action plans. They don’t just throw something slipshod together, attach some numbers and call it a “performance plan.” They are mindful. Few things irk me more than managers who take little or no interest in the professional development of their employees. I took on several new reports and reviewed their latest performance evaluations and for one individual, I saw more N/A’s for entire sections of a three page document than any one employee should ever have --- ever. I was deeply offended. Setting goals and objectives is a critical part of being a manager, for all the moving parts that are involved. Goals and objectives should be communicated clearly, and in a meaningful and relevant way. Managers who fail to take an interest not only face a greater risk of having poor performers, but of losing the respect of their employees and their colleagues – as bad management rarely goes unnoticed. That’s not to say of course, that the reverse will guarantee top-dollar billing but non-participation gets you, the manager, absolutely na-da other than bare-minimum effort. Obviously this is not good – for productivity, efficiency or morale; and all of these things impact the company.

Good Managers Take Time and Make Time

• OK. I don’t mean the mindless weekend chitchat – although I’m sure this is acceptable in some environments ;-) Good managers communicate often with their teams be it by email, phone, or quick drop-by’s. Good managers take the time and make the time to meet with their employees on a regular basis; discuss projects, new developments, etc. They “itemize.” Keeping employees informed helps maintain the spirit that “we are a team and you are an important part of that team.” Plus, an informed employee doesn’t hurt the company either.

Good Managers Understand Productivity and Efficiency

• They know what objectives must be achieved within stated time frames and they are able to communicate that information in a meaningful way to other people. Equally as important is effectively managing productivity and performance. For me, weekly meetings are helpful for keeping the team up-to-speed with what’s going on. If you’re having weekly meetings, please – make sure they’re “productive.” Almost as irksome as having to deal with bad managers, is having to attend useless meetings where questions go un-answered, problems remain un-solved and I just wasted an hour of my time. If an employee consistently follows-up a meeting with multiple follow-up questions or worse, multiple missteps, managers need to take heed and rethink the format of their meetings and/or meeting agendas (or consider actually putting together a default meeting agenda).
  

And finally,…GREAT Managers aren’t just a title, they are a living force.

• They’re tough and they have high standards, but it’s their force and their leadership that inspires and drives the team to accomplish and get things done. A great manager has not only a purpose but dedication and emotional commitment to the job and to the team.

So…agree-disagree? Miss something? Ever have a “BAD MANAGER” experience?? Do tell; I love juicy gossip….

The Unstoppable McCain

Or, at least he was until last month.

Ok, so obviously I'm behind on my readings. Hmmm.

With the democratic party struggling to find unity and stealing so much of the negative limelight these days - McCain seemed poised to gain a hefty lead over the competition. The DNC has had a lot to deal with: Obama’s recent media plight over his long relationship with a racist Pastor, Clinton’s bumbling misstatement over having to duck under sniper fire in Bosnia, and now with Clinton fending off pressure from Obama’s campaign reps and superdelegates in the DNC to drop out of the race – McCain’s pretty much been living the good life I'd say. Free from media strife, free to run his own campaign, free to relish in the uptick of support.

And then ‘thwack’. Bush’s endorsement.

Now, don't get me wrong - Bush is still pretty popular with the GOP and it comes as no real surprise that Bush has endorsed McCain. In fact, within the upper echelons of the party, I’m sure a lot of conservative peeps were “thrilled” about it – feel it unifies the Republican Party behind McCain. But, McCain also doesn’t have any competition for the Republican primary so an endorsement from the current Republican president isn’t going to give him any boost there; he’s already clinched the nomination. Can Bush help in states like Texas - I doubt it. If McCain can't win over these states without a Bush endorsement - he won't win them over with a Bush endorsement.

However – the general elections are only 1,2,3,...8 months away (and it'll go by quickly) and it goes without saying that Bush is NOT popular with the left. In fact, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Bush is vehemently despised by folks on the left. And, generally speaking – not too well liked among independents or the far right either. His approval ratings recently seemed to fluctuate somewhere between 19% and 27%.

So, how much will a Bush endorsement help or hurt McCain’s chances in the general elections? Was this an attempt to unify the GOP behind McCain - and therefore well-timed with DNC candidates being front and center in the media, and just in time for the endorsement hype to die-down before the start of general election campaigning... Does a Bush endorsement strengthen the message that a McCain presidency would be a Bush “three-peat?” Is McCain just setting himself up for heavy fire by everyone else 'to the left'...

Oh, and how stupid was this statement by McCain (outside the White House after Bush’s endorsement):

“I hope that the president will find time from his busy schedule to be out on
the campaign trail with me, and I will be very privileged to have the
opportunity of being again on the campaign trail with him,”

Goodness me-oh-my...

All Hail the Mighty Paper

Warning: long, long post today... ;-)

I remember a few years ago when I moved to Hoboken, NJ and took a job with JPMorganChase, situated right across from the NYSE. **ahhh** What a great deal that was. Every morning, I’d get on board the ferry in Hoboken, sit back and read the newspaper for the mile-long ride across the Hudson River, and get off at the Wall Street pier. I’d make my way up Wall Street, past all those financial conglomerates: Schwab, UBS, Trump Tower, Merrill Lynch, and others.... and just get immersed in the sounds and smells of downtown New York: the coffee, the doughnuts, the street vendors, the people lined up at the corner newspaper stands, the taxis, the passersby, and the trench-coat busy-bodies hurrying to their windowless offices with rolled up newspaper in arm (or briefcase).

What can I say, it was all very intoxicating and I completely bought into it.

I also remember shortly after my new move, I started taking up a subscription for the WSJ. At the time, it was more for status than readership; I thought the WSJ was for the intellectual right and the fashionably “cool” in society, and I was determined to be part of the “in”” crowd. Eventually though, I became an avid reader - for the quality of the writing, the editorial content, the "intellectual grade" and the range of print issues.

What can I say, the WSJ was and still is, a great newspaper...

Reading the WSJ was a daily routine, and a relaxing one at that. When I finally flipped that last page, I felt like I had accomplished something, learned something, retained something. I felt pretty good about myself.

Eventually though, those daily routines were supplanted by online news reading from sources like AP, Reuters, the WSJ Online and others. And now that I’m working for a newspaper – I feel the decline of readership more personally and I find myself wondering what the future has in store for newspapers and the WSJ. And let’s face it, newspapers don’t have too much to be happy about these days: advertising revenue is down, circulation is slumping, and newsroom cuts have become "daily news."

While the old news forums are indeed being usurped by the advent of the internet and new digital technology, unlike many (if not most), I don’t believe that the newspaper will wither away into nonexistence – unless we let it.

Even it becomes a niche market, rich in content...there is a way to save the newspaper.

Times have changed. The newspaper business has to be forward thinking if it wants to retain readership and grow it’s revenue base – be it through new and renewed subscriptions, information portals geared towards niche subscribers, or advertising dollars. ** A point of clarification - the newspaper is not the product. The "product" is the readership (the audience); the market is the advertiser. **

That said, the future of the Newspaper is about three things: Rich content, content "growth" and data management. The online version will be about rich media content across a wide array of verticals (a perfect marriage between online and print media). Okay, so that's technically, 1-2-3..4 things.

Content, Content, Content
Not for nothing but the editorial content of most newspapers today is sorely, soreley lacking. 95% of newspapers I just throw down in disgust. I can't handle the ultra liberal point of view or worse, the "uneducated yet well-written" point of view. And with continuous budget cuts and declining readership, the content is only going to get worse. Here's what I say, the business objective shouldn't be about making significant (or even slight) content cutbacks. That's the crux of the paper people! The goal should be to enrich the content and make it more valuable to all your readers and non-readers.

The future of newspapers is the 20-something generation. Today, they're fresh out of college – tomorrow, they’re readers. The trick is building loyalty and awareness now.

Add a rebuttal section: the same complaint that myself and so many others have - is the biased perspective of the media - particular newspapers. Add a fun, intellectual rebuttal section for key issues; readers submit the questions. You present the 'conservative' and 'liberal' points of view, or in the non-political sphere, the 'for' and 'against' point of view. You have two or three bullet points in a summary section highlighting the issue, each rebuttal is 1 column long, half-page. That leaves plenty of room for two debate topics. This section could be bi-weekly...every Wednesday and every Sunday to give it more value.

More "Jon Stewart" journalism: Not throughout the paper of course but every good paper should have a good, hearty "wise-cracking" page for the satirical and the cynical - make it fun, make it hip, make it interesting. We all share so much of the same thoughts, fears and hopes - make it relevant. Oh, and please...none of this 2000 words on a page for just one article. Have several brief columns for the page.

Add readership inserts that stir the palate of the 20-something crowd: technology, business for the ages, social events for 20-something readers in the local area, career and job hunting tidbits, etc. Or hey, have one weekly insert segmented by age group for everyone to enjoy! The question editors really need to ask (and answer) is 'where is the audience going?' - what information do they value and how can we incorporate these concepts into our paper thoughtfully and with added value...

Better stories, more stories:
...more content, more facts, more satire, more fun, more funnies, more inserts, more, more, more! As one LA Times editor said, “"wise investment – not retraction – is the long-term answer to the industry's troubles.” OR, "A dollar's worth of smart investment is worth far more than a barrel of budget cuts."

Of course, going this route may be more costly, and the newspaper may eventually be tailored towards a niche market with fewer papers being printed for a higher price, but if the quality is in tact and the content is at a level higher than it's ever been, newspapers will be around for a long time. And besides, I'm all for higher content quality. The biggest problem with news in general is that all the articles covering a particular topic, all say the same thing – so little varied perspective.

**ack. cough. tears.**

New Digital Content
As for the online version of newspapers... I have a few thoughts on that as well: In addition to the usual news/events, weather, etc….paid subscribers should be able to choose the level of editorial content, and level of censorship in their news, comics, and entertainment. Preferences can be modified for different household members – i.e., children and teenagers can have the G or PG-rated editorial content. It should be a "mix-it-up" subscription service.

Now, keep your pants on fellas...I'm not talking about intellectual "porn" here. No, I'm talking about mature, intelligent or maturely funny editorial content.

Audio-reading:
An option for the elderly or just those who want the news but don’t want to sit in front of the computer for hours on end. This could be in partnership with Adobe (Adobe has a downloadable audio-reader as part of their, I believe, 8.0 suite. If articles can be downloaded as PDFs you can listen to them using the audio reader.)

Newsbloggers:
Locals write the news and self-syndicate to all of the newspapers from their homes.

And finally,…

the information portal:
a comprehensive database of all articles, and key words within those articles with links to sources, names, events, references, etc. All stories with even the most obscure references would be tied together and stored in the database; a benefit for readers and editors who wish to have detailed information, background information on any particular subject previously covered, at their fingertips.

Think, a Wiki of the news per se. Today’s article search is a mindboggling expedition, and next to useless in so far as time goes but the technology is there; it is possible. Information is still the most valued commodity and it can come with a price – so long as the technology is relevant and no one else does it better (or first).

Internal Management
Ahem, so I'm relatively new to the newspaper industry but I've learned quickly that this industry - ahead of the data-mining curve it is not. Apparently the popular way to go from a circulation marketing perspective is to outsource marketing campaigns to local call center type organizations. Everything goes...from concept, execution, all the way to tracking.

..And here's what I have to say to that. EH. WRONG ANSWER! If you have the budget to outsource it to a group of people who hold no real personal value for your business, then you have the budget to "insource it" with one or two good people on your team. You can outsource the execution, but circulation teams need to be managing the campaigns that go out the door from concept, to execution strategy, to campaign tracking. If you value your business and the future of your business, you need to own that business.

Database Management
Another area with room for improvement. In order to effectively target and segment your audience to track campaign spend and revenue, to track usage across all campaigns, to track response rates for new campaigns, etc... you need to have an oustanding marketing database. No newspaper, with significant market share and declining readership, should be without one. Note to the industry, Invest in technology - it WILL help you.

Why? It's important to be able to drill down your data to really understand who you're reaching, why, and how much your "reach" is costing the company. It's important to know which marketing campaigns are effective? Which offers generate the largest response rates and within which segments? And the end-all-be-all of questions - what's the long term value of every customer, meaning how much is each customer worth in cost and revenue? Ultiamtely, you want to know what kind of penetration you're getting and what that return is in terms of costs vs advertising revenue.

You should be able to effectively drill-down data across demographic, location, risk, penetration, response-rate, number of households, homes on the DNC list, high customer service areas, hard delivery-areas, etc. You should be able to track customers by complaints, calls through the VRU, refunds, cancellations, write-offs, customer contact points, and so much more. And at the end of the day you should be able to tie all that information together to give you "the big picture".

Information is power, and information is the crux of the newspaper business. That rings even more true from an internal management perspective, when running the business.

So what do you think...are newspapers out and the internet in? Is the internet the future of news?

Fiorina: Good or Bad for McCain?

So in the last month or so, there’s been a massive pileup going-on of my weekly Businessweek subscription, and this weekend I finally took some time and starting going through them. I came across an article about some of the latest on McCain’s campaign and was surprised to read that former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, whom I knew had recently supported McCain on the campaign trail, was just appointed to serve as McCain’s public spokeswoman and as a people’s advocate for the RNC. Old news for some, new news for me. Either way, interesting choice though I’m not quite sure yet what to make of it.

The PRO’s:
- She is a marketer and a saleswoman; and very good in both roles

- Fiorina knows how to sell a vision and her skills in this area could really help elucidate McCain’s vision for the future, a point of communication that he's struggled with throughout the primaries. Moreso if O'bama takes the democratic nomination - McCain's campaign message will need to be very clear

- She has a 6-year run on her resume as the former CEO of HP which could strike a chord with like-minded business-folk who respond to innovation and thought leadership

- Some believe that while her leadership with HP ended in embarrassment, the growth strategies that she advocated for and pushed through, were largely responsible for the rising margins and profits that came under her successor (Hurd). Even just one year after her "resignation" HP gained a 4% PC market share lead over Dell and brought in higher reveneues than both Dell and IBM that same year

- Her rise to the top of the corporate ladder, going from secretary to CEO, is both extraordinary and inspiring – particularly for young[er]women working. McCain struggles to win-over the twenty-to-thirty something crowd and particularly young, professional women. Fiorina’s story could give his campaign some leverage with that voter segment


The CON’s:
- She was forced out of her 6-year run as CEO of HP, and her exit was not shall we say an “amiable” one. She was at the center of a merger so contentious, the son of HP's founder came out against it in a public boardroom fight.

- Fiorina is a "straight-talk" kind of gal. Combined with McCain's "let's be real" approach- it's reality overload. People want the real deal from their leaders but people also want to be inspired.

- Her offshore outsourcing policies will be sure to draw heavy fire from states in the northeast all the way down to the bible-belt south where skilled labor industries and programming jobs have been hit hardest thanks to offshore outsourcing. Her management practices along with McCain's "real talk" economics won't go over too well in these states. **I was surprised that McCain put Fiorina on the campaign trail with him in Michigan; a move that will surely bite him in the ass later**

- Though she inherited a monster that was on it's way down when she took over in 1999, Businessmen and investors will remember the troubled 6 year span under her leadership and the relief-day when HP stocks jumped 11% on the announcement of her departure.

- She’s been described in numerous public forums not as a leader who leads, but as a leader who looks to burnish her own image. Her position in McCain’s campaign could be seen as a means to get the ball rolling for her own career in politics – taking away from McCain’s spotlight

- The perceived image of Fiorina’s self-serving nature could perpetuate the notion that the RNC is a party of the rich and of the…well, self-serving

I'm leaning towards this being a not-so-smart move in the broad scheme of things but as yet, I'm still undecided. So, is Carly a wise choice for the McMan (or the RNC for that matter)? Can her business acumen win over Romney supporters? Will business-minded voters turn and run the other way?

Questions, questions..

Going "Anti" for Corporate Social Responsibility

Now before anyone starts thinking I’m a hater of “causes”, I’ll just quickly note that I do believe in giving back and I’ve been a long time supporter and volunteer for a number of organizations like ACS, Gilda’s Club, NAC, and others. I’ll preface my point: I understand that the position of CSR is supposed to be a win-win situation for businesses and customers – businesses profit; the brand gains exposure and increases loyalty by building a relationship premised on conscience and cause; customers feel good, and society feels good for buying-in to it. * Hooray for business and the cause * Where I draw the line at corporate social responsibility is when it flies in the face of “transparency of motive” and I walk away feeling “duped”.

It goes back to that question of, why are you really supporting the cause? Some people think, who cares(!) – at least something good is being done. But I care. I care about disingenuous motivations and false pretenses.

What got me started on this whole raging path is something that happened yesterday. I’m walking down the street through town and have a need to buy some basic home supplies and I see two stores – one has a breast cancer ribbon in the front window and the other doesn’t. I opt for the breast-cancer supporter. * clap, clap, clap for the business * I pick out my things, and when it’s my turn to step up to the counter, I ask about a contribution jar or percentage of profit per item that goes to the breast cancer foundation. They tell me, and I quote, “We don’t contribute financially but we do believe in the cause.”

…Heh?

Maybe you think I’m overreacting but I tell you I’ve run into these scenarios many, many times and I am infuriated no less each time. Had I known the ribbon display was merely that - I would have gone to the second store whose prices are slightly cheaper. Clearly, the ribbon in the window was meant to draw me in as a customer - if they really believed in the cause - they'd do what many do and make a contribution to the cause. But what really gets my blood boiling is the "enviornmental cause". Here’s an example..

Charles Schwab had flown me out for an interview last year and I remember they put me up in the Orchard Garden Hotel – a green hotel near Chinatown, in downtown San Francisco. When I asked the recruiter about it, she gave me a very thoughtful, well-prepared schpiel that Schwab cares about the environment, and they’re doing what they can for their part.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Soy instead of ink, energy-regulated rooms, and recyclable bins (one for paper and one for aluminum)…I have no problem with that. The hotel was small, patterned with brown on brown colors but still trendy-looking in a chic “earthy” way, and my room was fairly comfortable. The major downside – it was also an additional 16 blocks from Schwab headquarters. After what felt like a dizzying 7 hours of interviewing, my mind came back to that “green” hotel and I did a quick review.

- They put me on the cheapest flight available (ok, understandable) but it also had me arriving at midnight, the night before my interview, and they had me flying out less than two hours after my interviews were done. That’s pretty harsh timing to save on a little reimbursement money. I was dead, during and after my interviews

- The airline they chose was so cheap they didn’t even have food on board; not even snack boxes just pretzels. And this was a cross-country flight mind you from Philadelphia to San Francisco

- They didn’t take me out to lunch and introduced me to the quick café in the main lobby

- Most of the standard hotel rooms in downtown San Francisco, for places like the Hyatt or the Marriott, average about $285/ night; the price for going with the Orchard was about $100 cheaper

So I’m thinking about this interview process and it suddenly dawned on me; promoting green wasn’t about social responsibility or supporting a cause – it was about cost-reduction. Like the rest of my trip – it was about minimizing expenses to the nth degree (and I mean going to the bare minimums without sacrificing company image). “Let’s go cheap and since it’s green, let’s play it up.” Admittedly, I was a little ticked.

Everyone wants to jump on the band-wagon of supporting "a cause". But from my review, climate change is a crock and for many businesses, so is asserting “earth-friendly” programs for the sake of the environment.

GE made their big splash with the “ecomagination” project, committing $2 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency by 30 percent by the end of 2008 and 2012, respectively.

Seems to me that it makes perfect senses to invest in innovation and new technology for the future, particularly when you're the profit-hounding GE and one of the largest providers of energy-resource for homes and businesses. Investing in alternative technology that is, in the long term, cheaper to produce is called "smart business".

Toyota is promoting their new “green make-over” project intended to increase sustainability of production operations by emphasizing the role of nature in creating production sites.

All I can say is, weak; very weak.

Dell is beefing up their efforts to become “the greenest” technology company around by building-up it’s recycling program and “building earth-friendly PC’s”.

Why don’t companies just say what this is all really about – cost reduction for profitability and growth, or, in many cases - pretending they give a darn to drive loyalty and spend for customers who do give a darn. Was that so hard? Let’s talk about Dell’s “green” efforts – first of all, traditional computer parts are power-sucking nightmares and people are looking for power sustainability in their PC products. To achieve this – you have to look for alternatives; it’s a no-brainer. But to promote this as an earth-friendly project is ludicrous – the packaging box is a recycling nightmare (meaning it can’t even be recycled), not one component of their PC’s is made of re-cycleable material and the mercury contained in laptops can damage the CNS. What’s so “earth-friendly” about it??

Now there’s even the CRRA - Corporate Responsibility Reporting Awards; an international event with a prestigious gala evening, ceremonies, parties, and awards with titles like “Best Corporate Responsibility Fiscal Report” and “Best Carbon Disclosure”.

And guess what SF-based company was on the list of attendees. Yea, really.